 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote:
>
> Cliff Bowman wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 16:28:35 +0200, Remco de Korte
> > <rem### [at] xs4all nl> wrote:
> >
> > It's possible that their agreement _could_ (only could) infringe the
> > POV legal docs. I've not looked at these for a long time (far too
> > long) but the rough gist seems to be "this software is free, don't use
> > it to make money". If Yahoo sell POV-created images for a profit,
> > having extracted your (my, whoever's) permission to do so by allowing
> > them any use they desire of the object - then is someone breaking
> > POV's terms? They're certainly breaking the spirit of the idea of free
> > software, IMHO.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Cliff Bowman
>
> Up comes another issue. I read the povlegal-docs in the beginning but such
> things tend to evaporate from my memory. Is it true that you're not allowed to
> sell POV-images for a profit? I thought that was restricted to the program. Am I
> mistaken? How about programs that work with POVRay?
>
> Regards,
>
> Remco
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~remcodek/pov.html
The first provision in Pov Legal clearly states the following:
Permission is granted to the user to use the software and associated files
in this package to create and render images. The use of this software for the
purpose of creating images is completely free. The creator of a scene file and
the image created from the scene file, retains all rights to the image and scene
file they created and may use them for any purpose commercial or non-commercial.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cliff Bowman wrote:
[ note the clever use of the delete key ]
> There's nothing stopping them gathering up images
> from across their servers and making an expensive coffee-table book
> from them.
Or more likely, press The Yahoo! DVD-ROM
"Now with over 100,000 web sites!!"
"Decrease Web site downloading time by over 1500% !!!"
"Search locally from your computer using YahooQL!"
"Now only $59.99 from our secure web server!"
(No, i don't have an url, i made it up.)
--
_,--"
dik `-._ ________-_______ "----
_----'--'--------------------------------'--'----_
//_| | \ dic### [at] buckosoftcom / | |_\\
(_____|_|__= Guilford CT +1.203.458.1727 =__|_|_____)
_\_____=___ http://www.buckosoft.com ___=_____/_
\/-(o)-~~-(o)-~~-(o)-`------'-(o)-~~-(o)-~~-(o)-\/
Early Klingon Poetry:
Wustl, Wustl, ERR RIP MIT BOOT, BIND Wustl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
If no expert in the american law and lawhabits but here in Germany the
declarations by Yahoo that the new TOS is only meant in this or that way
would drawn in account by the judges during a a lawsuit. It would be
very difficult for them declaring this is only for convenience and not
to steal the interlectual property but then doing the opposite.
Just my two cents!
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
>
> The first provision in Pov Legal clearly states the following:
>
> Permission is granted to the user to use the software and associated files
> in this package to create and render images. The use of this software for the
> purpose of creating images is completely free. The creator of a scene file and
> the image created from the scene file, retains all rights to the image and scene
> file they created and may use them for any purpose commercial or non-commercial.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Whew! Then let the bucks roll in!
Thanks again Ken, and Alan.
Mazzel!
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 16:03:33 -0700, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>
>
>Cliff Bowman wrote:
>
>> It's possible that their agreement _could_ (only could) infringe the
>> POV legal docs. I've not looked at these for a long time (far too
>> long) but the rough gist seems to be "this software is free, don't use
>> it to make money". If Yahoo sell POV-created images for a profit,
>> having extracted your (my, whoever's) permission to do so by allowing
>> them any use they desire of the object - then is someone breaking
>> POV's terms? They're certainly breaking the spirit of the idea of free
>> software, IMHO.
>
>That is not the case. The Pov team does not want the "Program" sold for
>profit nor do they allow that others will incorporate their program into
>theirs and use it to profit from. No where do they discourage you from
>rendering images with the software and trying to earn money from the
>sale of those images. Their intent is to protect their own intellectual
>property rights where the software they distribute is concerned and not
>the content of the product that may be produced by use of said softwares
>where legaly obtained and used in accordance with the terms of use policy.
>
I really ought to learn to read - and to remember.
Thanks Ken - makes me feel even more warm and glowly about the POV
guys (still not impressed by the Yahoologans tho).
>sigh< - I'll get something right one of these days.
Cheers,
Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Jul 1999 01:34:08 -0400, Dick Balaska <dic### [at] buckosoftcom>
wrote:
>Cliff Bowman wrote:
> [ note the clever use of the delete key ]
>
>> There's nothing stopping them gathering up images
>> from across their servers and making an expensive coffee-table book
>> from them.
>
>Or more likely, press The Yahoo! DVD-ROM
>"Now with over 100,000 web sites!!"
>"Decrease Web site downloading time by over 1500% !!!"
>"Search locally from your computer using YahooQL!"
>"Now only $59.99 from our secure web server!"
>
>(No, i don't have an url, i made it up.)
>--
But, even with my misconceptions aside, it does make frighteningly
logical sense doesn't it? After all (as I've learnt to my pain over
the last 10 years) businesses are generally after profit first,
second, and third. With some of the great stuff that's on Geocities it
almost cries out for being stored on a CD/DVD and marketed this way.
If Yahoo's agreement allows them to have all the source for free, and
it's on their own servers, how long is it going to take for them to
think of it?
Worst yet (possibly) I could see Yahoo releasing a CD/DVD which could,
theoretically, compete with the "officially unofficial" IRC CD-ROM. I
don't want these fellas to lose a penny without damn good reason.
Cheers,
Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
For those that have sites on XOOM or Tripod, read those TOSs as well. They
have the same type of wording. As a matter of fact, if you read the TOS for
Tripod and XOOM the wording is almost identical to that of Yahoo. A lot of
those "free" sites throw that in and a lot of people don't read the fine
print. I posted a previous message to see if anyone knew of any other "free"
sites that don't do this( I read Fortunecity's and they don't seem to have
those terms) . I got one response for a European company called YI . If
anyone finds others, I mentioned before that I would be willing to put
together a list and perhaps post it here (or on a website ) once a month for
newcomers or for those looking for alternative sites if anyone is interested.
Cheers,
Donna
nonego (at) yahoo (dot) com [ <--- yes, I know, a Yahoo address - it's where i
divert junk mail ]
dino (at) netbrain (dot) com
Quote from XOOM.com "You grant to XOOM.com and its affiliates a
royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable,
nonexclusive,
worldwide, unrestricted license to use,
copy, modify,
transmit, distribute, and publicly perform
or display the
submitted pages or other content for the
purposes of
displaying such information on XOOM.com's
sites and
for the promotion and marketing of
XOOM.com's
services.
Change the "XOOM" to "Tripod" and they're nearly the same. I'm sure a bunch
of others do this as well.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3782A362.13305087@ask.me>, Mrs Beasley <jus### [at] askme> wrote:
>For those that have sites on XOOM or Tripod, read those TOSs as well. They
>have the same type of wording. As a matter of fact, if you read the TOS for
>Tripod and XOOM the wording is almost identical to that of Yahoo. A lot of
>
>You grant to XOOM.com and its affiliates a royalty-free, perpetual,
irrevocable,
>nonexclusive, worldwide, unrestricted license to use, copy,
>modify, transmit, distribute, and publicly perform or display the
>submitted pages or other content for the purposes of displaying
>such information on XOOM.com's sites and for the
>promotion and marketing of XOOM.com's services. XOOM.com
>disclaims ownership of member sites and will not resell or
>otherwise convey these rights to any third party.
While the "perpetual, irrevocable" is still bothersome, XOOM at least does
not give itself the right to sublicense, and limits the rights to use only
for the purpose of maintaining the site, and for promotion and marketing
of the site. While "promotion and marketing" could well be construed
broadly, it is at least *some* limitation, which is more than Yahoo's
limitation.
(Note also that, the last I checked, Yahoo has *two* TOS files, one for
Geocities Homesteading and one for everything else. How long this will
last, I don't know. We appear to be talking about the Yahoo wording.)
If you can afford the few bucks a month, I'd recommend places like
pair.com and io.com.
Jerry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'll stick with my local ISP :) , but I will add pair.com and io.com to
a list of free or low cost sites that are alternatives to places that
have questionable TOSs (i.e. Yahoo).
Later,
Donna
Jerry wrote:
. . . {snipped}
>
> If you can afford the few bucks a month, I'd recommend places like
> pair.com and io.com.
>
> Jerry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jerry wrote:
> In article <3782A362.13305087@ask.me>, Mrs Beasley <jus### [at] askme> wrote:
>
> >For those that have sites on XOOM or Tripod, read those TOSs as well. They
> >have the same type of wording. As a matter of fact, if you read the TOS for
> >Tripod and XOOM the wording is almost identical to that of Yahoo. A lot of
> >
> >You grant to XOOM.com and its affiliates a royalty-free, perpetual,
> irrevocable,
> >nonexclusive, worldwide, unrestricted license to use, copy,
> >modify, transmit, distribute, and publicly perform or display the
> >submitted pages or other content for the purposes of displaying
> >such information on XOOM.com's sites and for the
> >promotion and marketing of XOOM.com's services. XOOM.com
> >disclaims ownership of member sites and will not resell or
> >otherwise convey these rights to any third party.
>
> While the "perpetual, irrevocable" is still bothersome, XOOM at least does
> not give itself the right to sublicense, and limits the rights to use only
> for the purpose of maintaining the site, and for promotion and marketing
> of the site. While "promotion and marketing" could well be construed
> broadly, it is at least *some* limitation, which is more than Yahoo's
> limitation.
I think this is the key difference between the XOOM and Geocities agreements.
It's almost identical the same way that the terms"tax avoidance" and "tax
evasion" are almost identical, but the IRS will be quite happy to help you learn
the difference. :-)
Seriously, the main problem with the Geocities one is that
1) Geocities does not include "for the purposes of" in the sentence on license.
2) They do not disclaim reselling.
3) They have the right to sub-license to third parties.
Their letter tries to rationalize these, but it is not quite there. Of course,
they added a sentence at the begining that tends to narrow the gap, so it might
not be so bad. But, it is still important to call them on it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
