|
Will they be reasonable? Like the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike terms which govern SQLA 1.0 (this site): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Or will they be obscene? Like the Terms and Conditions that governed the now-defunct CodeXchange: http://www.sybase.com/detail?id=1059158 Obscene terms might not kill SQLA 2.0 but they certainly will kill my participation... no code from me, quite possibly nothing at all. That's not a threat, that's a simple statement of fact my lawyer insists I make. |
|
Here is our plan for the terms and conditions of the "Sybase, An SAP Company" hosted SQL Anywhere question and answer site (commonly referred to as SQLA 2.0): Let me start by saying that we are NOT going to use the old CodeExchange agreement. New ContentFor new content, we have 3 options: 1) write a new agreement This option will guarantee that we will have forgotten what we were doing by the time we get the site up and running, as it will take forever. Writing a new agreement takes even longer than getting a new machine visible outside the firewall. :-) 2) use no agreement This option isn't actually what it seems. It means that the site will really be subject to some other vaguely defined "Sybase" or "SAP" generic website terms of use agreement. This doesn't really solve the problem of user contributed content. 3) use an existing agreement It turns out that the SAP Community Network has an agreement that seems pretty good in terms of covering all the requirements. You own what you post, and can do with it what you will. You can only post what you own. SAP has free rights to use the content. You agree to basic polite behavior. You agree that there are no guarantees on the code, and you won't sue SAP if it doesn't work. http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/policy Our plan is to use this agreement for all new content. Current ContentExisting content in this current SQLA site is licensed under under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License (per the SQLA FAQ). When current content is loaded into the SQLA 2.0 site, it will be marked using a new content attribute that will indicate that it is "SQLA 1.0 Content", and it will continue to be subject to the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. SDN is dead! Long live SDN! ( where "SDN" stands for "SAP Developers Network" http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn :) |
Can you define "obscene"? I have not read the T&C of CodeXchange, but what parts of it are you unhappy with?
@Graeme: The adjective "obscene" applies to, but is not necessarily limited to, paragraphs 1, 2.a, 2.b, 2.b.i, 2b.ii, 2.b.iii, 2.c, 2.d, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 18.a, 18.b, 18.c, 18.d and 18.e, in whole or in part. The rest is merely "disgusting".
You keep bringing back not-so-fond memories... I also remember being scared right away from daring to post any of my own code on CodeXchange: who am I to presume to be such an expert that anyone would want to see what I have done, and that was after the Terms and Conditions made me realize I had to hire a lawyer before I posted my code. Related to Mark's poll question on "Staffing Starts For SDN...": I would be much more likely to upload some of my code in response to a question asked in the new SQLA.
And please, think of all those non-native speakers like me who might be threatend by a bunch of jurisdictional texts one usually will not be able to understand fully. - Anyone to share a laywer with knowledge in US/Canadian copyright affairs?
Remember that SAP is headquartered in Germany, so there will likely be a German translation available. Actually, if we use an existing set of SAP terms, they will reference German law and there will likely be an English translation available.
@Graeme: Thanks for the clarification (though in my case "not be[ing] able to understand fully" will relate to German legislation, too - but that's another problem...)