500px Terms of Service

Post by LukeShu » Fri, Apr 13, 2012, 1:14 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #72

icebraining wrote: post #26

As much as I think Terms of Service documents are broken, I don't like these supposed simplifications, because invariably they simplify too much. For example, in the real ToS, there's this clause: The license granted to 500px includes the right to use your Content fully or partially for promotional reasons and to distribute and redistribute your Content to other parties, web-sites, applications, and other entities (.…

Exactly, a clear and simple license should be clear and simple, not legalese with "interpretation". If they don't intend that clause to be there it shouldn't be there . For reference, the GPLv2 (sadly not so much v3) has held up very well now under multiple tests both in and out of court for two decades. And it's very short, and written in clear English. It even describes its intent in the body of the license.

Post by Cushman » Fri, Apr 13, 2012, 5:06 AM UTC

abrahamsen wrote: post #46

I like the TOS for this site: http://ycombinator.com/legal.html

Post by jeebus » Fri, Apr 13, 2012, 6:04 AM UTC

sirclueless wrote: post #79

suchire wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL (but my wife has a JD): it's a fine line; on the one hand, the legal principle of "meeting of the minds" might make the judge rule that the "basically" illustrates the true intentions of the contractual clauses. On the other hand, as you say, judges are often unsympathetic to pleas of ignorance. What you sign in the contract is generally the contract. Most of the time, what this probably means is that judges wi…

It's difficult to compare Terms of Service with typical contracts. In the first place, nothing is being signed, and anyways judges are fully aware that no one reads the TOS. I can imagine a reasonable judge ruling that no one would have read the full TOS, and so the "Basically" column is more binding. As always, IANAL.

Post by jpegleg » Fri, Apr 13, 2012, 8:44 AM UTC

Post by chess92 » Fri, Apr 13, 2012, 2:17 PM UTC