Discussion
Terms and Conditions
ayakut: brilliant !
johnplatte: Comedically, this doesn't load from my IP address in the Russian Federation. (HN does.)
bayneri: unintended condition: cloudflarep.s. quick fix is "stop being lazy and move the single html off cloudflare"
technotarek: A potentially unpopular hot take: As someone who is in part responsible for tens and tens of production websites, I have taken the unfortunate path of blocking Russian access to many sites. Our customers don’t want to pay us for the time/resources it will take to combat the bad players. Unfortunately that means good players are also locked out. It’s true that cloudflare has made that “remedy” all too easy for us, but I’m actually relieved they do.Adding: I’m not just talking about bad as in hack bad, but also destroy/degrade/cloud the value and understanding of things like analytics data, email subscriptions etc etc.
Barbing: Hope this slop doesn’t get anyone into trouble. Last updated: never No further pages. No hidden clauses. Not sure last updated never works, but I don’t make terms and conditions websites.
steveharing1: Last updated: never lol
bayneri: use at your own risk> 8. You are responsible for what you do, what you build, and what follows from either.
FinnKuhn: As far as I'm concerned this doesn't mean anything legally unless I missed something. Aren't you already responsible for what you do or build anyways?
weinzierl: Just today I asked an LLM:"Often one generation values things much more than others. Boomers and their wristwatches. One generation is like 'only from my cold dead hands,' the others 'what would I even need this for?!' What are examples of things the youngest generation did away with?"If OP were a checklist, the answer would have checked every point.
tosti: Schrödingers terms and conditions
amarant: Read carefully if you are of a feline persuasion
Retr0id: I wonder how many one-sentence prompts have made it to the HN front page at this point.
CobrastanJorji: I like how, even when the whole point is to not have any terms or conditions, there are still disclaimers. "Only for lawful purposes," "no warranty," "we are not responsible."Those are still terms and conditions!
knorker: This does not read like it was written by a professional. Non-professionals writing licenses and T&Cs cause problems because no organization, for profit or not, wants to be dragged into court to get a "common sense" definition of a word or comma defined, at their expense.I've heard of large organizations reaching out to places who use amateur T&Cs and licenses, saying "if we give you $X, can you dual license this as MIT, Apache, BSD, or hell anything standard?".> Access is not conditioned on approvalIs this obvious enough legalese to not waste tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees if you get sued?Note before you reply: I will not argue with you about how obvious it is. If you are actually a lawyer then it'd be interesting to hear your guidance, which I very much understand is not legal advice. If you're not a lawyer then I'm not.
ndriscoll: Sounds like a smart strategy then. Use an amateur license. People who just want to do stuff know they have your blessing. Corporations will stay away or pay up, not because you made them, but of their own volition. Everyone is happy.Of course even better is to simply have no explicit license, especially for something like code. Normal people can assume they can do whatever they'd like (basically, public domain). Lawyers will assume they cannot. The only thing stopping someone is their own belief in their self restrictions.
goodmythical: Right? Why include that? The law automatically applies. Including it in the license is just redundant.Had it simply read "You may use this site for any purpose." or "You may use this site." or "You may use this" or "This can be used." it would have the same level actual restriciton in that you obviously aren't allowed to use it to break the law regardless of what it actually says.And, having typed all that, I realize that there is another restriction in that it presumes that there is a 'you' using it. Things that are not 'you' cannot use it given that it specifically lists 'you' in the referenced parties. "This can be used" would be more permissive.
self-portrait: No further update.
