[twitter-dev] Re: Have you read the OneForty.com Developer Contract?
I also have to agree with the points and concerns brought up by Dewald. Also, the claim is they are providing a service for us, but its also our apps that is making a potential business for them too. I'm sure some of the devs of Twitter apps would prefer to have the traffic going to their site where they don't have to enter a contract to update their information and can keep their users engaged with their products and services on their own level and terms. I think I may prefer if Twitter had their own apps directory (like iGoogle for Gadgets for example) where we could log in with our Twiiter account and post info about our apps and a link back to our site for more info and details etc. Just some thoughts is all :) On Oct 10, 9:48 am, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Laura, Fair enough. Those are the rules that you have decided should apply to your business. But, I will not hand over to you and your sublicensees the keys to my intellectual property or app licenses simply for the privilege of editing my app's information on your service. All you really require is the assurance that your business will not be violating third-party IP by displaying their logos and other proprietary marks on your website. I'm not a lawyer and I don't even comb my hair like one, but I believe one usually accomplishes the above by clearly attributing individual rights to the owning party, or by a general legal statement that attributes rights where appropriate. Dewald On Oct 10, 12:22 pm, Pistachio pistachioconsult...@gmail.com wrote: Very well framed, Dewald. Why a contract for claiming the listing? We provide two ways to associate the developer with the item: Credit vs. Claiming. CREDIT: Providing the rightful developer with credit is no problem and attaches no contractual obligation. A listing on the site with the name of the developer (which we will add on request if the page does not already have it listed) is an editorial listing compiled from publicly available information. CLAIMING: The moment we hand over the keys to edit, that page is now (potentially) a promotional tool. It's now a business service being provided and the contract is to protect both parties. We fully expect many apps will never be sold on the site since that's always going to be the developer's choice. Regardless of what they do we're still offering a free (it will always be free) promotional platform that can be used to promote whatever business the item may be doing elsewhere. All we ask in return is a contract to protect both parties. Make sense? Warmly, Laura On Oct 9, 9:24 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe, at a more basic level my question is this: Why do I need to enter into a contract with oneforty at all, when all I want to do is say, I am Joe, WonderSocialWidget is my app, and here is more information about it. Isn't this part of oneforty nothing more than a free application directory, where the developer can identify him/herself and provide more information if he/she chooses to do so? Dewald On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Laura, If my understanding is correct, this new contract is applicable when I want to claim my app in oneforty. With that in mind: a) Why do I need to license to oneforty and your sublicensees (whomever that may be) all my trademarks, trade names, service marks, logos or other identifying or distinctive marks. Let's say wondersocialwidget is my trademark. By licensing it to oneforty and your sublicensees, I enable you (collective) to create sites called buywondersocialwidget.com, getsocialwidgethere.com, therealsocialwidget.com, etc., and there is nothing I can do to stop that because I have licensed you to do that. Just for the ability to claim my app in your service? That does not make sense. What then about the unclaimed apps? Will you be violating their trademarks by virtue of the fact that their developers have not agreed to this contract? b) Why is 3.2 necessary at all? In other words, why do I need to license my app to oneforty in order for me to claim it? Shouldn't all this licensing stuff be in the Reseller Agreement? Dewald On Oct 9, 8:14 pm, Pistachio pistachioconsult...@gmail.com wrote: Cross-posting this comment just posted to @BradleyJoyce's blog:http://bit.ly/2RqnU9 Hi folks, We're doing our best to hear and respond to developer feedback and better serve the community. Our approach to the developer contract was wrong. We're working to make it right. Here's how: Revised Publisher Registration Contract * Effective immediately, the old Reseller Agreement is replaced with a Publisher Registration Contract. (View it here:http://oneforty.com/terms/publisher_contract) * This lets you register as
[twitter-dev] Re: Have you read the OneForty.com Developer Contract?
No, no, a thousand times no. Licensor further warrants to oneforty and its Customers and Sublicensees that the Licensed Item shall be free from defects in workmanship or design Does OneForty understand that the licensed item is -software- and that software often contains bugs? Who determines what a defect in design is? OneForty? Me? Their lawyers? Licensor further warrants to oneforty and its Customers and Sublicensees that the Licensed Item shall not contain any information or content of whatever nature that is defamatory, obscene, indecent, pornographic, seditious, offensive, threatening, liable to incite racial hatred, blasphemous... Blasphemous? Really? So if my code includes a comment that states I can't make this goddamn thing work, I'm violation of the contract. Offensive? To whom? Licensor shall maintain reasonable insurance Insurance? I need to maintain insurance to claim my free, open-source Twitter client in OneForty's directory? Licensor agrees that it will not use “oneforty”, “oneforty.com” or any other trademark held by oneforty in keyword meta tags or any pages of Licensor’s website or any website(s) owned or operated by Licensor. So, I can't have a link on my page that says Check us out on OneForty! or We're listed on OneForty! or Post a review on OneForty! Laura from OneForty has the best intentions, and I really believe that she wants to produce a developer-friendly community where everyone reaps benefits. That's great, and I applaud her for her efforts to make this work. This agreement (and the noxious one that preceded it) give me the impression that OneForty's lawyers have a fundamental ignorance of software, software development, and the internet in general.
[twitter-dev] Re: Have you read the OneForty.com Developer Contract?
Henry the VIII HAD IT RIGHT,The first thing i am going to do is kill all the lawwyers On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Duane Roelands duane.roela...@gmail.comwrote: No, no, a thousand times no. Licensor further warrants to oneforty and its Customers and Sublicensees that the Licensed Item shall be free from defects in workmanship or design Does OneForty understand that the licensed item is -software- and that software often contains bugs? Who determines what a defect in design is? OneForty? Me? Their lawyers? Licensor further warrants to oneforty and its Customers and Sublicensees that the Licensed Item shall not contain any information or content of whatever nature that is defamatory, obscene, indecent, pornographic, seditious, offensive, threatening, liable to incite racial hatred, blasphemous... Blasphemous? Really? So if my code includes a comment that states I can't make this goddamn thing work, I'm violation of the contract. Offensive? To whom? Licensor shall maintain reasonable insurance Insurance? I need to maintain insurance to claim my free, open-source Twitter client in OneForty's directory? Licensor agrees that it will not use “oneforty”, “oneforty.com” or any other trademark held by oneforty in keyword meta tags or any pages of Licensor’s website or any website(s) owned or operated by Licensor. So, I can't have a link on my page that says Check us out on OneForty! or We're listed on OneForty! or Post a review on OneForty! Laura from OneForty has the best intentions, and I really believe that she wants to produce a developer-friendly community where everyone reaps benefits. That's great, and I applaud her for her efforts to make this work. This agreement (and the noxious one that preceded it) give me the impression that OneForty's lawyers have a fundamental ignorance of software, software development, and the internet in general.
[twitter-dev] Re: Have you read the OneForty.com Developer Contract?
Very well framed, Dewald. Why a contract for claiming the listing? We provide two ways to associate the developer with the item: Credit vs. Claiming. CREDIT: Providing the rightful developer with credit is no problem and attaches no contractual obligation. A listing on the site with the name of the developer (which we will add on request if the page does not already have it listed) is an editorial listing compiled from publicly available information. CLAIMING: The moment we hand over the keys to edit, that page is now (potentially) a promotional tool. It's now a business service being provided and the contract is to protect both parties. We fully expect many apps will never be sold on the site since that's always going to be the developer's choice. Regardless of what they do we're still offering a free (it will always be free) promotional platform that can be used to promote whatever business the item may be doing elsewhere. All we ask in return is a contract to protect both parties. Make sense? Warmly, Laura On Oct 9, 9:24 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe, at a more basic level my question is this: Why do I need to enter into a contract with oneforty at all, when all I want to do is say, I am Joe, WonderSocialWidget is my app, and here is more information about it. Isn't this part of oneforty nothing more than a free application directory, where the developer can identify him/herself and provide more information if he/she chooses to do so? Dewald On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Laura, If my understanding is correct, this new contract is applicable when I want to claim my app in oneforty. With that in mind: a) Why do I need to license to oneforty and your sublicensees (whomever that may be) all my trademarks, trade names, service marks, logos or other identifying or distinctive marks. Let's say wondersocialwidget is my trademark. By licensing it to oneforty and your sublicensees, I enable you (collective) to create sites called buywondersocialwidget.com, getsocialwidgethere.com, therealsocialwidget.com, etc., and there is nothing I can do to stop that because I have licensed you to do that. Just for the ability to claim my app in your service? That does not make sense. What then about the unclaimed apps? Will you be violating their trademarks by virtue of the fact that their developers have not agreed to this contract? b) Why is 3.2 necessary at all? In other words, why do I need to license my app to oneforty in order for me to claim it? Shouldn't all this licensing stuff be in the Reseller Agreement? Dewald On Oct 9, 8:14 pm, Pistachio pistachioconsult...@gmail.com wrote: Cross-posting this comment just posted to @BradleyJoyce's blog:http://bit.ly/2RqnU9 Hi folks, We're doing our best to hear and respond to developer feedback and better serve the community. Our approach to the developer contract was wrong. We're working to make it right. Here's how: Revised Publisher Registration Contract * Effective immediately, the old Reseller Agreement is replaced with a Publisher Registration Contract. (View it here:http://oneforty.com/terms/publisher_contract) * This lets you register as a developer and claim your apps. * We're still working on needed improvements to this contract to create productive terms of service that cover registration, claiming and optional donations Two separate agreements: * Publisher Registration Contract (applies if you wish to register for developer privileges to claim and edit your app) * Reseller Agreement (future: will only apply if you wish to offer items for sale at oneforty.com when that functionality is rolled out). This contract will be developed as part of our ecommerce pilot program. Interested in being part of the pilot testing? Ping us at develop...@oneforty.com. Donations * To revise the contract today, we had to temporarily disable the donation service. * We have refunded all donations that were made under the terms of the old contract. * We're revising the Publisher Registration Contract to allow us to turn donations back on for those who opt-in. Reseller Agreement * As part of our ecommerce pilot, we'll create a second contract for developers who wish to sell products on our site. * Its terms will be more developer friendly and created together with your feedback. Thank you for bearing with us while we work out these early kinks. We value your feedback, and we're anxious to make the Twitter community an even better place. As always, you can reach us at develop...@oneforty.com. Warmly, the oneforty team Laura, Mike, Michael and Robby ***NOTE: You do not have to claim your apps to get credit as the developer. Prefer no contract at all? We can add your name as the developer
[twitter-dev] Re: Have you read the OneForty.com Developer Contract?
Laura, Sounds like you're taking some of the right steps to make your offering better for everyone concerned. I look forward to seeing the results of your efforts. ∞ Andy Badera ∞ +1 518-641-1280 ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private ∞ Google me: http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:05 AM, Pistachio pistachioconsult...@gmail.com wrote: Andrew us absolutely correct. I personally bear full responsibility for letting that flawed contract get into production, even on a beta. It was likewise my error of judgment to assume that the alpha testers had been fine with the proposed contract merely because we had not received adverse feedback. We're listening. We're learning. Our comment on Bradley's post (http://bit.ly/DgM40) summarizes some of the contentious points we're revising, but there are others. To make this right, we'd like to better engage the TwitterAPI community in reviewing our next version. We are also separating the claiming terms from the resale terms. One more thing worth mentioning, we held off on building features that will allow developers to offer items for sale because we want to work that - and the related contract issues - out in close cooperation with developers. We'd love to hear from you if you want to have a voice on that. I've been sending out my cell # on all emails bound for developers because we want to be extremely accessible to developers. on email, Twitter, IRC... We will be working hard to earn your trust and to discover how we can better serve. Warmly, Laura Fitton la...@oneforty.com (sent from @pistachio: RT @dwroelands @oneforty needs to change their developer contract #onefortycontract http://bit.ly/DgM40 //we're seeking feedback) On Oct 8, 10:21 pm, Andrew Badera and...@badera.us wrote: All else aside ... lawyers complicate things? Maybe, but you don't launch a product/platform and expect commitment from outside parties until YOU are happy with what YOUR lawyers have produced and thus YOU are offering to the outside world. There's no defense for a questionable contract. You stand behind your contract, or you don't publish it. Period. ∞ Andy Badera ∞+1 518-641-1280 ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private ∞ Google me:http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Michael Ivey michael.i...@gmail.com wrote: OneForty is not a developer-friendly platform. I think this is a demonstrably false statement. All of my interactions with Laura and the 140 team have been very positive, and she's made it clear that they're working on the contract. Sometimes lawyers overcomplicate things, and it takes time to dial it back. And yes, when I claimed Twitpay I balked at the contract initially. We don't have an app to sell, so none of it applied to us, and I knew Laura was working on it, so I went ahead with the registration. Whether you sign it or not, I hope people will give Laura and her team time to sort this out. She's a good person, and has shown a real desire to make something good here. -- ivey On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Duane Roelands duane.roela...@gmail.com wrote: I read it, and I was horrified. So, I logged into IRC and found two members of the OneForty development team. I asked them to remove my application from the directory. They refused. OneForty is not a developer-friendly platform. On Oct 8, 7:44 pm, brad...@squeejee.com brad...@praexis.com wrote: wow, somehow managed to totally miss that thread... thanks! On Oct 8, 6:07 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: There's another thread herehttp://bit.ly/Owfvdwherethedeveloper contract also raised some eyebrows. Dewald On Oct 8, 7:25 pm, brad...@squeejee.com brad...@praexis.com wrote: There has been a lot of buzz around OneForty.com and what it will mean for all of us Twitter app developers. However, some of the things in their developer contract (that you have to agree to in order to claim your application on their side) gave us (Squeejee) pause after we decided to read the fine print. Please see read the contract for yourself (http://oneforty.com/terms/ publisher_contract), see our blog post with our concerns (http:// squeejee.com/blog/2009/10/08/questions-for-oneforty) and leave your comments! Laura Fitton, the founder of oneforty.com, has been very receptive and wants to engage in open dialogue about the contract. Please add to the discussion!
[twitter-dev] Re: Have you read the OneForty.com Developer Contract?
Laura, You may want to consider temporarily removing the contract and maybe even the entire claiming feature while you're sorting this out. Why continue to ask developers to agree to something that you don't agree with yourself, and continue to tick off developers? It may be a prudent approach to relaunch that part of the service once all the ducks are in a row. Besides, the Twitter lawyers may also have something to say about the contract. Dewald On Oct 9, 2:05 am, Pistachio pistachioconsult...@gmail.com wrote: Andrew us absolutely correct. I personally bear full responsibility for letting that flawed contract get into production, even on a beta. It was likewise my error of judgment to assume that the alpha testers had been fine with the proposed contract merely because we had not received adverse feedback. We're listening. We're learning. Our comment on Bradley's post (http://bit.ly/DgM40) summarizes some of the contentious points we're revising, but there are others. To make this right, we'd like to better engage the TwitterAPI community in reviewing our next version. We are also separating the claiming terms from the resale terms. One more thing worth mentioning, we held off on building features that will allow developers to offer items for sale because we want to work that - and the related contract issues - out in close cooperation with developers. We'd love to hear from you if you want to have a voice on that. I've been sending out my cell # on all emails bound for developers because we want to be extremely accessible to developers. on email, Twitter, IRC... We will be working hard to earn your trust and to discover how we can better serve. Warmly, Laura Fitton la...@oneforty.com (sent from @pistachio: RT @dwroelands @oneforty needs to change their developer contract #onefortycontracthttp://bit.ly/DgM40//we're seeking feedback) On Oct 8, 10:21 pm, Andrew Badera and...@badera.us wrote: All else aside ... lawyers complicate things? Maybe, but you don't launch a product/platform and expect commitment from outside parties until YOU are happy with what YOUR lawyers have produced and thus YOU are offering to the outside world. There's no defense for a questionable contract. You stand behind your contract, or you don't publish it. Period. ∞ Andy Badera ∞+1 518-641-1280 ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private ∞ Google me:http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Michael Ivey michael.i...@gmail.com wrote: OneForty is not a developer-friendly platform. I think this is a demonstrably false statement. All of my interactions with Laura and the 140 team have been very positive, and she's made it clear that they're working on the contract. Sometimes lawyers overcomplicate things, and it takes time to dial it back. And yes, when I claimed Twitpay I balked at the contract initially. We don't have an app to sell, so none of it applied to us, and I knew Laura was working on it, so I went ahead with the registration. Whether you sign it or not, I hope people will give Laura and her team time to sort this out. She's a good person, and has shown a real desire to make something good here. -- ivey On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Duane Roelands duane.roela...@gmail.com wrote: I read it, and I was horrified. So, I logged into IRC and found two members of the OneForty development team. I asked them to remove my application from the directory. They refused. OneForty is not a developer-friendly platform. On Oct 8, 7:44 pm, brad...@squeejee.com brad...@praexis.com wrote: wow, somehow managed to totally miss that thread... thanks! On Oct 8, 6:07 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: There's another thread herehttp://bit.ly/Owfvdwherethedeveloper contract also raised some eyebrows. Dewald On Oct 8, 7:25 pm, brad...@squeejee.com brad...@praexis.com wrote: There has been a lot of buzz around OneForty.com and what it will mean for all of us Twitter app developers. However, some of the things in their developer contract (that you have to agree to in order to claim your application on their side) gave us (Squeejee) pause after we decided to read the fine print. Please see read the contract for yourself (http://oneforty.com/terms/ publisher_contract), see our blog post with our concerns (http:// squeejee.com/blog/2009/10/08/questions-for-oneforty) and leave your comments! Laura Fitton, the founder of oneforty.com, has been very receptive and wants to engage in open dialogue about the contract. Please add to the discussion!
[twitter-dev] Re: Have you read the OneForty.com Developer Contract?
Cross-posting this comment just posted to @BradleyJoyce's blog: http://bit.ly/2RqnU9 Hi folks, We're doing our best to hear and respond to developer feedback and better serve the community. Our approach to the developer contract was wrong. We're working to make it right. Here's how: Revised Publisher Registration Contract * Effective immediately, the old Reseller Agreement is replaced with a Publisher Registration Contract. (View it here: http://oneforty.com/terms/publisher_contract) * This lets you register as a developer and claim your apps. * We're still working on needed improvements to this contract to create productive terms of service that cover registration, claiming and optional donations Two separate agreements: * Publisher Registration Contract (applies if you wish to register for developer privileges to claim and edit your app) * Reseller Agreement (future: will only apply if you wish to offer items for sale at oneforty.com when that functionality is rolled out). This contract will be developed as part of our ecommerce pilot program. Interested in being part of the pilot testing? Ping us at develop...@oneforty.com. Donations * To revise the contract today, we had to temporarily disable the donation service. * We have refunded all donations that were made under the terms of the old contract. * We're revising the Publisher Registration Contract to allow us to turn donations back on for those who opt-in. Reseller Agreement * As part of our ecommerce pilot, we'll create a second contract for developers who wish to sell products on our site. * Its terms will be more developer friendly and created together with your feedback. Thank you for bearing with us while we work out these early kinks. We value your feedback, and we're anxious to make the Twitter community an even better place. As always, you can reach us at develop...@oneforty.com. Warmly, the oneforty team Laura, Mike, Michael and Robby ***NOTE: You do not have to claim your apps to get credit as the developer. Prefer no contract at all? We can add your name as the developer on a listing without you having to agree to anything beyond the site's general TOS.*** On Oct 9, 5:20 am, Andrew Badera and...@badera.us wrote: Laura, Sounds like you're taking some of the right steps to make your offering better for everyone concerned. I look forward to seeing the results of your efforts. ∞ Andy Badera ∞ +1 518-641-1280 ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private ∞ Google me:http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:05 AM, Pistachio pistachioconsult...@gmail.com wrote: Andrew us absolutely correct. I personally bear full responsibility for letting that flawed contract get into production, even on a beta. It was likewise my error of judgment to assume that the alpha testers had been fine with the proposed contract merely because we had not received adverse feedback. We're listening. We're learning. Our comment on Bradley's post (http://bit.ly/DgM40) summarizes some of the contentious points we're revising, but there are others. To make this right, we'd like to better engage the TwitterAPI community in reviewing our next version. We are also separating the claiming terms from the resale terms. One more thing worth mentioning, we held off on building features that will allow developers to offer items for sale because we want to work that - and the related contract issues - out in close cooperation with developers. We'd love to hear from you if you want to have a voice on that. I've been sending out my cell # on all emails bound for developers because we want to be extremely accessible to developers. on email, Twitter, IRC... We will be working hard to earn your trust and to discover how we can better serve. Warmly, Laura Fitton la...@oneforty.com (sent from @pistachio: RT @dwroelands @oneforty needs to change their developer contract #onefortycontracthttp://bit.ly/DgM40//we're seeking feedback) On Oct 8, 10:21 pm, Andrew Badera and...@badera.us wrote: All else aside ... lawyers complicate things? Maybe, but you don't launch a product/platform and expect commitment from outside parties until YOU are happy with what YOUR lawyers have produced and thus YOU are offering to the outside world. There's no defense for a questionable contract. You stand behind your contract, or you don't publish it. Period. ∞ Andy Badera ∞+1 518-641-1280 ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private ∞ Google me:http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Michael Ivey michael.i...@gmail.com wrote: OneForty is not a developer-friendly platform. I think this is a demonstrably false statement. All of my interactions with Laura and the 140 team have been very positive, and she's made it clear that they're working on the
[twitter-dev] Re: Have you read the OneForty.com Developer Contract?
Laura, If my understanding is correct, this new contract is applicable when I want to claim my app in oneforty. With that in mind: a) Why do I need to license to oneforty and your sublicensees (whomever that may be) all my trademarks, trade names, service marks, logos or other identifying or distinctive marks. Let's say wondersocialwidget is my trademark. By licensing it to oneforty and your sublicensees, I enable you (collective) to create sites called buywondersocialwidget.com, getsocialwidgethere.com, therealsocialwidget.com, etc., and there is nothing I can do to stop that because I have licensed you to do that. Just for the ability to claim my app in your service? That does not make sense. What then about the unclaimed apps? Will you be violating their trademarks by virtue of the fact that their developers have not agreed to this contract? b) Why is 3.2 necessary at all? In other words, why do I need to license my app to oneforty in order for me to claim it? Shouldn't all this licensing stuff be in the Reseller Agreement? Dewald On Oct 9, 8:14 pm, Pistachio pistachioconsult...@gmail.com wrote: Cross-posting this comment just posted to @BradleyJoyce's blog:http://bit.ly/2RqnU9 Hi folks, We're doing our best to hear and respond to developer feedback and better serve the community. Our approach to the developer contract was wrong. We're working to make it right. Here's how: Revised Publisher Registration Contract * Effective immediately, the old Reseller Agreement is replaced with a Publisher Registration Contract. (View it here:http://oneforty.com/terms/publisher_contract) * This lets you register as a developer and claim your apps. * We're still working on needed improvements to this contract to create productive terms of service that cover registration, claiming and optional donations Two separate agreements: * Publisher Registration Contract (applies if you wish to register for developer privileges to claim and edit your app) * Reseller Agreement (future: will only apply if you wish to offer items for sale at oneforty.com when that functionality is rolled out). This contract will be developed as part of our ecommerce pilot program. Interested in being part of the pilot testing? Ping us at develop...@oneforty.com. Donations * To revise the contract today, we had to temporarily disable the donation service. * We have refunded all donations that were made under the terms of the old contract. * We're revising the Publisher Registration Contract to allow us to turn donations back on for those who opt-in. Reseller Agreement * As part of our ecommerce pilot, we'll create a second contract for developers who wish to sell products on our site. * Its terms will be more developer friendly and created together with your feedback. Thank you for bearing with us while we work out these early kinks. We value your feedback, and we're anxious to make the Twitter community an even better place. As always, you can reach us at develop...@oneforty.com. Warmly, the oneforty team Laura, Mike, Michael and Robby ***NOTE: You do not have to claim your apps to get credit as the developer. Prefer no contract at all? We can add your name as the developer on a listing without you having to agree to anything beyond the site's general TOS.*** On Oct 9, 5:20 am, Andrew Badera and...@badera.us wrote: Laura, Sounds like you're taking some of the right steps to make your offering better for everyone concerned. I look forward to seeing the results of your efforts. ∞ Andy Badera ∞ +1 518-641-1280 ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private ∞ Google me:http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:05 AM, Pistachio pistachioconsult...@gmail.com wrote: Andrew us absolutely correct. I personally bear full responsibility for letting that flawed contract get into production, even on a beta. It was likewise my error of judgment to assume that the alpha testers had been fine with the proposed contract merely because we had not received adverse feedback. We're listening. We're learning. Our comment on Bradley's post (http://bit.ly/DgM40) summarizes some of the contentious points we're revising, but there are others. To make this right, we'd like to better engage the TwitterAPI community in reviewing our next version. We are also separating the claiming terms from the resale terms. One more thing worth mentioning, we held off on building features that will allow developers to offer items for sale because we want to work that - and the related contract issues - out in close cooperation with developers. We'd love to hear from you if you want to have a voice on that. I've been sending out my cell # on all emails bound for developers because we want to be extremely accessible to developers. on email, Twitter, IRC...
[twitter-dev] Re: Have you read the OneForty.com Developer Contract?
Maybe, at a more basic level my question is this: Why do I need to enter into a contract with oneforty at all, when all I want to do is say, I am Joe, WonderSocialWidget is my app, and here is more information about it. Isn't this part of oneforty nothing more than a free application directory, where the developer can identify him/herself and provide more information if he/she chooses to do so? Dewald On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Laura, If my understanding is correct, this new contract is applicable when I want to claim my app in oneforty. With that in mind: a) Why do I need to license to oneforty and your sublicensees (whomever that may be) all my trademarks, trade names, service marks, logos or other identifying or distinctive marks. Let's say wondersocialwidget is my trademark. By licensing it to oneforty and your sublicensees, I enable you (collective) to create sites called buywondersocialwidget.com, getsocialwidgethere.com, therealsocialwidget.com, etc., and there is nothing I can do to stop that because I have licensed you to do that. Just for the ability to claim my app in your service? That does not make sense. What then about the unclaimed apps? Will you be violating their trademarks by virtue of the fact that their developers have not agreed to this contract? b) Why is 3.2 necessary at all? In other words, why do I need to license my app to oneforty in order for me to claim it? Shouldn't all this licensing stuff be in the Reseller Agreement? Dewald On Oct 9, 8:14 pm, Pistachio pistachioconsult...@gmail.com wrote: Cross-posting this comment just posted to @BradleyJoyce's blog:http://bit.ly/2RqnU9 Hi folks, We're doing our best to hear and respond to developer feedback and better serve the community. Our approach to the developer contract was wrong. We're working to make it right. Here's how: Revised Publisher Registration Contract * Effective immediately, the old Reseller Agreement is replaced with a Publisher Registration Contract. (View it here:http://oneforty.com/terms/publisher_contract) * This lets you register as a developer and claim your apps. * We're still working on needed improvements to this contract to create productive terms of service that cover registration, claiming and optional donations Two separate agreements: * Publisher Registration Contract (applies if you wish to register for developer privileges to claim and edit your app) * Reseller Agreement (future: will only apply if you wish to offer items for sale at oneforty.com when that functionality is rolled out). This contract will be developed as part of our ecommerce pilot program. Interested in being part of the pilot testing? Ping us at develop...@oneforty.com. Donations * To revise the contract today, we had to temporarily disable the donation service. * We have refunded all donations that were made under the terms of the old contract. * We're revising the Publisher Registration Contract to allow us to turn donations back on for those who opt-in. Reseller Agreement * As part of our ecommerce pilot, we'll create a second contract for developers who wish to sell products on our site. * Its terms will be more developer friendly and created together with your feedback. Thank you for bearing with us while we work out these early kinks. We value your feedback, and we're anxious to make the Twitter community an even better place. As always, you can reach us at develop...@oneforty.com. Warmly, the oneforty team Laura, Mike, Michael and Robby ***NOTE: You do not have to claim your apps to get credit as the developer. Prefer no contract at all? We can add your name as the developer on a listing without you having to agree to anything beyond the site's general TOS.*** On Oct 9, 5:20 am, Andrew Badera and...@badera.us wrote: Laura, Sounds like you're taking some of the right steps to make your offering better for everyone concerned. I look forward to seeing the results of your efforts. ∞ Andy Badera ∞ +1 518-641-1280 ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private ∞ Google me:http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:05 AM, Pistachio pistachioconsult...@gmail.com wrote: Andrew us absolutely correct. I personally bear full responsibility for letting that flawed contract get into production, even on a beta. It was likewise my error of judgment to assume that the alpha testers had been fine with the proposed contract merely because we had not received adverse feedback. We're listening. We're learning. Our comment on Bradley's post (http://bit.ly/DgM40) summarizes some of the contentious points we're revising, but there are others. To make this right, we'd like to better engage the TwitterAPI community in
[twitter-dev] Re: Have you read the OneForty.com Developer Contract?
There's another thread here http://bit.ly/Owfvd where the developer contract also raised some eyebrows. Dewald On Oct 8, 7:25 pm, brad...@squeejee.com brad...@praexis.com wrote: There has been a lot of buzz around OneForty.com and what it will mean for all of us Twitter app developers. However, some of the things in their developer contract (that you have to agree to in order to claim your application on their side) gave us (Squeejee) pause after we decided to read the fine print. Please see read the contract for yourself (http://oneforty.com/terms/ publisher_contract), see our blog post with our concerns (http:// squeejee.com/blog/2009/10/08/questions-for-oneforty) and leave your comments! Laura Fitton, the founder of oneforty.com, has been very receptive and wants to engage in open dialogue about the contract. Please add to the discussion!
[twitter-dev] Re: Have you read the OneForty.com Developer Contract?
wow, somehow managed to totally miss that thread... thanks! On Oct 8, 6:07 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: There's another thread herehttp://bit.ly/Owfvdwhere the developer contract also raised some eyebrows. Dewald On Oct 8, 7:25 pm, brad...@squeejee.com brad...@praexis.com wrote: There has been a lot of buzz around OneForty.com and what it will mean for all of us Twitter app developers. However, some of the things in their developer contract (that you have to agree to in order to claim your application on their side) gave us (Squeejee) pause after we decided to read the fine print. Please see read the contract for yourself (http://oneforty.com/terms/ publisher_contract), see our blog post with our concerns (http:// squeejee.com/blog/2009/10/08/questions-for-oneforty) and leave your comments! Laura Fitton, the founder of oneforty.com, has been very receptive and wants to engage in open dialogue about the contract. Please add to the discussion!
[twitter-dev] Re: Have you read the OneForty.com Developer Contract?
I read it, and I was horrified. So, I logged into IRC and found two members of the OneForty development team. I asked them to remove my application from the directory. They refused. OneForty is not a developer-friendly platform. On Oct 8, 7:44 pm, brad...@squeejee.com brad...@praexis.com wrote: wow, somehow managed to totally miss that thread... thanks! On Oct 8, 6:07 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: There's another thread herehttp://bit.ly/Owfvdwherethe developer contract also raised some eyebrows. Dewald On Oct 8, 7:25 pm, brad...@squeejee.com brad...@praexis.com wrote: There has been a lot of buzz around OneForty.com and what it will mean for all of us Twitter app developers. However, some of the things in their developer contract (that you have to agree to in order to claim your application on their side) gave us (Squeejee) pause after we decided to read the fine print. Please see read the contract for yourself (http://oneforty.com/terms/ publisher_contract), see our blog post with our concerns (http:// squeejee.com/blog/2009/10/08/questions-for-oneforty) and leave your comments! Laura Fitton, the founder of oneforty.com, has been very receptive and wants to engage in open dialogue about the contract. Please add to the discussion!
[twitter-dev] Re: Have you read the OneForty.com Developer Contract?
Yeah I just saw that, they're sticking to there guns. On Oct 8, 6:24 pm, Duane Roelands duane.roela...@gmail.com wrote: I read it, and I was horrified. So, I logged into IRC and found two members of the OneForty development team. I asked them to remove my application from the directory. They refused. OneForty is not a developer-friendly platform. On Oct 8, 7:44 pm, brad...@squeejee.com brad...@praexis.com wrote: wow, somehow managed to totally miss that thread... thanks! On Oct 8, 6:07 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: There's another thread herehttp://bit.ly/Owfvdwherethedeveloper contract also raised some eyebrows. Dewald On Oct 8, 7:25 pm, brad...@squeejee.com brad...@praexis.com wrote: There has been a lot of buzz around OneForty.com and what it will mean for all of us Twitter app developers. However, some of the things in their developer contract (that you have to agree to in order to claim your application on their side) gave us (Squeejee) pause after we decided to read the fine print. Please see read the contract for yourself (http://oneforty.com/terms/ publisher_contract), see our blog post with our concerns (http:// squeejee.com/blog/2009/10/08/questions-for-oneforty) and leave your comments! Laura Fitton, the founder of oneforty.com, has been very receptive and wants to engage in open dialogue about the contract. Please add to the discussion!
[twitter-dev] Re: Have you read the OneForty.com Developer Contract?
All else aside ... lawyers complicate things? Maybe, but you don't launch a product/platform and expect commitment from outside parties until YOU are happy with what YOUR lawyers have produced and thus YOU are offering to the outside world. There's no defense for a questionable contract. You stand behind your contract, or you don't publish it. Period. ∞ Andy Badera ∞ +1 518-641-1280 ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private ∞ Google me: http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Michael Ivey michael.i...@gmail.com wrote: OneForty is not a developer-friendly platform. I think this is a demonstrably false statement. All of my interactions with Laura and the 140 team have been very positive, and she's made it clear that they're working on the contract. Sometimes lawyers overcomplicate things, and it takes time to dial it back. And yes, when I claimed Twitpay I balked at the contract initially. We don't have an app to sell, so none of it applied to us, and I knew Laura was working on it, so I went ahead with the registration. Whether you sign it or not, I hope people will give Laura and her team time to sort this out. She's a good person, and has shown a real desire to make something good here. -- ivey On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Duane Roelands duane.roela...@gmail.com wrote: I read it, and I was horrified. So, I logged into IRC and found two members of the OneForty development team. I asked them to remove my application from the directory. They refused. OneForty is not a developer-friendly platform. On Oct 8, 7:44 pm, brad...@squeejee.com brad...@praexis.com wrote: wow, somehow managed to totally miss that thread... thanks! On Oct 8, 6:07 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: There's another thread herehttp://bit.ly/Owfvdwherethe developer contract also raised some eyebrows. Dewald On Oct 8, 7:25 pm, brad...@squeejee.com brad...@praexis.com wrote: There has been a lot of buzz around OneForty.com and what it will mean for all of us Twitter app developers. However, some of the things in their developer contract (that you have to agree to in order to claim your application on their side) gave us (Squeejee) pause after we decided to read the fine print. Please see read the contract for yourself (http://oneforty.com/terms/ publisher_contract), see our blog post with our concerns (http:// squeejee.com/blog/2009/10/08/questions-for-oneforty) and leave your comments! Laura Fitton, the founder of oneforty.com, has been very receptive and wants to engage in open dialogue about the contract. Please add to the discussion!
[twitter-dev] Re: Have you read the OneForty.com Developer Contract?
You could argue that it's a closed beta, so it's for finding this stuff out...but yeah, I agree with you. I just know how these threads can snowball, and I want to share my experience that oneforty is made by good people. Don't like it, don't sign, and of course raise concerns, but I would hate to see people start believing they have some evil plot to rule the world at our expense. -- ivey On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Andrew Badera and...@badera.us wrote: All else aside ... lawyers complicate things? Maybe, but you don't launch a product/platform and expect commitment from outside parties until YOU are happy with what YOUR lawyers have produced and thus YOU are offering to the outside world. There's no defense for a questionable contract. You stand behind your contract, or you don't publish it. Period. ∞ Andy Badera ∞ +1 518-641-1280 ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private ∞ Google me: http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Michael Ivey michael.i...@gmail.com wrote: OneForty is not a developer-friendly platform. I think this is a demonstrably false statement. All of my interactions with Laura and the 140 team have been very positive, and she's made it clear that they're working on the contract. Sometimes lawyers overcomplicate things, and it takes time to dial it back. And yes, when I claimed Twitpay I balked at the contract initially. We don't have an app to sell, so none of it applied to us, and I knew Laura was working on it, so I went ahead with the registration. Whether you sign it or not, I hope people will give Laura and her team time to sort this out. She's a good person, and has shown a real desire to make something good here. -- ivey On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Duane Roelands duane.roela...@gmail.com wrote: I read it, and I was horrified. So, I logged into IRC and found two members of the OneForty development team. I asked them to remove my application from the directory. They refused. OneForty is not a developer-friendly platform. On Oct 8, 7:44 pm, brad...@squeejee.com brad...@praexis.com wrote: wow, somehow managed to totally miss that thread... thanks! On Oct 8, 6:07 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: There's another thread herehttp://bit.ly/Owfvdwherethe developer contract also raised some eyebrows. Dewald On Oct 8, 7:25 pm, brad...@squeejee.com brad...@praexis.com wrote: There has been a lot of buzz around OneForty.com and what it will mean for all of us Twitter app developers. However, some of the things in their developer contract (that you have to agree to in order to claim your application on their side) gave us (Squeejee) pause after we decided to read the fine print. Please see read the contract for yourself (http://oneforty.com/terms/ publisher_contract), see our blog post with our concerns (http:// squeejee.com/blog/2009/10/08/questions-for-oneforty) and leave your comments! Laura Fitton, the founder of oneforty.com, has been very receptive and wants to engage in open dialogue about the contract. Please add to the discussion!
[twitter-dev] Re: Have you read the OneForty.com Developer Contract?
Andy, I agree with you whole-heartedly to the point of giving a standing ovation and a one-man Mexican wave. I don't know the folks behind OneForty from the man in the moon and have no grounds to vouch for or question their honesty or integrity. But I do know this. When you express your business rules in a published legal document, the blame is not with the lawyers. My lawyers don't run my business, I do. I make the business rules. They put those rules into legal terms in a contract. a) I don't instruct my lawyers to make up business rules as they see fit; and b) I don't put that legal document in the public domain until I am satisfied with its content and am satisfied that its content accurately depicts my desired business rules. But maybe I'm just the odd one out. Dewald On Oct 8, 11:21 pm, Andrew Badera and...@badera.us wrote: All else aside ... lawyers complicate things? Maybe, but you don't launch a product/platform and expect commitment from outside parties until YOU are happy with what YOUR lawyers have produced and thus YOU are offering to the outside world. There's no defense for a questionable contract. You stand behind your contract, or you don't publish it. Period. ∞ Andy Badera ∞ +1 518-641-1280 ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private ∞ Google me:http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera
[twitter-dev] Re: Have you read the OneForty.com Developer Contract?
Duane Roelands wrote: I read it, and I was horrified. So, I logged into IRC and found two members of the OneForty development team. I asked them to remove my application from the directory. They refused. OneForty is not a developer-friendly platform. That is unfortunate. If they wanted to support developers then they'd let developers choose whether they want their apps listed. My thoughts on oneforty.com are in this news.yc discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=864296 Regards, Brian
[twitter-dev] Re: Have you read the OneForty.com Developer Contract?
Andrew us absolutely correct. I personally bear full responsibility for letting that flawed contract get into production, even on a beta. It was likewise my error of judgment to assume that the alpha testers had been fine with the proposed contract merely because we had not received adverse feedback. We're listening. We're learning. Our comment on Bradley's post (http://bit.ly/DgM40) summarizes some of the contentious points we're revising, but there are others. To make this right, we'd like to better engage the TwitterAPI community in reviewing our next version. We are also separating the claiming terms from the resale terms. One more thing worth mentioning, we held off on building features that will allow developers to offer items for sale because we want to work that - and the related contract issues - out in close cooperation with developers. We'd love to hear from you if you want to have a voice on that. I've been sending out my cell # on all emails bound for developers because we want to be extremely accessible to developers. on email, Twitter, IRC... We will be working hard to earn your trust and to discover how we can better serve. Warmly, Laura Fitton la...@oneforty.com (sent from @pistachio: RT @dwroelands @oneforty needs to change their developer contract #onefortycontract http://bit.ly/DgM40 //we're seeking feedback) On Oct 8, 10:21 pm, Andrew Badera and...@badera.us wrote: All else aside ... lawyers complicate things? Maybe, but you don't launch a product/platform and expect commitment from outside parties until YOU are happy with what YOUR lawyers have produced and thus YOU are offering to the outside world. There's no defense for a questionable contract. You stand behind your contract, or you don't publish it. Period. ∞ Andy Badera ∞+1 518-641-1280 ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private ∞ Google me:http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Michael Ivey michael.i...@gmail.com wrote: OneForty is not a developer-friendly platform. I think this is a demonstrably false statement. All of my interactions with Laura and the 140 team have been very positive, and she's made it clear that they're working on the contract. Sometimes lawyers overcomplicate things, and it takes time to dial it back. And yes, when I claimed Twitpay I balked at the contract initially. We don't have an app to sell, so none of it applied to us, and I knew Laura was working on it, so I went ahead with the registration. Whether you sign it or not, I hope people will give Laura and her team time to sort this out. She's a good person, and has shown a real desire to make something good here. -- ivey On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Duane Roelands duane.roela...@gmail.com wrote: I read it, and I was horrified. So, I logged into IRC and found two members of the OneForty development team. I asked them to remove my application from the directory. They refused. OneForty is not a developer-friendly platform. On Oct 8, 7:44 pm, brad...@squeejee.com brad...@praexis.com wrote: wow, somehow managed to totally miss that thread... thanks! On Oct 8, 6:07 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: There's another thread herehttp://bit.ly/Owfvdwherethedeveloper contract also raised some eyebrows. Dewald On Oct 8, 7:25 pm, brad...@squeejee.com brad...@praexis.com wrote: There has been a lot of buzz around OneForty.com and what it will mean for all of us Twitter app developers. However, some of the things in their developer contract (that you have to agree to in order to claim your application on their side) gave us (Squeejee) pause after we decided to read the fine print. Please see read the contract for yourself (http://oneforty.com/terms/ publisher_contract), see our blog post with our concerns (http:// squeejee.com/blog/2009/10/08/questions-for-oneforty) and leave your comments! Laura Fitton, the founder of oneforty.com, has been very receptive and wants to engage in open dialogue about the contract. Please add to the discussion!
[twitter-dev] Re: Have you read the OneForty.com Developer Contract?
I am reposting the @oneforty response to my blog post here for the benefit of everyone: --- Hey everyone, thank you for taking the time to help us better understand and better serve the developer community. We read this and shared it with our investors, advisors and even our @oneforty and @pistachio Twitter readers. We're glad this conversation about the contract is happening. We've been trying to gather feedback via our developer alpha this summer and the Twitter API developers list. We're listening earnestly. We especially want to get this contract right before we start pilot tests that will let developers sell directly on oneforty. There's also a bunch of things you didn't raise (others have) that we're changing. just a few of them: -We already killed the we get a share of offsite sales clause -We are seriously reexamining how to improve the minimum payments threshold and time delay before payments get sent out -We're changing the cancellation terms These -- and quite a few other -- things are being actively reevaluated. We know it's lame to hear we're working on it as our main answer to you right now, but that's the plain truth. Quick specifics on what you raised: 2.1 Needs to be more clearly expressed what this even means. This unclear language confused at least one developer into thinking our model is royalty based (it's not) and that all payments would be made to developers as donations/gifts instead of regular income (they're not going to be) 2.2 Trial versions should only apply to trial versions distributed through us. Not ANY trial version you ever share. 3.2 We're not trying to force you to provide phone support, so we need to rewrite that 4.0 FEES - we agree we need much more explanation and support around how we imagine all of this working 5.2 We need to work out fair terms under which the customer relationship gets shared. What's in the contract now ain't it yet. We'd particularly love to hear your concerns about sharing the relationship with the customer fairly. (ie, the part about not contacting them in any way except to provide support.) That's a tough one to figure out. Whatever we end up with needs to protect developers, oneforty and honor oneforty community privacy expectations. We feel strongly that the marketplace needs to grow as a partnership between oneforty and the communities it serves. More on why we feel this way, from our FAQ http://oneforty.com/pages/faq#developers What if I disagree with the terms of the developer contract? Tell us. We're here to cultivate and serve a community in which everybody thrives. If our terms preclude that, we're not doing our jobs, and we want to know it. We rely heavily on feedback from the developer community Thanks for opening up this dialog and we look forward to more of it. Warmly, Laura, Mike, Michael Robby (@oneforty) Laura Fitton (@pistachio) Mike Champion (@graysky) Michael Macasek (@macasek) Robby Grossman (@freerobby)
