This is pretty damning. It's pretty amazing how Oculus will lose the VR battle despite being "first". The HTC Vive and other more open solutions for developers that aren't behind a walled garden will win with gamers.
This is going to alienate the indie game (and content?) producers, but there's no way they're going to get big commercial companies to join with those terms of service. When press, it's going to be Oculus that capitulates to a more equitable agreement - Let's say it was Steam - I'd expect them to form an agreement that says in principle "You own the games you produce for our platform and we own the hardware. Working together, we might both sell more units."
This is for user submitted content; not items put up for sale by a developer.
From the linked document
In the event you are a developer who submits User Content to Oculus, you acknowledge and agree that our agreements with you as a developer may supersede this section of the Terms.
I thought the point of the post was that it was "antidemocratic, immoral and plain evil" for developers to contribute to the success of an environment with such user-hostile terms. Am I reading too much into it?
Information Automatically Collected About You When You Use Our Services: -Information about your physical movements and dimensions when you use a virtual reality headset.
So even if I play single player games in my home I have no expectation of privacy anymore.
I have no problem with that if it is an opt-in. Otherwise I expect privacy in my home.
No mobile app is tracking me. The only information stored by the use of my phone is the cell tower location, the use of that information requires a court order in my country (although it is possible that even that isn't stored anymore, I would have to check).
You could make the same warning about writing open source software. Nobody calls that evil. As soon as you release anything under the GPL or MIT license, you're also giving Oculus a worldwide, ... perpetual, .. right to use, ... and distribute it.
Alright, I'll bite. In practice, how does this differ from most open source licenses? Yes, I appreciate that there is a corporate entity which is reserving these rights for itself (non-exclusively), but at some level this writer's response seems a bit overdone. But really, if I license something, say, via an MIT license: Am I not saying in effect that I grant anyone that comes along a "worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free and fully sublicensable right to use, copy, display, store, adapt, publicly perform and distribute such User Content[...]"?
Don't get me wrong, if I want to keep something proprietary and under my control, I best not publish to the Oculus services. But "antidemocratic, immoral and plain evil"? Nonsense.
(note: I didn't read the Oculus terms, more than I want at 5am on a Monday, but am responding directly to what the author's complaint is aimed at.)
I'm not saying anything in conflict with that statement. The MIT License does not require reciprocal licensing nor does the Oculus terms of service. You can only ever license your own work (the "I grant" from my original post) and sub-license the work of others according to the terms you've agreed to with them.
Only do certain open source licenses require re-licensing and re-distribution of derivative products back to the public. That's why I did not mention restrictive open source licenses like the GPL and picked a permissive license in my example.
Oculus terms of service require (among other things) of the user this: By submitting User Content through the Services, you grant Oculus a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual (i.e. lasting forever), non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free and fully sublicensable (i.e. we can grant this right to others) right to use, copy, display, store, adapt, publicly perform and distribute such User Content in connection with the Services... and so on
This is absolutely not the case with the MIT license, which only requires the licensee to do this: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. and nothing else. Oculus license (terms of service) requires the licensee give to Oculus right to his/her User content if he/she agrees to the Oculus license (terms of service).
First a clerical error, in your italicized quote from the Oculus Terms of Service (which aren't even the developer terms of service, it turns out... see https://share.oculus.com/developer-distribution-agreement for the actual developer terms.) You are including the commentary of the article's author; true he/she didn't clearly indicate that they interspersed their commentary in the terms they quoted, but still...
Second, my criticism of the original article (now deleted evidently) was that the author was being hypersensitive and using unwarranted hyperbole to describe a situation they didn't like (and which we now know they misread). My goal is to demonstrate that people, even online, should put forth well reasoned and balanced arguments when stating their case rather than making ham-handed efforts to evoke emotional responses in the absence of any real insight. I bet that author would have been not only fine with, but supportive of certain open source licenses that, really do result in granting the same rights as Oculus was asking for.
Third, you're comparing apples and oranges leading to a completely invalid analysis. you're comparing the rights being granted by the Licensor (the terms you quote from Oculus user terms) and the requirements of the Licensee in the MIT License. Of course they're different... because they're addressing different parties in the agreement. To make the comparison accurate, compare the Licensee terms of the Oculus and those of the MIT License:
Oculus (User TOS): By submitting User Content through the Services, you grant Oculus a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free and fully sublicensable right to use, copy, display, store, adapt, publicly perform and distribute such User Content in connection with the Services.
MIT License: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so[clip]
So consider this: I write some fancy-shmancy application and put it on GitHub under the MIT License. Someone comes along... hell, let's say someone acting on behalf of Oculus, and forks that repo and uses the application (perhaps even without modification) in the Oculus store. Well, so long as they comply with the one requirement (reposting of the MIT License in the code) do they not get the same rights? Can I revoke the rights under MIT License... nope. Can I stop them from sublicensing or reselling my software, even if I don't get a cut? Nope. Oh wait... they have to make public any changes they make and publish full source... oh... nope.
In practice, what you give up by even agreeing to the Oculus terms as posted by the article author isn't all that different in practice to what you give up as an IP owner when you choose a permissive open source license. The only real difference is in how the license originates: one case you're offering terms (MIT License) which can be accepted by a Licensee and in the Oculus case they are telling you on which terms they will be your Licensee, take it or leave it. And moreover, I see nothing in the original terms posted that would prevent the IP owner from also licensing the content under any sort of open source license (restrictive or permissive).
The contrast was intended to point out how people get all huffy when a company wants you to agree to permissive rights ("evil", "nondemocratic"[sic], etc)... but then find it just fine when you give essentially the same rights when you license something as open sou...
Seems to me legal departments get to own this stuff till they break the company reputation then the CEO snarls at the chief legal officer and says "what the fuck are you doing?"
"YOU AND VALVE AGREE TO RESOLVE ALL DISPUTES AND CLAIMS BETWEEN US IN INDIVIDUAL BINDING ARBITRATION."
"You grant Valve and its affiliates the worldwide, non-exclusive, right to use, reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, distribute, transmit, transcode, translate, broadcast, and otherwise communicate, and publicly display and publicly perform, your User Generated Content, and derivative works of your User Generated Content, in connection with the operation and promotion of the Steam site."
One key difference is which services this applies to.
Steam: "in connection with the operation and promotion of the Steam site"
Oculus: "in connection with the Services".
Where services are defined as "use of physical goods, platform services, software, websites, applications, and content"
So their definition of "service" is "physical goods, platform services, software, websites, applications, and content". Does this mean that if I wrote, say, a 3D modelling tool for the Rift, than anything that my users create could be grabbed by them (and given to others) for free?
28 comments
[ 5.8 ms ] story [ 75.5 ms ] threadIf devs don't develop and gamers don't consume, it will stop.
Unfortunately, it requires things to be bad enough that a big sector of the consumer sector follows through, which is rare.
From the linked document
In the event you are a developer who submits User Content to Oculus, you acknowledge and agree that our agreements with you as a developer may supersede this section of the Terms.
Information Automatically Collected About You When You Use Our Services: -Information about your physical movements and dimensions when you use a virtual reality headset.
So even if I play single player games in my home I have no expectation of privacy anymore.
You probably wouldn't be happy to know that many many mobile apps track every click you make.
No mobile app is tracking me. The only information stored by the use of my phone is the cell tower location, the use of that information requires a court order in my country (although it is possible that even that isn't stored anymore, I would have to check).
Don't get me wrong, if I want to keep something proprietary and under my control, I best not publish to the Oculus services. But "antidemocratic, immoral and plain evil"? Nonsense.
(note: I didn't read the Oculus terms, more than I want at 5am on a Monday, but am responding directly to what the author's complaint is aimed at.)
With the MIT license you grant those permissions for your own work, not for their work back to you.
I'm not saying anything in conflict with that statement. The MIT License does not require reciprocal licensing nor does the Oculus terms of service. You can only ever license your own work (the "I grant" from my original post) and sub-license the work of others according to the terms you've agreed to with them.
Only do certain open source licenses require re-licensing and re-distribution of derivative products back to the public. That's why I did not mention restrictive open source licenses like the GPL and picked a permissive license in my example.
Oculus terms of service require (among other things) of the user this: By submitting User Content through the Services, you grant Oculus a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual (i.e. lasting forever), non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free and fully sublicensable (i.e. we can grant this right to others) right to use, copy, display, store, adapt, publicly perform and distribute such User Content in connection with the Services... and so on
This is absolutely not the case with the MIT license, which only requires the licensee to do this: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. and nothing else. Oculus license (terms of service) requires the licensee give to Oculus right to his/her User content if he/she agrees to the Oculus license (terms of service).
First a clerical error, in your italicized quote from the Oculus Terms of Service (which aren't even the developer terms of service, it turns out... see https://share.oculus.com/developer-distribution-agreement for the actual developer terms.) You are including the commentary of the article's author; true he/she didn't clearly indicate that they interspersed their commentary in the terms they quoted, but still...
Second, my criticism of the original article (now deleted evidently) was that the author was being hypersensitive and using unwarranted hyperbole to describe a situation they didn't like (and which we now know they misread). My goal is to demonstrate that people, even online, should put forth well reasoned and balanced arguments when stating their case rather than making ham-handed efforts to evoke emotional responses in the absence of any real insight. I bet that author would have been not only fine with, but supportive of certain open source licenses that, really do result in granting the same rights as Oculus was asking for.
Third, you're comparing apples and oranges leading to a completely invalid analysis. you're comparing the rights being granted by the Licensor (the terms you quote from Oculus user terms) and the requirements of the Licensee in the MIT License. Of course they're different... because they're addressing different parties in the agreement. To make the comparison accurate, compare the Licensee terms of the Oculus and those of the MIT License:
Oculus (User TOS): By submitting User Content through the Services, you grant Oculus a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free and fully sublicensable right to use, copy, display, store, adapt, publicly perform and distribute such User Content in connection with the Services.
MIT License: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so[clip]
So consider this: I write some fancy-shmancy application and put it on GitHub under the MIT License. Someone comes along... hell, let's say someone acting on behalf of Oculus, and forks that repo and uses the application (perhaps even without modification) in the Oculus store. Well, so long as they comply with the one requirement (reposting of the MIT License in the code) do they not get the same rights? Can I revoke the rights under MIT License... nope. Can I stop them from sublicensing or reselling my software, even if I don't get a cut? Nope. Oh wait... they have to make public any changes they make and publish full source... oh... nope.
In practice, what you give up by even agreeing to the Oculus terms as posted by the article author isn't all that different in practice to what you give up as an IP owner when you choose a permissive open source license. The only real difference is in how the license originates: one case you're offering terms (MIT License) which can be accepted by a Licensee and in the Oculus case they are telling you on which terms they will be your Licensee, take it or leave it. And moreover, I see nothing in the original terms posted that would prevent the IP owner from also licensing the content under any sort of open source license (restrictive or permissive).
The contrast was intended to point out how people get all huffy when a company wants you to agree to permissive rights ("evil", "nondemocratic"[sic], etc)... but then find it just fine when you give essentially the same rights when you license something as open sou...
"YOU AND VALVE AGREE TO RESOLVE ALL DISPUTES AND CLAIMS BETWEEN US IN INDIVIDUAL BINDING ARBITRATION."
"You grant Valve and its affiliates the worldwide, non-exclusive, right to use, reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, distribute, transmit, transcode, translate, broadcast, and otherwise communicate, and publicly display and publicly perform, your User Generated Content, and derivative works of your User Generated Content, in connection with the operation and promotion of the Steam site."
One key difference is which services this applies to.
Steam: "in connection with the operation and promotion of the Steam site"
Oculus: "in connection with the Services". Where services are defined as "use of physical goods, platform services, software, websites, applications, and content"