Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No Terms. No Conditions

notermsnoconditions.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 149 posts

Re: No Terms. No Conditions

#21

Post by FinnKuhn »

bayneri wrote: post #15
Barbing wrote: post #13

Hope this slop doesn’t get anyone into trouble. Last updated: never No further pages. No hidden clauses. Not sure “last updated=never” works, but I don’t make terms and conditions websites.

use at your own risk > 8. You are responsible for what you do, what you build, and what follows from either.

As far as I'm concerned this doesn't mean anything legally unless I missed something. Aren't you already responsible for what you do or build anyways?

Or is this somehow meant to mean something else but worded so badly it can't be understood.

Re: No Terms. No Conditions

#23

Post by ndriscoll »

knorker wrote: post #17

This does not read like it was written by a professional. Non-professionals writing licenses and T&Cs cause problems because no organization, for profit or not, wants to be dragged into court to get a "common sense" definition of a word or comma defined, at their expense. I've heard of large organizations reaching out to places who use amateur T&Cs and licenses, saying "if we give you $X, can you dual license this as…

Sounds like a smart strategy then. Use an amateur license. People who just want to do stuff know they have your blessing. Corporations will stay away or pay up, not because you made them, but of their own volition. Everyone is happy.

Of course even better is to simply have no explicit license, especially for something like code. Normal people can assume they can do whatever they'd like (basically, public domain). Lawyers will assume they cannot. The only thing stopping someone is their own belief in their self restrictions. i.e. you can use the thing if and only if you don't believe in my authority on the matter.

Re: No Terms. No Conditions

#26

Post by kemitchell »

knorker wrote: post #17

This does not read like it was written by a professional. Non-professionals writing licenses and T&Cs cause problems because no organization, for profit or not, wants to be dragged into court to get a "common sense" definition of a word or comma defined, at their expense. I've heard of large organizations reaching out to places who use amateur T&Cs and licenses, saying "if we give you $X, can you dual license this as…

> > Access is not conditioned on approval

I practice law in California. I've written terms of service that many, many people here on HN will have agreed to. I read this line and didn't know what it meant, or what it intended to mean.

That said:

> If you are actually a lawyer then it'd be interesting to hear your guidance, which I very much understand is not legal advice. If you're not a lawyer then I'm not.

There's no good way to validate lawyerdom on public social media like HN. And while the average lawyer probably remembers enough from law school or bar exams to know slightly more about Web terms of service and legal drafting than the average person, there's nothing to stop non-lawyers from reading up and learning. Eric Goldman's Technology & Marketing Law Blog is a great, public source covering cases on ToS and other issues, for example.

The Bar monopolizes representation within legal institutions. Don't cede the law itself to lawyers.

Re: No Terms. No Conditions

#27

Post by AndrewKemendo »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #24

I like how, even when the whole point is to not have any terms or conditions, there are still disclaimers. "Only for lawful purposes," "no warranty," "we are not responsible." Those are still terms and conditions!

This is the real salient point in this post in my opinion;

It unintentionally demonstrates the limits of individual agency to avoid legal embroilments

That is to say: it doesn’t really matter what this person puts on their website because there is a judge and a sheriff somewhere that can force you to do something that would violate the things you wrote down because the things you wrote are subordinate to jurisdictional law (which is invoked as you point out)

It’s actually pretty poetic when you think about it because the page effectively says nothing because it doesn’t have content that the license applies to

If it’s a art piece intended to show something about licensure all it does is demonstrate the degree to which licensure is predicated on jurisdiction

Post reply on HN