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 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!
