[hackerspaces] Idea: things.hackerspaces.org now that Thingiverse is not ok anymore

[bre pettis]

Hey folks, having started NYCResistor, I'm on this list too!

The terms are not bad, they are just written by a lawyer. I'm working
with the lawyers to make them much more readable so folks don't freak
out anymore than they already have.

Our goal with upgrading the terms is to protect the system that we're
so proud of. Seriously, sorry for the lawyer speak, we're working on
it because we care about our users.

Bre

MakerBot Industries
http://makerbot.com
Video - Time Magazine Game Changer: http://ti.me/nGtIrJ
Print - NYTimes: http://nyti.ms/oKITfc

NOTICE: This email may contain information that is confidential or
attorney-client privileged and may constitute inside information. The
contents of this email are intended only for the recipient(s) listed above.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are directed not to read,
disclose, distribute or otherwise use this transmission. If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and
delete the transmission. Delivery of this message is not intended to waive
any applicable privileges.


On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Daniel Harmsworth
<atrophy at caffeinator.net> wrote:
> There's a member at the Artifactory that has build a CouchDB based
> distributed thingiverse-like system with distributed rendering, gcode
> simulation and other cool stuff (basically for his own internal use), In
> light of recent developments I have suggested that we install a publicly
> accessible version of it on the Artifactory servers. Will report back when
> we have it up for experimentation, there is a fairly limited UI at the
> moment.
>
>
> On 24 September 2012 00:35, Walter van Holst <walter at revspace.nl> wrote:
>>
>> On 2012-09-23 18:01, Sparr wrote:
>>
>>> Has anyone gotten an actual lawyer's opinion of the new TOS?
>>
>>
>> As mentioned in my blog post, I am a lawyer. Not an attorney, mind you and
>> not practicing in the USA either.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I do not
>>> see that the new language is significantly different from the old
>>> language. The new TOS doesn't say they can use your designs to make
>>> new closed source hardware, they are still only allowed to use it to
>>> display it on their website.
>>
>>
>> No, it literally talks about "incorporate into other works, and otherwise
>> use your User Content", per section 3.2 of the Terms of Use. As already
>> quoted in my blog post. You could argue that the last bit of that sentence
>> "solely for the purposes of including your User Content in the Site and
>> Services" applies further than the sublicensing bit, but to me it reads
>> rather ambiguously and I wouldn't feel safe to say it applies any further
>> than the grant to sublicense. Not to say that the old terms weren't
>> ambiguous either, but since they limited themselves to derivative works, it
>> made life much easier because that is specifically a copyright term. On top
>> of that the assertion about transmission and display in the old version read
>> much broader.
>>
>> And yes, natural languages are a pain, ambiguity-wise. But we have to make
>> do with them.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>  Walter
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Harmsworth
> Chairman, The Perth Artifactory Inc.
> http://www.artifactory.org.au
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>