Thanks for the input, ynsaen.

First, I have started a thread over at DAZ. I am not expecting much from it, but I took xenophonz's advice and wewnt to the source. Worst comes to worst, they 'll remove it and I'll have to "crusade" here grin

Secondly, you summed up the primary issue quite well. Just because I haven't done something doesn't mean I can't. Same goes for DAZ. Hence the reason for requesting written clarification.

I disagree that I should be patient about the whole thing (six months! No way!). DAZ implied that their clarifications on the EULA should be enough for everyone. If they were "clear enough" already - it logically follows that writing them down is no big hassle. To quote Dan Farr:
"Concerning the DAZ EULA. I want to mention once again. If any developer is personally concerned with the terms of our EULA reaching beyond what we have made very clear that our intentions are, please contact us directly and we will put in writing privately, what we have put in writing publicly here and in our FAQ's and other forum posts."

In essence, I read the above as being somewhat incredulous that we would require such a written clarification but DAZ will be nice and give it to us anyway. It would "appear" that this is just PR bull to calm the natives given that no such written confirmation or message to say that they're working on one has been forthcoming in a month of polite repeated requests.

Now they can of course ignore me. Seems like they already are. And like ynsaen mentioned, I can support other companies (something I already do). What about those people that take the word of big companies (and let's be frank - in Poserom, DAZ is big) only to find out after weeks of work that DAZ has reserved the right to stop them distributing/selling it. I can't stand-by and wath that happen when a simple clarification can resolve things one way or the other.

Say what you like about my methods - but I am not out to "bring down DAZ", nor could I. I am simply trying to get clarification on a few legal loose-ends from a company that implies they have answered the issues already. Ignoring me (in my mind) validates the arguments of those that say DAZ cannot agree to things on paper as they don't really mean what they say shrug Side note: is the Poser Setup Room legal under the DCMA I'd say it IS because the data is available for everyne anyway. One of the things the DMCA was designed to do was stop people reverse engineering "protection", I don't think it applies to something unprotected by code/encryption. I am, however, not a lawyer

Message edited on: 04/12/2005 07:51