Hacker News Reader

There was no longer a time when we changed terms. Our company provides content creator sites such as Bufferwall.com and other blog post apps for blogs (therefore those conditions). But we will update the terms this month by adding some clear exceptions for UI Builder, cloud services, etc.. That's not clear for all. We will get it clarified.

I don't understand what's the difference, will still be horrible have all the thing I do used without consent in a pay service. I dont want to have my security bulneravilities(when not if) being show in mockup of functionality, or have the code of my servers used whiout my consent I feel a paid marketplace could be a better way to monetization, or a way to share explicit, If not you can clone all my company code whiut warrant, or say that mY assets are yours.

> it is saying that our IP and content we provide (config, nodes, data, etc.) still belongs to us, but they can also use it however they want.

A great many services have similar stipulations. This is similar to how GitHub was OK to use all the public repositories on its service as training fodder for copilot. Though there are ongoing arguments as to how this applies to code someone else uploaded: they didn't necessarily have the right to assign those rights to GH so the legal status is less clear than their terms of service might suggest.

> This is similar to how GitHub was OK to use all the public repositories on its service as training fodder for copilot.

Microsoft asserts that it had the right to do this under Fair Use, not the Github user agreement.

This type of license is generally required for a service to operate. They could scope it more carefully, but there is nothing _necessarily_ underhand going on here.

> By posting Content to the Service, you grant us the right and license to use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Content on and through the Service.

This says you grant the service a license to store and run your content.

> You retain any and all of your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Service and you are responsible for protecting those rights.

This says you still own your content and responsible for how it is shared. You only gave the service a license.

> You agree that this license includes the right for us to make your Content available to other users of the Service, who may also use your Content subject to these Terms.

This says you give permission for the service to make the content available to others. It does not mean the service will. This part could be worded better. It is presumably linked to sharing or publishing functionality.

> You represent and warrant that: (i) the Content is yours (you own it) or you have the right to use it and grant us the rights and license as provided in these Terms, and (ii) the posting of your Content on or through the Service does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, contract rights or any other rights of any person.

This part says you're not infringing anybody else's rights by putting content into the service.

So, yes, they could possibly have made it clearer in the license under what circumstances they would make content available to others, but most people don't look to the license to understand that so it's not uncommon to have language like this.

What's missing is the limitations on how they will use it. They need some license for all of the things listed, but this is the maximum permissions rather than the minimum

It reads as very "the app store can do it so we should too"

Truly we are in the dark ages of open source when everyone believes they are entitled to be a monopoly platform.

Starting to sympathize with stallman more every year.