Topic: NEM (XEM) Official Thread - 100% New Code - Easy To Use APIs - page 855. (Read 2985787 times)

You have made one assumption, that is, the agreement is only about the templates. The contention here is the ambiguity of the agreement which may or may not include all of the NEM code.

If it means all of NEM code and the person claimed to have submitted that in his/her submission as his, then he/she is in breach.

If you believe it does not mean all of NEM code and I am not sure about it, which I am not sure really, then there is already ambiguity. You can call me paranoid or anything, but the fact is, I work on certainty, i.e., let's make it 100% certain that we are talking about the templates, and the templates alone. Nothing else.

Then I am agreeable. Otherwise, I don't want to live to regret this very day just because someone says it does not include NEM code.

If you look at the agreement, it was generated in 2012. All I can say is, this is one contract agreement that has been sharpened and reiterated multiple times by people who are far more intelligent than all of us put together, and they are lawyers. Most of us here are just speculators and coders with limited life and business experiences.

Oh man.

The benefits of decentralization rise again.

Seriously? Rockethead, too? 

I guarantee it.

This is just basic economics and greed. It's just the way it is. I think when dealing with large, established companies agreements like this you've got to read extremely carefully - regardless of that companies reputation, good or bad.

I am thankful though that some prominent members of the NEM team recognize this.

I did, nowhere does it say that.
You have to have the rights to the code you submit (which are the templates).
The "Employer" passages are for the cases where you are an employee for a company and your employer owns the code you write, so you need persmission. Someone who doesn't work for NEM and codes his own templates didn't violate the agreement.

Thank you for waiting. I'm still waiting for an answer to help us understand and add to the other information we are gathering.

Technically, if you look at the agreement, he has breached it. He is in trouble.

 

What happens if a random person not actively involved with NEM submits templates? Does MS own NEM then? That could happen any day, because anyone can submit templates.

Tldr;

This matter has been sought with two lawyers. Both think that it is at best ambiguous, which ties in very much with my conclusion. We can argue until the cows come home, but as one who has been around in business for the longest time and have seen many more agreements in my life, I have no doubt in my mind that the agreement was structured for their benefit, i.e., ambiguous enough to turn things around when they want to.

If NEM was a shit coin, they won't care. But if NEM becomes a hot property, that is when NEM will be slaughtered using this agreement.

Please refrain from saying that if Ethereum did that then, there shouldn't be a problem. I would say that is what 99% of the population will think. I belong to the 1% who will look specifically at the problem without trying to be influenced by anything else.

The problem here is the agreement and how all this is structured, not whether Ethereum has signed or not. Good luck to them. The agreement is explicit enough to show ambiguity.

Please do not conclude in what you want to believe it to be. If your command of law lexicon and innuendos is absent, don't even contemplate on making any conclusion.

In the absence of any legal knowledge, the power of your English Language is important. And in law, the use of the language is so important that you need to really understand beyond what a simple word can mean, and how this very word should be read in its entirety, within the context of the agreement.

In the context of the entire agreement, the Project can be called NEM and in the context of the entire agreement, it can mean to say that MS can take full rights of it, i.e., NEM to be given away free. You can argue about it, but the ambiguity is there. If there is ambiguity, there is room for exploitation, and exploit they will.

I only need to ask one question. If they are sincere, then let's make it very clear. If not, I do not believe the agreement is done in all sincerity.

The fact that we write pages about this shows its ambiguity. It is so easy to judge from what has transpired in the last couple of days.

We are just submitting templates (some shell scripts). Why wouldn't that be something we can afford?


No, just wrong.
You don't seem like you are a developer so let me explain to you what associated documentation means. It's a document which explains what the code does, for instance lists each individual function in the code and explains what it does. Nothing more. Plus it would have to be submitted with the code.


Also, again ... everybody can submit templates, they don't have to be associated with the project.

My advice is this:

Do we need Azure?

Secondly, if we do jump on board, i say this - SEEK LEGAL ADVICE FIRST.
And i mean professional, solid legal advice from more than one lawyer experienced in the field.

Maybe I wasn't quite nuanced, but see my last post, I think there is reason to be suspicious.

No it doesn't cover the entire project. The definitions are also quite clear. With "Project" they refer to the project you are contributing to, namely Microsoft Azure, and the code your are submitting are just a few templates.

I have no idea how you can interpret this into it. Also it just wouldn't make any sense, because everybody can submit templates to Azure. They don't have to be actively involved with NEM or whatever crypto. A random person could just submit a few templates and Microsoft would own NEM? Sry, not buying it.

This would also mean that Microsoft now owns WordPress, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Redis, CakePHP, Django, C#, Node.js, PHP, Python, Ruby,... fucking Java? I think Oracle would have a word to say about that.

The project is Azure.
The moment you submit code they own that particular code. Since the code is almost nothing I'd be fine with that.

There is nothing in the agreement that suggests that they would own NEM or gain any rights other than on the code that we submit. As is clearly stated. We submit jack shit. 0 lines of actual NEM code is being submitted.

I'm not a legal expert but so far I haven't heard anyone clearly explain what sections of the agreement would grant microsofts rights to actual NEM code and why. Don't say you're not a legal expert so you shouldn't make assumptions. If you guys are all lawyers than explain some stuff to us and maybe we won't think you're paranoid anymore.

You guys just keep pointing out sections. Those sections don't sound problematic to most people because they only seem to entail the code we submit. Which again is very little and not at all related to actual code of NIS.

Anyway, we're never all going to agree so we might as well stop discussing it.

Glad to see NEM community is full of energy and heat. 

Indeed, things may be changing along the road.

Can we just use the pay as you go plan without signing a agreement?
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/tag/baas/

I would be wary of Microsoft too. As with all big corporate entities, EULA's and T&C's are written for their best interest.

On a related note, it is crazy the amount of personal data Microsoft collects. It is written to basically cover anything one would do on a pc.
This is from the January 2016 Microsoft Privacy Statement
https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/privacystatement/

"Personal Data We Collect"
"We collect your first and last name, email address, postal address, phone number, and other similar contact data."

"We collect passwords, password hints, and similar security information used for authentication and account access."

"We collect data about you such as your age, gender, country and preferred language."

"We collect data about your interests and favorites, such as the teams you follow in a sports app, the stocks you track in a finance app, or the favorite cities you add..."

"We collect data necessary to process your payment if you make purchases, such as your payment instrument number (such as a credit card number), and the security code..."

"We collect data about how you and your device interact with our services. This includes data, such as the features you use, the items you purchase, the web pages you visit, and the search terms you enter..."

"We collect data about your contacts and relationships if you use a Microsoft service to manage contacts, or to communicate or interact with other people or organizations."

"We collect data about your location, which can be either precise or imprecise. Precise location data can be Global Position System (GPS) data, as well as data identifying nearby..."

"We collect content of your files and communications when necessary to provide you with the services you use. For example, if you receive an email using Outlook.com, we need..."

"We also collect the content of messages you send to us, such as feedback and product reviews you write, or questions and information you provide for customer support..."

"Reasons We Share Personal Data"
"We share your personal data with your consent or as necessary..."

It does not say you will be asked for your consent, it seems to be stated indirectly that you consent to it.

Windows 10 privacy settings.
https://imgur.com/l0xUUo4

I don't think you read right, I never said they are trying to steal the altcoins. Maybe patent and control the tech behind them, yes. Not steal them. Go back and read where I mentioned that, you will find none.
There is enough scammers in cryptoworld already doing that. 

I have NEMs long term future in mind. But that has nothing to do with this.

You are paranoid.

Monopoly - sure
Trying to steal the altcoins - ridiculous

What the hell? It's just not the play going on here with azure. LOL

Let me guess, let's not fathom a mega corporation trying to take out potential future competitors, instead let's focus on temporary satisfaction of having a quick P&D for being listed with Azure instead of thinking about the possible long term benefits of a project like NEM succeeding on its own.