On 07/07/15 14:28, Angly Cat wrote: > I'm sorry, Gerv, but I don't buy it. "Selling the service" (aka > "sub-licensing") is indeed included in "commercial use" activity > variations, but "commercial use" is not limited to just > "sub-licensing". Unless it defined explicitly in Pocket(tm) ToS, I > see no reason to not think of "commercial use" definition in general > way as "any use that is a part of revenue generating activity, that > is, making money".
The reason not to think of it that way is because I'm telling you that it's not intended that way, and that Mozilla and Pocket don't understand it that way. But again, there's no point in continuing this discussion. I hope to have a more formal reply for you soon. If you don't believe that statement, then I can't help you. >> As I said, all Firefox users can use Pocket in any context. > > So you're basically saying that any Firefox user is allowed to, for > example: (1) teach other people how to use Pocket(tm) and take money > for this; Yes. > (2) get paid for showing to someone their list of pages > saved in Pocket(tm); I'm not sure why anyone would ever pay for that... > (3) get paid for just using Pocket(tm); Why would someone (apart from Pocket, Inc., perhaps) ever pay for that? Gerv _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
