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 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »

Reply via email to