Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
3251
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 12:21:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hey guys,
I know a lot of you have been asking for an update on the developer license agreement. I am here to provide you an update.
The main point I want to stress is this document is not yet in effect. We are posting it so you guys have an update as to where it is and what it says.
With that out of the way here is the current version of the license (that is again not yet in effect): http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/forums/EVE/Developer_License_Agreement_2014_05_26.doc
There is also a wiki article here: https://wiki.eveonline.com/wikiEN/index.php?title=Developer_License_Agreement
I am bad with words so feel free to make that page make more sense. CCP FoxFour // Game Designer // @regnerba
|
|
Peter Powers
Terrorists of Dimensions Free 2 Play
236
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 12:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
Problem 1) its geared towards application developers, and application developers only. It does not properly cover libraries such as pheal, perry, eaal (and many others), which are pieces of software that are used by other applications to access the "Crest or any other CCP tool". (Definition 1.2, Application). The Grants in 2.1 further more do only allow display and distribution within the application, meaning that even if 1.2 would cover such libraries, the grant does not cover it. To explain what such libraries do in terms that someone who is not a software developer might understand: they cover the transport (and transformation to a datastructure native to the language used) between the CCP tool an the runtime environment of the application. Most larger EVE applications make use of such libraries (for example zkillboard, edk, evemaps use phealng).
Problem 2) 2.2 does prohibit offering own apis for the data. For example, edk and zkillboard both have apis / feeds through which they syndicate and exchange killmails which have been pulled from CCPs API or CREST. 3rdPartyEve.net - your catalogue for 3rd party applications |
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1264
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 12:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
Quote:13.1.Force Majeure. If either Party should fail in the performance of any obligation under this Agreement by reason of acts of God, acts of war or terrorism, labor strikes, civil riots, governmental seizure, orbital bombardment, or other cause, without fault and beyond the reasonable control of the Party obligated
Don't be silly... as if anyone will be playing DUST by the time this comes out. |
Seith Kali
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 13:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
Quote:At a later date, CCP may choose to begin charging fees or collecting royalties for the
rights granted herein. However, CCP shall provide Developer of no less than ninety
(90) calendar daysGÇÖ notice prior to doing so, and in accordance with Section 6.4,
Developer may terminate this Agreement upon written notice to CCP.
Good luck. Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege.-á |
Jarnis McPieksu
499
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 13:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
Seith Kali wrote:Quote:At a later date, CCP may choose to begin charging fees or collecting royalties for the
rights granted herein. However, CCP shall provide Developer of no less than ninety
(90) calendar daysGÇÖ notice prior to doing so, and in accordance with Section 6.4,
Developer may terminate this Agreement upon written notice to CCP. Good luck.
Indeed. This is a nice bait-and-switch clause.
"Please spend a ton of time and effort to make a shiny app that supports our product and adds value to it. Then pray that we do not alter the deal. Much."
|
Anjanka
Interstellar Crime Scene Investigation
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 14:08:00 -
[6] - Quote
Peter Powers wrote:Problem 1) its geared towards application developers, and application developers only. It does not properly cover libraries such as pheal, perry, eaal (and many others), which are pieces of software that are used by other applications to access the "Crest or any other CCP tool". (Definition 1.2, Application). The Grants in 2.1 further more do only allow display and distribution within the application, meaning that even if 1.2 would cover such libraries, the grant does not cover it. To explain what such libraries do in terms that someone who is not a software developer might understand: they cover the transport (and transformation to a datastructure native to the language used) between the CCP tool an the runtime environment of the application. Most larger EVE applications make use of such libraries (for example zkillboard, edk, evemaps use phealng).
I don't see a problem here. You don't need a license to write a library that allows your forum to authenticate using the sso endpoint... you will need the license for the application that uses the library.
I guess there will be some kind of api key that you only get if you sign the license... the library developer won't need them but the runtime environment will.
The problem I see is applications that run at the end users system.. like evemon. How would a developer put his key in the app without the risk of exposing it ? It would require some kind of app signing .. but I guess that is out of scope ,)
|
Seith Kali
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 14:55:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:
"Please spend a ton of time and effort to make a shiny app that supports our product and adds value to it. Then pray that we do not alter the deal. Much."
This deal gets worse all the time... Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege.-á |
Peter Powers
Terrorists of Dimensions Free 2 Play
236
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 15:07:00 -
[8] - Quote
Anjanka wrote: I don't see a problem here. You don't need a license to write a library that allows your forum to authenticate using the sso endpoint... you will need the license for the application that uses the library.
I guess there will be some kind of api key that you only get if you sign the license... the library developer won't need them but the runtime environment will.
The problem I see is applications that run at the end users system.. like evemon. How would a developer put his key in the app without the risk of exposing it ? It would require some kind of app signing .. but I guess that is out of scope ,)
- the license is not about sso only
- the license is about how you are allowed to interface with eve, something that has long been missing and problematic, especially with the eula/terms of service prohibiting you from developing that stuff.
- not covering the libs *is* problematic, for example because in the very nature on how such lib needs to be build, libs like perry carry information on how the apis of ccp look, which is CCPs property.
- and with the license not applying to libraries, that means i still don't have anything for my libs there where ccp acknowledges what they recognize in 3.7 for applications.
i'm not pointless raging, i have invested *a lot* of time this year in this subject. I'm pointing out that this license (which i had several ccp guys say to me would solve my worries) is not solving all problems.
Fine, i can apply this to my Fansite, i can sign this for the SSO trials, but all the other work i've done is still not in a spot where i don't feel confident about being safe.
So what should i do? I decided to mention the problem (which i just did) (again) before i sign something (and then have to pull down everything that is not covered by that license, just to be safe).
I want this to be a dialog and i want this to be fruitful. Despite having invested a lot of time into something i dislike doing (like: reading all that legal stuff, getting people who are actually a bit better in this to talk to me and point out how certain things actually work and what the risks are) i still believe that we all want the same thing, and that is putting this on a basis where we (3rd party guys) can improve the game.
So frankly, if you don't care about the why, or if you don't care about what i'm pointing out - please stay out of it, rather than to just declare it "no problem".
3rdPartyEve.net - your catalogue for 3rd party applications |
Anjanka
Interstellar Crime Scene Investigation
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 15:23:00 -
[9] - Quote
I did not say that there is no problem ... I just said I see no problem.
So you want a dialog? Part of a dialog is to read and answer to people with other opinions that might have not your opinion or insight without getting into rage... Calm down bro. |
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
300
|
Posted - 2014.05.27 16:10:00 -
[10] - Quote
I basically still have the same 2 questions I had about the old license a year ago:
1. If my application includes (a part of) the SDE data in a way that would theoretically allow someone else to access that data outside of my app (e.g. by opening the files containing the SDE information with a text editor or whatever), is that covered and allowed by section 2.1 or would I be violating section 2.2? It would be strange if redistribution of publicly available data (like the SDE) was forbidden just because it might be accessible outside of the app.
2. I still don't see what section 8 has to do with 3rd party development and I find it exceedingly weird that you would have me sign that I'm obligated to be your copyright snitch. It's alright to let me sign that I don't violate your IP rights, but I really don't see why I should have to assist you when others do. Don't get me wrong, I like CCP and EVE, so I'd probably do it anyway, but that still is no reason to contractually bind me to do it.
Btw, typo in 2.1: non-transferrable |
|
Slvrsmth
TeamAXE inc.
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 10:38:00 -
[11] - Quote
2.2:
Quote:...Developer shall not knowingly allow any third party to use or distribute, the Licensed Materials outside of the Application...
Example situation:
I have a web application that internally uses its own, publicly available JSON API, where some endpoints contain EvE data gained from CREST. The application is open source and well documented, including API documentation. I'm not explicitly encouraging anyone to use this API, but some people have read the documentation, and started using my API in their projects. As I read it, this is OK with the license, since I have not in any way blessed this access. Correct? |
sembur
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.28 10:59:00 -
[12] - Quote
Slvrsmth wrote:2.2: Quote:...Developer shall not knowingly allow any third party to use or distribute, the Licensed Materials outside of the Application... Example situation: I have a web application that internally uses its own, publicly available JSON API, where some endpoints contain EvE data gained from CREST. The application is open source and well documented, including API documentation. I'm not explicitly encouraging anyone to use this API, but some people have read the documentation, and started using my API in their projects. As I read it, this is OK with the license I see the same outcome, different reasoning.
Quote:2.1. CCP grants Developer...right...to: use, display, and distribute the Game Data solely within an Application used for the Purpose.
Then...
Quote:2.2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 2.1 above ...
Your API is within the scope of your Application, used for the purpose. Period. Your example seems straight forward.
Further I would argue that displaying kills data in a proprietary format distinct from CCP's CREST API specification which is also machine-readable as a web page within the zkillboard site is in fact one of the purposes of the zkillboard application: validating and republishing aggregated kills data. The ZKillboard API then becomes a non-issue.
3rd-Party provided language-specific SDKs (otherwise referred to as libraries) are still in a bit of limbo here as I read things. It really isn't clear to me if that can qualify as it's own Application with a legitimized Purpose under these terms.
This needs further clarification from CCP so we understand clearly, preferably available in the form of a standard diff performed on the agreement between revisions. Most of us don't have legal teams to help us interpret this stuff, and we can use all the help we can get. |
Myopic Thyne
Shattered Paradigm Eon.Apocalypse
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 07:03:00 -
[13] - Quote
I concur with the above that libraries do not inherently meet the purpose, though I suppose one could reason that they allow the developer of an application to enjoy eve more by extent of allowing them to write the tools for eve more easily...? This is definitely some serious grey area and could use some clarification at a minimum.
I'm curious what works are artistic and literary that could be in an application that you want to lay claim to as Derivative Works as well, I find this quite odd. |
Risingson
81
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 09:59:00 -
[14] - Quote
Were there any thoughts on a paid dev license that would allow 3rd party apps to charge rl money ? Eveeye Prototype YD-114 Onboard Computer Systems |
Hel O'Ween
Men On A Mission
78
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 11:05:00 -
[15] - Quote
Seith Kali wrote:Quote:At a later date, CCP may choose to begin charging fees or collecting royalties for the
rights granted herein. However, CCP shall provide Developer of no less than ninety
(90) calendar daysGÇÖ notice prior to doing so, and in accordance with Section 6.4,
Developer may terminate this Agreement upon written notice to CCP. Good luck.
This depends on what you get in return for the money. And if there'll be different kinds of license: 1) an "altruistic" license - both CCP and you charge/earn nothing and 2) you pay royalties (like with various dev libs/APIs) and you're allowed to "market" your work. EVEWalletAware - an offline wallet manager. |
sembur
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 17:45:00 -
[16] - Quote
I was thinking more about the question of 3rd Party Libraries / SDKs and because the Library itself can act as a conduit or intermediary to pass an application's keys through it rather than relying on it's own keys there may be a way to provide safe harbor or that safe harbor may already exist such that 3rd Party Library authors would not need to be licensed 3rd Party Developers themselves in order to provide a library which facilitates authoring licensed applications -- each of which then would need to be in full compliance of the license otherwise.
Just kicking some thoughts over the wall to see what I'm missing... |
Shellac Brookdale
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 09:26:00 -
[17] - Quote
The current license version is really problematic for open source projects. If I'm going to create a open source killboard (e.g. as zkillboard does) I can't sign the agreement for all potential users who are going to install their own killboard instance on their webserver. As its open source anyone on of them could make modifications that would not be allowed within the license and theres nothing I could do about it. So you'd need all endusers to sign up. Every corp admin who manages to install the killboard (or any other OSS tool) would need to sign up and submit its application which would basically just be a clone so you end up with 200 corp killboards in the 3rd party listing and with hundreds of contact persons who actually don't really know a big deal about the application. |
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
3278
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 09:43:00 -
[18] - Quote
Shellac Brookdale wrote:The current license version is really problematic for open source projects. If I'm going to create a open source killboard (e.g. as zkillboard does) I can't sign the agreement for all potential users who are going to install their own killboard instance on their webserver. As its open source anyone on of them could make modifications that would not be allowed within the license and theres nothing I could do about it. So you'd need all endusers to sign up. Every corp admin who manages to install the killboard (or any other OSS tool) would need to sign up and submit its application which would basically just be a clone so you end up with 200 corp killboards in the 3rd party listing and with hundreds of contact persons who actually don't really know a big deal about the application.
Yes, that is going to have to happen. Everyone who installs your killboard would have to sign up so they can get a secret key and app ID in order to access CREST and the SSO.
Let me put it to you this way, once this is out and people are using app IDs and secret keys, if a specific app goes haywire and we deem it to be doing bad stuff we will ban that app ID. As a developer of an open source project you don't want one guy to go and install you application, make some changes to it that cause it to hammer our servers at 300 RPS, and then suddenly we ban every instance of your killboard.
This is how APIs work on the internet. There is an open source mobile app for Reddit that uses their API. The source code does not contain an app ID or secret key. When you install the built version it has that stuff but the source does not. If you fork the source or build from source you have to provide that app ID and secret key.
Generally speaking, it's fairly easy for us to find who the original developer for something is even if there are a lot of people running something. Especially if you are kind enough to provide a good user agent, even more so when you are registered as a third party developer. CCP FoxFour // Game Designer // @regnerba
|
|
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
3278
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 09:47:00 -
[19] - Quote
Risingson wrote:Were there any thoughts on a paid dev license that would allow 3rd party apps to charge rl money ?
Not that I am aware of. CCP FoxFour // Game Designer // @regnerba
|
|
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
3278
|
Posted - 2014.06.01 09:49:00 -
[20] - Quote
I have two questions outstanding with people responsible for the DLA with regards to libraries and third party APIs.
Those questions our out and we will wait for their answers. CCP FoxFour // Game Designer // @regnerba
|
|
|
Kelath Erebus
Galactic Imperium
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 04:49:00 -
[21] - Quote
Thank you for the update, overall I like the new agreement.
I am with Risingson in that I was also hoping that perhaps section 4.4 would contain verbiage allowing a developer to pay CCP some amount, percentage or combination to charge RL money to use their app or certain features of their app.. But being able to accept RL monetary donations and ad revenue is a lot better then only being able to accept in-game currency as was previously discussed, so I am happy with that. |
Arkarn
DeathByDestruction
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 10:55:00 -
[22] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Risingson wrote:Were there any thoughts on a paid dev license that would allow 3rd party apps to charge rl money ? Not that I am aware of.
That is literally the most disappointing thing you could have possibly said. Time to abandon the idea of the massive EVE website myself and another developer have had planned and been working on since the dev licence was first announced about THREE years ago with the carrot on the stick of being able to monetize it.
Adverts simply will not be enough. Development time is far too expensive to make a paltry amount from advertising. Especially on an AJAX heavy project which drastically cuts ad impressions.
What a waste of three years of waiting and development time. |
Risingson
83
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 12:37:00 -
[23] - Quote
I was already thinking i am the only one deeply disappointed. Eveeye Prototype YD-114 Onboard Computer Systems |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3384
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 16:38:00 -
[24] - Quote
Arkarn wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Risingson wrote:Were there any thoughts on a paid dev license that would allow 3rd party apps to charge rl money ? Not that I am aware of. That is literally the most disappointing thing you could have possibly said. Time to abandon the idea of the massive EVE website myself and another developer have had planned and been working on since the dev licence was first announced about THREE years ago with the carrot on the stick of being able to monetize it. Adverts simply will not be enough. Development time is far too expensive to make a paltry amount from advertising. Especially on an AJAX heavy project which drastically cuts ad impressions. What a waste of three years of waiting and development time.
Verbage for proper money making was never going to be in a cookie cutter license.
If you want a license which allows you to charge for something, you need to talk to CCP Legal, to arrange a partnership. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Risingson
83
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 13:56:00 -
[25] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Verbage for proper money making was never going to be in a cookie cutter license.
If you want a license which allows you to charge for something, you need to talk to CCP Legal, to arrange a partnership.
True. It was not in the first official draft years ago. Back then we were asked to write emails though. At least mine contained my thoughts about why i would like to charge money for parts of my services. Also monetizing work has some tradition in human society. Now reading they did not even think of it is highly de-motivating and tbh i am thinking on moving on (i don't think i will actually manage to fully break loose after 8 years but i am thinking of it and who knows).
About your second sentence. Yeah it has been that way. I am a private single person hobby coder who was hoping for an easy way to monetize his work to buy a new server, pay for its housing costs and ofc some shinies for my wife and kid. Easy as this. If i write CCP Legal about a partnership as a private person they will tell me to f**k off. Therefore i was hoping easy licensing including charging rl money would be introduced via the dev lic. Eveeye Prototype YD-114 Onboard Computer Systems |
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
301
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 14:57:00 -
[26] - Quote
Risingson wrote:I am a private single person hobby coder who was hoping for an easy way to monetize his work to buy a new server, pay for its housing costs and ofc some shinies for my wife and kid. Easy as this. These rather humble wishes (depending on your definition of shinies) should be affordable by donations. In my experience the EVE community is made up of mostly adults who are willing to donate for a good service. If your users are not willing to donate what makes you think they'd be willing to pay up-front?
Quote:If i write CCP Legal about a partnership as a private person they will tell me to f**k off. I suppose that would very much depend on the nature of the partnership you'd propose. I don't think they'd refuse just on the grounds of you not being a company. |
Risingson
83
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 16:48:00 -
[27] - Quote
Rob Crowley wrote:These rather humble wishes (depending on your definition of shinies) should be affordable by donations. In my experience the EVE community is made up of mostly adults who are willing to donate for a good service. If your users are not willing to donate what makes you think they'd be willing to pay up-front?
If anyone is willing to do anything or not is a totally different story. Without going into details of things the reason is that a rl money donation must not unlock features...
Quote:[...] I suppose that would very much depend on the nature of the partnership you'd propose. I don't think they'd refuse just on the grounds of you not being a company.
Ok. Though i am quite sure it would come down to this it was an assessment on my part. Do you know of any partnerships on a level i described ? Eveeye Prototype YD-114 Onboard Computer Systems |
Scarna Jenari
New Eden Technology Services
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 20:13:00 -
[28] - Quote
Rob Crowley wrote:Risingson wrote:I am a private single person hobby coder who was hoping for an easy way to monetize his work to buy a new server, pay for its housing costs and ofc some shinies for my wife and kid. Easy as this. These rather humble wishes (depending on your definition of shinies) should be affordable by donations. In my experience the EVE community is made up of mostly adults who are willing to donate for a good service. If your users are not willing to donate what makes you think they'd be willing to pay up-front? While it is true that people do indeed donate for a good service, it is a very small percentage that do so. Most users of a website/application don't donate because they simply don't have to and from experience, it's less than 1%. I believe that third party developers should have the right to charge for their work. Every tool available supplements the experience of Eve where CCP have neither the time nor inclination to produce the tools that are currently available. And to be fair, the quality and support of these tools far surpasses anything that CCP could offer under their current regime. I'm of the opinion that this helps retain users and therefore the income of CCP.
What I would like to see is an agreement between CCP and a third party developer (TPD) pertaining to the ability for TPDs to charge for their work. One possible implementation would be as follows: 1. A legal agreement signed between CCP and TPD as long as TPD is legally permitted to enter into a contract and set up a trading bank account (either as an individual of consenting age or as an authorised representative of a legal entity such as an LLP or limited company). 2. CCP sets up a bank account specifically for third party developer usage. No TPD will be permitted access to this bank account except for the ability to deposit funds into it. 3. TPD can charge for their application as long as the funds acquired from selling that application are entered into the bank account belonging to CCP. Each TBD will be assigned a reference number used to distinguish their own application and used as a payment reference into the bank account. 4. It will be the responsibility of TPDs to ensure that their software licensing provisions are in place, that the TPD agreement with CCP is valid and that sales are entered into CCP's bank account. Failure to do so will nullify any agreement and CCP should take action to protect their IP (as the case is now). 5. CCP take a proportion of the TPD application sales as their royalty/commission/fee payment from the TPD bank account and transfer it to their own corporate bank account. This proportion should be written into the agreement from the start and changing such percentage should require a notice term and a cancellation provision. 6. The balance of the TPD bank account is paid to the TPD to an account nominated in the legal agreement. TPD will be responsible for reporting any income as appropriate to the authorities under their jurisdiction. CCP will be responsible for any income received as royalties/commissions/fees.
I'm not saying the above is perfect by any means but maybe it's a starting point for some discussion. |
Risingson
83
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 10:07:00 -
[29] - Quote
I was thinking of a yearly payment to ccp for being allowed to charge. Nothing more to manage.
Another question: Would we be allowed to charge rl money to remove the display of advertisements? Although i hate displaying ads why the f should i do a showroom for somebody selling s**t. Eveeye Prototype YD-114 Onboard Computer Systems |
Iam Farve
DH consulting
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 01:24:00 -
[30] - Quote
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:Seith Kali wrote:Quote:At a later date, CCP may choose to begin charging fees or collecting royalties for the
rights granted herein. However, CCP shall provide Developer of no less than ninety
(90) calendar daysGÇÖ notice prior to doing so, and in accordance with Section 6.4,
Developer may terminate this Agreement upon written notice to CCP. Good luck. Indeed. This is a nice bait-and-switch clause. "Please spend a ton of time and effort to make a shiny app that supports our product and adds value to it. Then pray that we do not alter the deal. Much."
Without that clause, CCP could change its mind, charge us a fee for the license and we would only have 7 days to accept it or not like any other changes in the license agreements. |
|
Arkarn
DeathByDestruction
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 17:15:00 -
[31] - Quote
Judging by the fact there's been no feedback for the last month from any devs I assume we'll be waiting another year or so for any word on the developer licence, and it'll probably still not suit most developer's needs or concerns. |
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
3312
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 17:31:00 -
[32] - Quote
Since we have no intention of putting this license into effect anytime real soon there has been no need to act on the feedback in any kind of rapid fashion. We put it out for review as you guys were asking to see it.
This will come into effect first when we open the SSO signups to everyone, and before that happens we will be sure to respond to feedback. CCP FoxFour // Game Designer // @regnerba
|
|
Veetor Nara
WE FIGHT
7
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 19:15:00 -
[33] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Since we have no intention of putting this license into effect anytime real soon there has been no need to act on the feedback in any kind of rapid fashion. We put it out for review as you guys were asking to see it.
This will come into effect first when we open the SSO signups to everyone, and before that happens we will be sure to respond to feedback.
I know this may sound childish, but I think a lot of us have no experience in reading legal text. Is there going to be an' easy to understand' (and by that I mean a TLDR) version like the ones on https://creativecommons.org/choose/ ?
|
Wollari
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
76
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 21:36:00 -
[34] - Quote
Due to recent events: quote from another post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4925830#post4925830 I'm not sure if the current state of the license is already covering this topic. I know that the license covers "no benefits for money", but I'm not sure if this covers revenue from 3rd parties. Maybe the license you get updated to make this clear as well
- A player should not get any benefits (isk, features, etc) by using a service that creates revenue for the developer (example: click on banner ads, affiliate links, etc).
DOTLAN EveMaps-á| Your out-of-game map, navigation toolset, sov database, etc. since 2008 |
omgdutch2005
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.08 20:15:00 -
[35] - Quote
can we still sign it somewere?
I made 2 non-profit soundboards(using no eve sounds at most the logo of a eve player..), and google play tought it was funny to insta-ban me for copyright infridgement and all kind of stuff....
without any complaints the apps are delte (and all other applications i had uploaded to google play :/
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Developer_License_Agreement - wiki is dead |
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P C C P Alliance
3569
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 12:44:00 -
[36] - Quote
New, and probably final, version of the license is up: https://developers.testeveonline.com/resource/license-agreement CCP FoxFour // Game Designer // @CCP_FoxFour |
|
Risingson
85
|
Posted - 2014.10.19 14:14:00 -
[37] - Quote
May i accept real life currency payments to remove ads from an app ? Eveeye Maps Alpha | Eveeye-áPrototype YD-114 Onboard Computer Systems |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |