Dan Far has replied to the post over at the DAZ forums: Benjamin, Im tempted to simply reply, I agree with what Cliff and Richard have written and leave it at that. Of course, we want to make sure you know that were taking your concerns seriously. You wrote: I understand the gist of Dan's reply, but it is the specifics that give me pause. Im glad to hear that you understand the gist of what Ive written, because frankly speaking, thats all we can provide at this point (without having a more specific scenario to clarify). My initial goal in answering your questions was just that: to communicate the gist of what DAZs intentions are and have consistently been. Again, we are currently in the process of re-working the FAQ section of our website and creating an additional developer policy. This information should be the more thorough and specific (and time-consuming) clarification that youre apparently still looking for. We appreciate your feedback, and your suggestions above will be considered as we draft up this statement. That said, I will try to answer some of your additional questions here in this thread. I am sorry if it comes across that I am responding with the same answers, but sometimes the hypothetical becomes very hard to nail down. Cliffs response was right on with what our concerns and intentions are, particularly in how we still need to be very careful to keep our response somewhat open ended. Especially for strange situations like a body suit that happens to cover Victorias entire body, including eyeballs, is 99.9999% skin tight and contains all of Victorias morphs, UVs to wear Victorias texture maps, etc. (Basically a replica or substitute being called a body suit.) I really cannot say anything that will cover all situations at all times. People are smart and there is always someone who will try to take a statement and push it beyond its intended meaning. For example, someone may claim: I didnt get Victorias JPs from Victoria I got it from her Bodysuit. This is why we have to remain somewhat broad in our statements. We have had two high profile situations in the last few months where we have claimed copyright and EULA infringement. Both of them have been related to human figures. There are may be another handful of other figure-related issues that we have dealt with over the years. The occurrence of situations that have come up since DAZ has been in business has been very small and most, if not all of them, have been figure related. You do not need to run your ideas past DAZ to get permission. Out of all of the thousands of Victoria and DAZ related products that are sold through non-DAZ websites, we have only ever had a few people contact us to see if what they were doing was fine with us. It isnt necessary. On the other hand, were always happy to discuss any specific project with developers before-hand so that we can let them know its okay. In the meanwhile, if your project is a new human figure or designed to circumvent the need for another figure, then do not make it a derivative of that other figure unless you want to encode it to that figure. If you are modeling articles of clothing for our figures then there is a 99% or higher chance that you are safe as long as you are not copying from other articles of clothing to create them. I think I have done what I can for now to respond. I apologize that I cant be more specific at this time without knowing more about your specific situation. In order to keep your specific project(s) non-public, you would need to contact us privately. I will not be able to monitor this thread any further, as that I am going out of town for a week. Happily, it seems that many people in this thread clearly understand our intentions and policies, and I feel they have already done a nice job responding to these questions. For example, as others have already mentioned, yes, you can use UV templates in order to create maps that you will own free and clear. This doesnt mean that you own the UVs, or that you could use a template (UV image) as a tool to create UVs for a new figure. This is all I can do, until we finish the new statement of our developer policy. In the meanwhile, have a good week, everyone. Sincerely, Dan Farr

My reply to the above is as follows: OK, first things first - I made the correction to my "rewording" as suggested by Cliff. He was quite correct as it was a typo and I had meant to put the "not" in (it is there now). Second, a general answer to Dan's latest statement. That is, I appreciate the time put into the reply but (as Dan himself said) he didn't add anything and hence left the issue primarily unresolved. Two parts in particular caught my eye. Firstly, Dan states we don't need permission but then states that [b]EVEN IF[/b] we are only making clothing products and aren't copying from existing clothing products, he cannot say "yes, it is OK". No matter what percentage you put on it - it is basically the opening for DAZ to veto your products should they not want them in the market (whatever the reason - remember the only truly clear, "non-gist" document we have from DAZ is the EULA and it does not allow ANY use of JP's, etc). Secondly, the template I have downloaded from the Victoria 3 product page did not have any conditions attached to it. Given that I have yet to actually [b]install[/b] Victoria 3 (and hence agree to the DAZ EULA), I am currently not bound by the terms therein. Therefore, current advice suggests that (while an unwise decision) it is perfectly legal for me to use said templates for modifying uv's on figures (shoudl I choose to do so) as it would constitute "fair use" under copyright law. I have developed all my content around the Lilin2 model using the L2V3 morph to date (legal as DAZ has stated that all users who downloaded the figure prior to the legal issues being brought up may continue to use it). I do not intend to distribute any of this work until all of this is cleared up out of respect for DAZ as a company and the artists that were involved in V3's creation. I also do not intend to install V3 proper for the final tweaks on the outfits in question (as I am sure the L2V3 is not perfect!) until such time as I am sure what my legal rights and obligations may be. DAZ should feel free to check my order/download history and compare it to the dates of EULA issues to verify this. I feel that this gives me a somewhat unique perspective on the issue at this time as I am currently not bound by the restrictions I am talking about but am trying to make the restrictions equitable to merchants BEFORE agreeing to them (which I intend to do at some point - I cannot rely on an unredistributable, imperfect approximation to V3 to create marketable products!)

I agree Deecey that they haven't had a problem to date AND MIGHT NEVER have one. The thing is, without a written agreement/clarification spelling out what is & isn't allowed - DAZ reserves the right to veto the product. The point is that just because someone HASN'T done something doesn't mean they CAN'T or WON'T. From a legal perspective - this is a timebomb waiting to go off (and given the current situation, only DAZ could win such a confrontation).

I have developed all my content around the Lilin2 model using the L2V3 morph to date >> I also do not intend to install V3 proper for the final tweaks on the outfits in question (as I am sure the L2V3 is not perfect!) until such time as I am sure what my legal rights and obligations may be. Now, in seeing the situation that you are concerned about, I think it might have resulted in less frustration if you had asked these specifics early on. Dan will probably be able to address this directly now (um .. next week) so that you can make your decisions. I'd venture to guess that the clothing will be OK, seeing as it will also work with V3.

Dan Farr has responded in the thread over at DAZ (contrary to his earlier statement that he couldn't for another week): Benjamin, It is seeming that you are simply looking for loopholes and not clarification. I never said I was not answering your questions, I said that they have been answered in one form or another and I was providing general answers. If you want a specific answer concerning a specific project you will need to send an email to abuse@daz3d.com. Otherwise, I can only generalize. You have also misrepresented our statement concerning the Lilin figure. We said that people who had it could continue to use it. We never said that they could distribute it or any derivatives thereof. I don't think you can claim ignorance on this. I feel that questions you continue to ask are sufficiently answered to the extent they can be without having further information on your part. Sincerely, Dan Farr

I responded immediately. As you can tell from the message, I am quite annoyed by Dan's characterisation of my intent in the matter:

*I am not looking for loopholes. You might like to characterise my requests as such, but as I mentioned - I would rather the long winded EULA type agreement which is both more specific and hence more restricting then your "generalised answer".

I am not willing to have the time I invested in developing content wasted, and will therefore release it at some point under terms I have agreed to. I have not done so yet, in respect for DAZ and your personal assurance that you want the terms for developers to be clear and concise just as I do. I mentioned a worse case scenario. and you know as well as I do - I am in my rights to release the "clothing articles" I created as the use of Lilin2's "shape" would be classified as "fair use" (I never intended to redistribute Lilin2 nor said I would). This was also a "worst case scenario" - to characterise what I am after by such is insulting and I think you know that.

I also think that the requirement to have everything "checked over" by DAZ (as you now blantantly inform me is the case as I need to give you "specifics" for a "specific answer) is insulting to the merchant public in question. I have seen NO other EULA that has that restriction, not even those from Microsoft (world-reknown as creating some of the worst EULA's in the world for end-users).

If there is something wrong with either Cliff's "legalese" version or my reworded versions of your answers (both of which contain more clarity than your "generalised answers"), let us know what it is.

I could have made a big hoo-har about this by releasing something that was bound to catch your attention using the copyright "fair use" provisions mentioned above. The fact that I didn't and came to you guys A MONTH AGO with requests for the written agreement as promised in Renderosity shows that I am not looking for such a loophole.

You wanted this all out in public - and you are asking that I do everything in private now that I have pointed out (and others have recognised) the loopholes present in YOUR clarifications.

If you think I am angry, you are right. I have been nothing but polite, courteous and open in this entire mess. I have NOT released things based on less restricting copyright laws and as I have not agreed to your EULA - that is all the hold you have over my actions. I do not like being characterised as you wish to portray me and will not stand for it in public.*

Message edited on: 04/16/2005 17:00

THere is a flaw in your reason path. "Fair Use" would not protect you from legal liability here, no matter how creative you got. You are dealing with contractual law, and specifically contractual law pertaining to the licensing of copyrights and trademarks (V3 is a trademark). Under the laws, specifically, you are dealing with, Dan has answered your questions as posed. Moreso, he has addressed the underlying concepts that your query deals with. The reason for this, is that you are asking for answer to hypothetical situations -- what ifs -- and the law does not deal in what ifs (lawmaking does, and the outcomes of a case might, but the law itself does not). In order to get an answer that is specific, you need to provide a specific case. And then remember that any variance will result in a new case that could have a completely different answer, even though, on the surface, the two cases may appear similar. no other comment.

Couldn't agree more, ynsaen. mac

Me too.

My feelings all along ... agreed.

Unfortunately, that is NOT the case ynsaen. Contractual law is "supposed" to be specific. Contracts are designed to deal with hypotheticals by outliniing the terms and conditions under which each side can do certain things. The DAZ EULA agreed to when one installs V3 is quite specific and one need only consult a lawyer to ask such "hypotheticals". One also assumes that the "DAZ Developer Agreement" in the works will also be such a document.

That said, I am not (at this point) subject to the DAZ EULA as it was not required when obtaining Lilin2 and DAZ waived the need to become subject to it. As such, contractual law here applies only to DAZ's statement which was (and I quote) "For those of you wondering whether you can continue to use the now discontinued Lilin figure, yes, you may". No extra terms and conditions. And having said that, DAZ cannot apply more restrictive terms and conditions at will. So my "fair use" statements are directed at THAT scenario - not the usual one where the EULA is in effect.

Please note, I do not intend to use such a loophole. I am currently waiting on the developer agreement to be drawn up by DAZ. I am not trying to be contrary, simply pointing out that my situation is different than most. Why do you think DAZ wants everything that uses the non-copyrightable portions of V3 to be encoded? Simple, because that would subject the person using it to the V3 EULA (and hence limit them to the same terms and conditions ass everyone else). I don't want to create a figure from V3's stuff - but I sure as hell don't want to be limited to the current EULA and rely only on ambiguous statements for further rights. Dan Farr sees the reasoning behind this, which is why I believe he is having the lawyers draw up the developers agreement - so such ambiguities are resolved without the need to go to DAZ for everything.

Message edited on: 04/17/2005 22:33

Is there something I'm missing here?

You developed your clothing around the L2V3 figure, which is basically the same shape as V3. What "wasted time" is there, if all of your work can and will still fit V3?

You say you are not subject to the DAZ EULA, because you created your clothing for a figure that you obtained without it. By that same logic, one might say that if someone makes a copy of a CD, a person who wants one song from it wouldn't be subject to its copyright if the one song was duplicated from the copy rather than the original.

Message edited on: 04/17/2005 22:46

No, what I am saying is that IF someone makes a copy of a CD AND the copyright owner OK's the copy without further terms and conditions, THEN the person wanting to make the copy is subject only to copyright law (which still does not entitle them to copy the entire CD or even selected tracks).

But here is why I think it is not as big an issue as you think ... and I'm not saying this to put you in a spot, but to try to point out why some of us feel that all of the questions have already been answered in one form or another ... I will admit that I am very confused as to why this is so important. Here's why ...

(1) The clothing you made was not made around V3, but instead you used L2V3, a figure that had a body shape and joint parameters that were pretty much the same. In effect, it "was" V3.

(2) Because of item #1, your clothing will fit V3 as well. We already know it's OK to make clothing for V3 and use her joint parameters. Everyone else uses those methods.

(3) A limited number of people obtained L2V3, those who do have it can continue to use it.

In my mind, #3 doesn't come into play as much as you feel it does. Because your clothing should also work on V3, you are not limited to making clothing for only L2V3. You can distribute it as V3 clothing and no one would know the difference, yes?

I'm just confused as to why you are so insistent on getting specifics that seem sort of clear to a lot of us here ... unless we are ALL missing something.

Message edited on: 04/17/2005 23:12

OK, thanks for following through on this rather than simply thinking I am trying to cause trouble. I do appreciate that. The problem is that DAZ has not (to date) given a set of rules & guidelines that, if followed, would allow redistribution of the joint parameters "under their EULA". For example, even when they set down a strict set of guidelines talking only about clothing (i.e. explicitly stating that one isn't creating a figure, isn't copying/using figure uv's, only using a required subset of the joint parameters, and so on) they said that they would allow that "in 99% of cases". It is that one percent that bothers me. I do not want to clear every product with DAZ. They ARE competition (anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves - just look at the amount of clothing content in their store!) and telling the competition what one intends to market is bad business sense. DAZ has acknowledged this and is in the process of creating a "legalese" agreement which gives us merchants the "rules & guidelines" to follow. when given these "exact" terms and conditions - one doesn't need to go to DAZ to make sure they are compliant. What everyone has been saying in this thread is what DAZ has done "to date", not what they may choose to do in the future. For an analogy, I might state that no-one is allowed to walk on my property but not persecute anyone that does so. At some point, I might choose to not be so lenient and have someone charged with trespass. This is the same with DAZ. Currently they do not sue people who use their joint parameters without clearing it with DAZ first (regardless of use), but one day they might. They haven't given up that right (which is completely within the law). It is not good business sense to be reliant on the good grace of a competitor. These arguments are understood by DAZ and they are in the process of drawing up a set of exact terms and conditions; my query/complaint and several recent events being the catalyst.

This is the same with DAZ. Currently they do not sue people who use their joint parameters without clearing it with DAZ first (regardless of use), but one day they might. Conforming clothing will simply not work without using the joint parameters of the underlying figure. The DAZ figures get a lot of support from content developers, and the content drives the sales of their figures. I doubt they will change their stand on this anytime soon. 8-)

Ah, but they reserve the right to should the clothing be "competitive" (check the language of their agreements to date). Or if they think too much of the figure is used in the clothing article (perhaps a better catsuit). Or (and here is the competition thing again) if they have something similar in the works. I have heard isolated reports of the latter occuring and while I cannot verify the truth of such statements, the possibility does worry me. I could add many other reasons for which DAZ could refuse a product others would have no issues with, but that is not the point. The point is simply that they can refuse permission for products for alot of reasons - some reasonable, some perhaps not-so-reasonable. Until they have in documented form all the reasons they can refuse a product from distributing joint parameters - I do not feel comfortable installing V3 and becoming subject to such limitations. The reason for this thread was the fact that after a month of attempting to contact them on the issue - I had not gotten nowhere. While I do not like having to go public with gripes to get things done - it appeared the only option to get their attention.

Until they have in documented form all the reasons they can refuse a product from distributing joint parameters - I do not feel comfortable installing V3 and becoming subject to such limitations.

But here is the flaw in that logic, as ynsaen and others have pointed out. There is NO WAY that you can anticipate every possible scenario and cover it, because no matter what you write down someone will interpret it differently.

Here's an analogy ...

Let's say you buy a house in an exclusive neighborhood. The conditions of sale include some restrictions that you can only paint your house with red, blue, and yellow paint. That's what makes the neighborhood "work."

Somewhere down the road, you paint your house brown. You get a knock on the door from the president of the neighborhood committee, saying that you voilated the conditions of sale, and you have to repaint your house.

You come back and say "Come into the garage for a minute." He follows you in, and you show him three partially filled buckets of red, blue, and yellow paint. And you calmly explain that you took the same amounts of blue and yellow and mixed them together to make green; and then you added an equal amount of red to the green, and you made brown.

From a technical standpoint, you are within the agreement, because you used red, yellow and blue paint to make your brown. But the neighborhood committee now has to go and change their written conditions to prevent that "loophole."

THIS is what is making your request difficult to address. You can't possibly anticipate every scenario.

Message edited on: 04/18/2005 10:10

Message edited on: 04/18/2005 10:16

And that is why contracts are drawn up by lawyers. Their job is to word terms (such as the above example) in such a way that you cannot wriggle out of them. Also, when written in this language - it is easier for one to take the other party in front of a judge for them to resolve both the reasonability of the supposedly infringed term and whether or not said person has infringed. Ambiguity doesn't serve the either side of the contract; consider the imaginitive scenario below: You are in the same contract as you mentioned (only re, green, and blue paint). So you go down to the store and buy "Firebrick Red" or even worse "Orange Red" paint and paint your house. The neighbourhood commitee doesn't like you and states that you are in violation as the house is "Orange". You can point at the can and say - "No, see - says red" but if the rest of the contract is worded in their favour (like the DAZ agreements to date where they reserve veto rights, regardless of what you have done) - you lose out even though you complied with both the word and spirit of the agreement. Ambiguity in a contract is bad for both sides. DAZ knows this, so whenever they are ambiguous or general they always ties in some form of "veto rights" (a smart move - one I am not criticising). But it leaves us merchants dependant on their "good grace". You cannot interpret evy scenario. True. But you can word the terms of a contract to simply exclude all scenarios outside a specific set of conditions, so you don't have to think of what they are. No offence to DAZ, but the excuse of "We cannot think of all scenarios, so we'll screw you instead of letting you screw us" is fallacious. They have lawyers on hand for this. I have mentioned before, and I will mention again - I work in a company that generates new EULA's probably every six months. Our lawyers make sure the language is clear and unambiguous. As that is their job! And a point to note is that DAZ know this and accept my arguments above. They are currently writing such a clear and concise agreement. So like me, they obviously believe that one CAN word a contract to exclude the scenarios they don't want being applicable.

Yes, we are in agreement that a legal document is best, but it's still subject to the interpretation of others.

There is one concern, however, as far as the document getting TOO specific. In the case of the neighborhood committee, if their conditions get so specific as to limit house colors to one specific brand of paint and a selected number of approved colors, people might look for another neighborhood to live in. 8-)

Message edited on: 04/18/2005 14:58

And there is the balance DAZ must decide on. They cannot have overly restrictive terms and expect everyone to like them and/or agree to them. DAZ has (to date) been playing a game with conditions/clarifications/etc by stating nice things (and they might mean them to) but always showing a glimpse of the big stick. When writing up and accepting agreements - one shouldn't be trying to play a game of "Will they see the loophole or won't they?". That applies just as much to us as it does to DAZ. Hence the reason why I am trying to get a clear and concise agreement from them. As others have said publically and privately - when one is trying to close loopholes - they will obviously appear to be looking for them. I would not be after a clear agreement if I only wanted a "way out" (as Lilin2 provides that "out"). Similarly, I will not be subject to terms and conditions I disagree with based on "nice intentions".

I wish I could say that I agree totally ... (this is turning out to be an interesting conversation at least! LOL) I'm not bringing this up to beat a dead horse (sorry about this Renderosity folks!), but I'm using it as an example that we are ALL familiar with here. Renderosity has a big membership, and the bigger it gets, the more "clarification" they try to put in their TOS. As a result, there are a lot of people who see the TOS as way too restrictive. Frequent battles are waged over the issues that continue to crop up on a bi-monthly basis. In Renderosity's attempts to be all things to all people (which is a good thing), there are so many conditions in the TOS that it is very hard to keep track of. It's really hard to remember what is OK and what isn't (again, this said with apologies in advance ... I don't want to change the direction of this thread, I'm just using this to make a point). Now ... let's say DAZ gathers up all of the "unofficial" answers that they have given in the course of five years and puts them all in an "official" document, of what they allow and what they don't allow developers to do. Their "developers guide" as you put it. There will be some folks that accept it without question, and others that might be infuriated to see all of those rules being put in a document with all of the legal speak. It may, in fact, backfire and cause a huge uproar, which is what you are trying to avoid by getting this clarification in the first place. So, whether you like it or not, there will more than likely be a clause in there ... "For clarifications, or for specific situations, contact us in writing." If they don't put that clause in there, they are closing themselves to solutions for other interpretations that they didn't think about. I'm not trying to play games here, but I can surely understand the positions and considerations on their side as well.

Here's how I see it so far. Dan Farr has tried to explain DAZ's viewpoint in fairly broad terms, and give a general idea of what will and will not allow. You have continued to try to pin him down to specifics, but without actually presenting concrete examples for DAZ to examine and decide on. Dan has now said that the EULA will be updated. A good thing, without a doubt. BUT... I have a feeling that the updated EULA will be far more restrictive than anything from DAZ up to now. If you push them into a corner, they're going to make damned sure they leave no loopholes. Most EULAs are extremely restrictive, for good reason. It's there in black and white and can't be debated. So far, DAZ have been fairly relaxed about this stuff, preferring to resolve issues case by case. I think that may change. In other words, 'Be careful what you wish for.... you might get it' mac

Sorry, deecey. I just realised I said almost exactly the same as you. LOL. I was sorta skimming through the last few posts due to brain overload. mac

Yup, mac ... agree with that as well. .... LOL don't you love crossposting?? I didn't mean that I agreed that you said the same thing as me. I agreed with what you said. ROFL!!!

Message edited on: 04/18/2005 15:48

If you are navigating a river with shifting shoals, sandbars, snaggy treelimbs, and the occasional wreck of a former vessel, you have several choices: *You can wing it, with a depth sounder hanging over the front of the boat and white knuckles on the wheel. *You can follow the guidance of folks who managed it safely, and hope that the bottom hasn't changed too much in the interval. *You can stay to a narrow carved channel which won't allow you to dock where you want but which will keep the bottom of your boat intact. *You can choose another river which might not flow as fast, but might not leave you hungup on the rocks, either. Asking for a guidebook with maps seems reasonably intelligent before embarking. One can then make an informed choice. Carolly

I actually do not mind if the new "developers agreement" is more restrictive. I will then know the exact terms and conditions that apply and can make a decision from that. If they so choose to have a clause in there requiring you to check with them first - that too is fine, as that requirement is set in stone (or on paper as the case may be grin). Funny how it looks as if I am pushing DAZ into a corner, when I feel the current lack of clarity does that to third-party developers. You say, if I push DAZ into a corner - they will clamp down on their content. My view is they currently have US in a corner as they haven't given clear guidelines that don't require checking everything with them (sorry, but no matter HOW it is spun - that is still the only way to be sure). This way both sides will be safe. DAZ can set down the terms and conditions for use of content distributed under the EULA, and we can either accept or reject those terms. If accepted - following the terms will allow one to distribute joint parameters and the like without fear of reprisal. If rejected - well, the EULA as stands stops you distributing anything. This is the simplicity I am after. The ability to purchase/install content from DAZ and then develop/distrbute content without needing to go back to DAZ for clarification. This is generally how business is done in the licensing world.

My view is they currently have US in a corner as they haven't given clear guidelines that don't require checking everything with them

You are entitled to have that view, and I can certainly understand why you do (I'm not faulting you or anyone else who feels that further clarification is necessary).

The point that others of us are trying to make (including Dan) is that this is the first time in five years that someone has pressed the matter to this extreme. Up until this point, it hasn't appeared to be a major concern to the majority of those who create content for DAZ figures. Most content creators have been using the same methods for so long, that it's second nature as to what is "kosher" and what isn't - but there should also be room for human error and misinterpretations that need clarification.

Now, all we can do is hope that whatever Dan and his associates decide is fair and equitable to all sides concerned, and that if they do firm up their EULA it doesn't create an even bigger controversy. If it does, grab the popcorn. 8-)

Message edited on: 04/18/2005 19:52

ah, well I come from a background of custom application development. In that industry, you are pretty much reliant on licensing components, libraries, etc. My experience is from this industry where companies live & die based not only on the quality of their code but the licensing agreements they have made along the way. I have also had a relatively recent (within the last two years) incident where someone tried to redistribute my intellectual property (source code to a custom software application I had written) without paying me the required licensing fee. I was succesful in that case due to the fact that our agreement was quite "clear and concise" (yes, I like that term - it describes exactly what I want after all) in the terms and conditions under which the company could use said code. After that experience - I have become quite "anal" about agreements and have done my research into copyright law for the areas not covered by contracts. I didn't mean to be a pain in the ass, as I am used to companies that license products for third-party development and distribution simply having a contract on-hand. When this wasn't the case and I was being told that ambiguous statements "were OK", I got wary. The fact that DAZ has decided to develop a clear agreement is restoring some of my earlier enthusiasm.

They're good people. It'll be cool. Thanks for having an open ear on this, I'm glad there are no hard feelings. ;-)

'I didn't mean to be a pain in the ass'

I doubt if anyone at DAZ thinks that. You see, I've brokered through DAZ for almost 4 years, and I think I know their attitude pretty well by now. They know for a fact how important 3rd-party content is to their own sales and they honestly do everything they can to encourage it.

The fact that they DON'T have a clear-cut and highly restrictive EULA is due to the fact that they like to take a fairly liberal stance on 'fair use'. Even when something blatantly contravenes their 'guidelines', they prefer to settle it quietly, and if possible, find a way for the product to be released, using RTE encoding or whatever (the recent 'Alexa' threads are an example of this).

I think you'll find that they try to make the new EULA comprehensive, without being draconian.

mac PS I know you probably don't think that Dan's absence is some sort of plot, but just to reassure you, I know for a fact he's gone for a week. Some of the brokers have been trying to get hold of him, and he ain't around.

Message edited on: 04/19/2005 17:26