swjr-swis

Members
  • Content count

    1,634
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,675 Excellent

7 Followers

About swjr-swis

  • Rank
    Self-proclaimed Groomer of the Orbits

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/members/156316-swjr-swis

Profile Information

  • Interests KSP

Recent Profile Visitors

7,618 profile views
  1. swjr-swis

    Save Recovered Stages for Relaunch

    Apologies, and duly corrected.
  2. swjr-swis

    Save Recovered Stages for Relaunch

    FMRS, now maintained by @linuxgurugamer. KaptainsLog may be what you're looking for. Not so coincidentally, also maintained (even originally authored) by the same person.
  3. swjr-swis

    Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

    A 5 second search for Firefox add-ons for 'eBay' yielded 197 results. A 2 second search on Youtube for 'How to use eBay' yielded 8630000 results. Do you want to know more?
  4. swjr-swis

    Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

    Why would it need to be so specific? Do texture PNG fies fall under different copyright provisions than picture/photo/art PNG files? Are 'Dropbox user files' or 'Twitter user videos' going to be treated differently in court than 'Take Two user files/videos'? Is that seriously what you are suggesting?
  5. swjr-swis

    Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

    Good question. I don't know for sure, and because they don't retain (or link?) older edits, we can't really check. But the gist of that article has been posted by mods before.
  6. swjr-swis

    Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

    A few examples, which may or may not convince anyone that it is quite possible for even multinationals to add plain text explanations or summaries of the terms. If they can do so without undue legal pitfalls, mayhaps smaller companies with much less legal exposure could do so as well. Dropbox ToS: "When you use our Services, you provide us with things like your files, content, messages, contacts and so on ("Your Stuff"). Your Stuff is yours. These Terms don't give us any rights to Your Stuff except for the limited rights that enable us to offer the Services." Holymoly it doesn't get any more plain text than that. And that isn't even a summary or explanation - it's the actual main text of the terms. LinkedIn User Agreement: "You own all of the content, feedback, and personal information you provide to us, but you also grant us a non-exclusive license to it." An example of the side-by-side plain text summary form. eBay Privacy Policy: example of the tl;dr format giving plain(er) text summaries at the top that link to the full text of the policy articles. Twitter ToS: "You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours — you own your Content (and your photos and videos are part of the Content)." Main body of the text. Funny how even this company can manage to be clear and concise without legalese about something as simple as 'who owns or retains rights to what you post here'.
  7. swjr-swis

    Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

    Interesting then that other companies see more and more fit to add 'plain text' or 'tl;dr' explanations along-side their terms to communicate with their customers. Apparently, it is in fact possible to clearly state the interpretation intended without necessarily running a legal risk.
  8. swjr-swis

    Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

    That's the thing though: what people are asking for are decidedly not legal answers - that would just result in more of that unintelligible vague and overarching legalese the terms are already filled with and cause of all the questions and speculation. What we are asking for is plain text.
  9. swjr-swis

    Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

    And similarly without any evidence that they won't change their practices. Leaving us to interpret and fear, or not, as we will, based on the fact that the new and improved terms have dropped some of the wording that actually offered content authors some modicum of trust. People have asked very simple questions, from the very moment the announcement was made. No one deemed the community worthy of response (* not discounting @JPLRepo's posts, which were courteous but essentially a redirect to /dev/null). The community reacted by speculating and making decisions based on said speculation. How surprising and unexpected. Because historically speaking, T2 is not known for doing things that put them 'at the center of a giant PR firestorm'... right?
  10. swjr-swis

    Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

    Dear @SQUAD (in lieu of Take Two, since we don't seem to have anyone from them to address here), You forgot to add a link, referral, or the actual text of the new EULA you warned us we would need to accept to keep using this forum and the game. Sincerely, Someone with zero legal sense but whose common sense is screaming that the new EULA may not have any legal power whatsoever unless actually referred to in some way in said acceptance form...
  11. swjr-swis

    Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

    They don't need to, do they? Add one of the many rootkit/surveillance types of DRM they keep coming up with to a next 'patch', a right they explicitly assert for themselves in these terms, or change the game so it requires online activation/registration every time it is started, another right they grant themselves in these terms, and voilá.. absolutely no need to 'investigate each and every one of their customers'; the customer will simply be unable to use the software anymore when out of compliance (and regularly enough, even when in compliance, but that's another discussion). Yes, a very weak position indeed. Which are virtual non-issues from a legal cost/risk standpoint since only a handful of those customers will ever be willing or financially capable to do anything but begrudgingly abdicate as soon as they receive the first notice or threat of legal action. How many individuals, of all those millions, do you know that would actually cause a company to do more than just send a take-down notice or a legal threat letter? And as soon as a few cases of such action get into the media, how many would immediately cease and desist just to prevent being the next one? I mean, just look at what's happened here in this forum, and not a single person has yet received a threatening letter. Without spending a dime more than what they needed to post a message in the forum, they've already preemptively caused several people to change their mode of operation just to avoid becoming a legal target. Now that's a pretty comprehensive show of power in my book, in any context. I'm really not, for the simple reason that I have no mods. I don't even use them. I think I posted exactly one snippet of ModuleManager code in this forum in all these years, to which I promptly disavowed any ownership or rights. Which does not stop me from considering what the effect of these new terms may be for those that have spent a lot of personal time and effort on various free game-enriching content. But here's another position of power T2 has over the content creators: whereas mod authors are bound to terms that obligate them to publish source code of plugins, so that everyone can examine and see the code, allowing said code to be tested for copyright infringements... T2's product is closed-source, they do not publish the code or allow it to be examined for the same - they even expressly prohibit any attempt at reverse engineering. Which lays an additional burden on anyone suspecting their code to have somehow ended up in the product, something that many would not even attempt unless T2 was so stupid as to make the code visibly and functionally identical to what they 'stole'. And the thing is, it's not even about whether this current incarnation of T2 would be so intrepid to enact their terms in those most doomtastic ways. It's about the fact that they already build in the potential for doing so if and when someone decides to do so later on. Corporate take-overs happen every now and then. CEOs are replaced sometimes. And for all the assurances that we may receive (or think we have) from the current representatives of this company, what keeps the next one in power from enacting those terms in another way? I can tell you about the only thing that would keep it from happening: not having such terms to begin with. But that would be too much to ask, right? No game company ever has worked without crazy boilerplate EULAs... I was interrupted in this typing by an acceptance form. interestingly, this form does not in any way quote, refer to, or link the new EULA we were supposed to agree with - it is as far as I could tell the identical one this forum had before T2 ever came into the KSP scene. Which just makes me smash my head into my desk. Are you freggling kidding me? After all this, they manage to forget to link the actual new EULA itself in the acceptance form???
  12. swjr-swis

    Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

    This sounds interesting and I would love it to be true, but reading the old EULA I don't see where it states that. On the contrary, it seems very similarly worded to the T2 EULA on that aspect: That last statement is interesting in a whole different way: it seems valid to interpret that as granting us the right to apply the old EULA to any future versions or patches of KSP.. So now we have two agreements that apply, and we get to pick which one we apply to our convenience?
  13. swjr-swis

    Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

    Can you elaborate on this?
  14. swjr-swis

    Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

    Again, a key difference being that content creators do not state in their terms that they can completely revoke your license to use their work at any point in time, leaving you as only recourse to completely delete it from your system; in fact, many of the licenses used by mod creators specifically protects the user from such a thing. Whereas the other party says things like:
  15. swjr-swis

    Updated Terms Notice & Privacy Policy

    Yes, very different, because you are leaving out one key change between the two: the part where the old terms specifically recognised and granted content creators rights, whereas the new ones are conspicuously silent about it all and only discuss the rights of the company over said content. It's been quoted before, but for you once more: (How generous to grant us rights over our own created content! But that's beside the point.) Can you find something even remotely similar in the new terms?