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...
>
> > > 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!

Reply via email to