I didn't mean to threaten, and I really tried to give an alternative text. The internet is a legal swamp, mainly because of the cross border nature. Having followed the discussions on the GPL an the CC licenses, and being somewhat active in international disclaimers, I tried to show that a less legal text, stating purpose and disclaimer, would have the same effect, but at the same time be human in language. I see an analogy with medical websites, or legal websites, run by companies. A simple disclaimer is often enough, to be protected to claims. The only important thing is, that users can understand the disclaimer.
I understand the position of Ask, and I feel he, most of all, has an invested stake on being immune from litigation. Having said that, it is unacceptable, both legal and moral, that I get bound by foreign, for me, law. The only way with the concept ToS is that I withdraw. I do not want to. I did some research, and have not as yet, found any verdict against internet services, including websites, where the disclaimer was stated in plain language. It is, according to lawyers, enough. I reiterate, I do understand, and support, the goals the ToS tries to achieve. And I have no plans to actively leave the pool, but it might be necessary, to protect myself. I think it wise to think about them. But I strongly advise Develooper to ask legal help on the subject, more specifically, I would ask advice at the EFF. I sounds weird, but they actually have a lot of expertise, on the subject. Jasper Kips, Always waiting for the ricochet Op 30 aug. 2013 om 23:28 heeft Marc Storck <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven: > On 30/08/2013 22:30, Jasper Kips wrote: >> Basically, keep it as simple as possible. You most certainly do not want the >> users, and contributors, to enter in a legal binding agreement, with all the >> implications of that. >> Moreover, we are users and contributors. You take the role of forcing the >> contributors to abide by the ToS, but do not grant us the same legal >> protection you give yourself. > > I agree with keeping the TOS Draft as simple as possible. However I read > some parts differently, actually the TOS Draft already provides some > protection for the operators by informing potential users that the > service may not be used for situation where an absolutely accurate and > 100% stable and available service is necessary. As such any server > listed within the pool should be protected from any claims. > > I'm not sure if the wording is legally correct but I can see where it > intends to go. > > I would recommend to those threatening the community by extortion to > remove servers to provide some feedback to the TOS Draft first. IMHO > it's a very unfair and inappropriate way of community interaction to go > the blackmailing road instead of discussion for the better of the > community service. There is time to remove your servers once some TOS > have been instated. > > These are my comments to the TOS Draft: > > 1) The preamble states Develooper LLC by name but the server operators > seem to be missing. Eventually this can be solved by a MoU which has to > be signed by operator in order to be included as "Provider". > > 2) Timing settings should be adapted to the current timings implemented > into the NTPd code. > > 3) I'm not sure if every server operator may provide the service as > required by US law. This may really cause an issue for all servers > outside of US or even outside California. > > So in sum, I understand and agree that the operators of NTP server > should get some protection against claims. However I think the current > TOS Draft creates other issues. As a conclusion I don't agree with the > current TOS draft version. > > Best regards, > > Marc > _______________________________________________ > pool mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool _______________________________________________ pool mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
