SourceForge Terms of Service Change, Users Unhappy

An email fluttering around a few mailing lists has been submitted in various forms here today. It's about changes to the SourceForge terms of service. Some relevant links unclude the old terms, new terms, old privacy statement, new privacy statement and contact for "questions or concerns" (Patrick McGovern, Site Director). Obviously since SF is owned by the same parent company as Slashdot, I'm biased and corrupt and you should ignore my opinions on the subject, but while I don't particularly like this any more then anyone else, I also don't think it's the huge deal that others are making of it. Especially considering projects aren't paying for the free service. You get what you pay for after all. I have attached a summary to this article of the changes that are being called into question if you don't want to do a mental diff on the links above.

This list was submitted by a few different users and was apparently originally posted to several mailing lists, although I don't know who actually originally wrote it. I just quote it here for reference.

1. They can henceforth change the terms without notice, just by posting the new terms on the website. (Currently they are obliged to give 15 days notice by email, a period that we are currently in for this change.)
2. They can henceforth remove user accounts without giving a reason. (Currently they are obliged to have a reason, though the set of acceptable reasons is open-ended.)
3. They're no longer obliged to make the contents of a deleted account available to its owner. (There was previously a "reasonable effort" clause to that effect.)
4. They're no longer obliged to provide notice of changes to the privacy policy, unless the changes are "substantive". (Currently they are obliged to provide notice of any change.)
5. The privacy policy is acquiring a disclaimer that amounts to "this is not true". It actually disclaims the entire privacy policy.

Comments

Pot, Kettle, etc.

[tiltowait]

"You get what you pay for after all."

Hmm, I'm going to say that about Linux now.

Let's see how that get's moderated.

Re:Big deal

[damiangerous]

I am not a lawyer, but I get touchy when people mention the DMCA. Maybe someone would like to clarify what this means.

It means SourceForge won't break the law. The DMCA now requires everyone hosting data to do this, SourceForge is just spelling it out more explicitly than most.

Re:Big deal

[PhotoGuy]

I am not a lawyer, but I get touchy when people mention the DMCA. Maybe someone would like to clarify what this means.

Ummmm, I think that parties, including SourceForge, have to follow the DCMA (it is law, after wall), and they're just letting you know, in their terms of service, that they will comply, as required.

I think it's appropriate they give you the head's up on the fact. This is a good thing, and doesn't warrant panic just because you saw those four letters.

(Well, those four letters do warrant panic in general :-), but not because somebody is simply claiming they will follow the law, as required, but because it's not a great law to start with.)

-me

Re:Big deal

[ibbey]

Umm... It means that they will abide by the terms of the law? The DMCA may be a bad law, but it is the law nonetheless. Unless they choose to fight a particular case in court, Sourceforge is obligated to obey the law. And since they have know obligation to fight any case in court, let alone all of them, the clause is necessary.

Re:Big deal

[Hemos]

It's a legal requirement. All TOS must have DMCA compliance terms, per Federal Guidelines. That's basically saying that you need to contact us via DMCA , and this is what happens.