Quote:
The Joomla Extensions Directory is a free service provided for the Joomla community under the oversight of the Community Leadership Team (CLT). This terms of use page describes the terms upon which you may access and use the Directory. By using the Directory, you affirm that you have read and accept all of the following terms and conditions, which may be updated by the CLT or it's appointees from time to time with notice being posted via an official blog. You must also agree the Directory Guidelines when submitting listings, ratings, comments, reviews or reports.
Seems to me to be a duplicate of the earlier sentence (that you must agree with the terms to use the entire site should include all actions in this sentence) or at least grammatically weird.
Quote:
The CLT and Open Source Matters (OSM) may offer different levels of participation and benefits related to the Directory. Some of these enhanced levels may include a cost. Levels that do include a cost are provided on an opt-in basis. Basic listings in the JED will always be free. The CLT has the right, in its sole discretion, to set and revise rules concerning what benefits are offered to each level of participants. Your continued use of the Joomla Extensions Directory constitutes your agreement to be bound by the rules as modified.
I'm sorry to be a pedant, but that just sounds majorly
weird. What's with all the different responsibilities? In my previous critique I already wrote about that it is problematic that there are different entities apparently battling over who gets to be the leader of the pack. Now you have also introduced the CLT to the Terms of Service. I thought that the JED was governed by the JED Team, which was in turn responsible to the OSM (first, now also the CLT). Why don't you just put the JED Team in there and let the other matters be implicit.
Why do the ToS include the
possibility of paid listings in the future? Not that I'm just completely against creating a multi-tier setup where you pay for "special" listings, I actually think that it is particularly weird to introduce it in such a backhanded manner. If you do plan for this, how do you expect developers react to it? "Oh interesting, here is a partial subversion of the community spirit out of the blue, makes me feel all warm and cozy now that I'm just presented with it as a fact, let me open my wallet for you." If you made this public, I can guarantee you that it would create quite a firestorm. I guess you anticipate that and the fact that I read about it first here seems to be a sign of that. But you do realize that that makes it a very bad idea, right?
Quote:
You acknowledge that Open Source Matters or its content providers, own the copyright to the materials and reviews in the Directory unless otherwise expressly indicated. You agree not to copy, reproduce, download, disseminate, scrape, publish, or transfer content in any form or by any means, except with our prior written permission. You further agree not to collect any information from the Directory using automated means (e.g., spiders or scraping).
[Nitpick] I was really hoping that we would at some time go the wikipedia route and utilize an open license for content, like the CreativeCommons. I understand that you are trying to protect a monopoly on the extensions listing, but... why do you do that?
Quote:
By providing content for the Directory, you grant OSM and the Joomla Project a worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to reproduce, edit, publish, translate, and distribute the content in any medium whatsoever.
[Nitpick] Ditto. With CC, you'd have just that.
Quote:
- All extensions, listings and linked sites must be compatible with the latest version of the Joomla license.
"Sites" are not software and can thus not be compatible with the GPL. I mentioned this before:
Quote:
- All extensions, listings and linked sites must comply with the Joomla Trademark Policy.
It is implicit in the trademark policy that they must be. This rule is like saying "Your extensions must not murder people" - it is already determined to be unlawful by a higher instance. Likewise, the Joomla trademark policy applies without the need to put that as a rule into the JED ToS.
Quote:
- You must not violate or attempt to violate the security of the Joomla! Extensions Directory, interfere or attempt to interfere with the proper functioning of our Directory, servers or networks.
I would just love to hear what an attempted violation of the security or interference of the JED looks like. I think this weasel word coining could render this whole paragraph useless.
Quote:
- You must not use the Directory to send unsolicited emails (spamming).
Just out of curiosity: Is this actually technically possible?
Quote:
Any person or company is welcome to submit their extensions, tools or libraries for inclusion in the Joomla Extensions Directory.
You should probably better write "software libraries". Otherwise you might find other people dumping rather large buildings on you.
Quote:
All listings must abide by the Directory Guidelines. Failure to comply may result in removal from the Directory.
I'm quite sure this is also implicit.
Quote:
All votes and reviews must comply with the Directory Guidelines.
Also probably implicit.
Quote:
We reserve the right, but not the obligation, to monitor the content of the Joomla Extensions Directory and usage of the site.
If you don't reserve it, there is no need to specify that.
Quote:
- Be investigated by the assigned team member in conjunction with a Team Manager. During the time of investigation, up to 14 days, a listing may be temporarily unpublished and the listing owner notified. If an email is sent to the listing owner during this time, a response must be received within 5 days, otherwise the investigation will end and the listing owner will have waived their rights to a suspension review.
The specification that it is a team member with a manager is unnecessary. Expecting the whole world to be responsive within 5 days is ludicrous, particularly when we're dealing with non-commercial extensions.
Quote:
- If a violation is found, the violating account will be immediately deactivated and any listings will be unpublished for a defined period based on the frequency of violations and the level of seriousness.
If you want to spare yourself headaches in the future, lay down the math here, or prepare to be accused of arbitrariness.
Quote:
Depending on the Suspension period, the developer may seek a suspension review by the JED Council and a member of the CLT, with the member of the CLT being the final decision maker.
Well, now we also have a JED
Council. How many more bodies will receive responsibilities on the JED in the future?
Quote:
If no reply to the suspension notice is received in 14 days, the extension will be permanently removed from the Joomla Extensions Directory.
A period of 14 days is slightly more reasonable, but still in the "we could screw with a developer who goes off grid or on holiday for two weeks". Make it a month, that wouldn't kill anybody.
Quote:
All of a developer's extensions are to be unpublished for a minimum period of one month (30 Days) for the first minor violation. The Team Manager has the right, but not the obligation, to pardon or adjust down a first time minor violation as a show of "good faith".
One more point on the list of "who's gonna be responsible next?", then another non-claim, finally: fingerquotes? In a ToS?
Really?
Quote:
All of a developer's extensions are to be unpublished for a minimum period of three months (90 Days) for the second minor violation or the first major violation. A review of this suspension may be requested within 7 days of notice of the suspension.
Seems like there is some exponential growth in your application of force. Let's be clear what you are talking about here, though: One month of suspension is a serious hit to a business having a listing, three months could flat out kill it. I would say that this is unreasonable and I would strongly suggest to grow punishment by a rate of 50% compared to the minimum or last offense.
Quote:
All of a developer's extensions are to be unpublished for a minimum period of six months (180 Days) for the third minor violation, second major violation or the first serious violation. A review of this suspension may be requested within 7 days of notice of the suspension.
6 Months is like eternity. In 6 months, you could turn a business around and go with another CMS - you could just as well throw them out right away. I think this is again unreasonable.
In general, my problem is whether or not these match up to the proposed depth of offenses, but let me explain in detail:
Quote:
Minor Violation - Consists of but not limited to spamming the JED Team Email (or individual emails), intentionally duplicating listings, creating multiple accounts and other basic offenses.
So minor violations are basically
nuisances. The response should be equal - I would say half a month of suspension.
Quote:
Major Violation - Consists of but not limited to fraudulent activity with voting or reviews, intentionally misleading a JED Team Member when information is required, misrepresenting information in your listing, and other major offenses.
Now we jump straight to outright
fraud. This is where participants actively cause harm to others. I don't think causing harm to others in that manner call for killing a business altogether, so refer to my revising the punishment of this to one and a half month.
Also note the terminology "Team Member" here.
Quote:
Serious Violation - Defrauding the directory Team or Leadership by creating extensions that already exist and trying to pass them as your own (Forks of extensions are allowed, see the Directory Guidelines), making threats, harassing the JED Team or Leadership, fraudulent behavior in sales or listing practices and other serious offenses.
Because now we jump to two classes: Team and Leadership. Really?
And by the way:
You are saying that heckling the team (or its leadership) is worse than causing actual harm to the community. This is far from reasonable.
Quote:
The CLT has final decision for any suspensions.
Just noting this as an example for surprisingly precise determination of responsibility.
To conclude:Many of the rules imply muddled responsibilities, there are a number of inconsistencies and a lot of the language should be double checked by a lawyer.
Far worse, though, is that
what we have here is the blueprint for transitioning the JED into an AppStore. This is a perversion of the community spirit and I am appalled that you have the guts to write it in so clearly. You currently have rules in the ToS that make people give their copyright to you. The only reason why they do that is because the JED is still understood as a community effort. It is all the more clear now that you are actively working on subverting that.
[edit]Removed the portions on acquisition[/edit]
(otherwise I'm going out to buy a hard hat and riot shield, hehe). 
