On 10/10/14 6:50 AM, Axel Hecht wrote:
You hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide,
sublicensable license to use your Submission in connection with
the Communications and online and offline promotion of Mozilla’s
mission, products and services.
"Sublicensable" means exactly what?
I worry a bit about reaction to this section (in general, beyond just
that term). I think the intent here is just to provide legal cover for
allowing things to work as expected or as they already do. But the
resulting can make people twitchy because the language is very broad.
This has previously caused problems elsewhere, when sites try to update
their TOS to be less vague and cover how the service actually works.
Unfortunately the legalese often makes people freak out and think
(perhaps rightfully so) that the service is trying to overreach and
take/use things unfairly.
EG:
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/05/11/your-photos-not-so-according-to-many-popular-photo-sharing-apps/
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2011/06/who-really-owns-your-photos-in-social-media157/
[I'll note that the Twitpic language in that PBS link seems very similar
to what's being proposed here.]
The most likely issue I'd see for Mozilla here is add-on authors
wondering what this means for their AMO-hosted addons. But also true for
people doing hacks/apps via webmaker.org, creating content in etherpad
or wikimo or Bugzilla, etc.
So I wonder if the scope can be restricted/clarified here, or if some
progressive language can be added to help reinforce rights kept by the
user. I see that in quick skim of some other major online service's TOS
(Google, Yahoo, Microsoft).
Justin
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
