"By furnishing your User Content to Medium, you give Medium a non-exclusive worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable license to utilize all copyright rights now in existence or that may arise in the future with respect to your User Content, in any medium that now exists or may arise in the future, as well as to do anything else that is reasonably appropriate to our Service and its use of your User Content (including, but not limited to, use of your name in association with your User Content to identify you as the contributor). The license has no restriction as to the medium, dissemination method, type of Service we may offer, or the type of systems or products that may be used in conjunction with your User Content."
Anyone went into this fully conscious about this aspect? Do you feel it's reasonable?
To be honest, at this point I think I'd rather pay for a service and keep ownership.
How could anyone host your content on their servers without a license? How could they link to your content from a widget if it wasn't transferable? Is there a comparable TOS that you prefer?
"By submitting Content to Automattic for inclusion on your Website, you grant Automattic a world-wide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish the Content solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting your blog."
So when the official Medium iOS app comes out, they'll have to go back to every single contributor and get them to agree to having their articles published in the iOS app.
Thanks, I learned that form mrkurt's link to a previous discussion below. Over there they also suggest that Medium's license is a bit more far-reaching than wordpress' license.
Still, maybe a wake up call to check what all those "licenses" and "contracts" that we click-to-agree on all the time mean, and to see if we can't roll our own every now and then.
Wow after reading that, they might as well have written: "We can do whatever we want, whenever we want, with everything you put here, regardless of anything that happens".
That's a disgusting license. However, it reflects in the content they have. I've never read anything useful on Medium. It's mostly just blog posts complaining about random things (of course, I'm subject to selection bias in that the Medium posts I see are those linked from HN or Twitter).
"a non-exclusive worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable license to utilize all copyright rights now in existence or that may arise in the future with respect to your User Content, in any medium that now exists or may arise in the future, as well as to do anything else that is reasonably appropriate to our Service and its use of your User Content (including, but not limited to, use of your name in association with your User Content to identify you as the contributor)."
With this license, Medium can bind all your blog posts into a dead-tree book, put your name on the cover in giant font, sell it in Barnes and Noble, and give you not one cent for it.
Now let me edit this a bit...
"You give Medium a non-exclusive copyright license to display your content worldwide."
Thanks for the link. The issue is discussed repeatedly in that thread, and according to some posters the "license" they want is needed to show the content on their site in the first place. Interesting.
Still. The company that manages my server has no terms like that. It's all my responsibility, to roam all of freedom-land until I'd reach a border called the Law, with no lecturing on rules in-between (if you read around the terms & service page)!
Your VPS provider is operating according to common-carrier provisions. It's a bit like the postal system, or safety-deposit boxes--since you manage the software, and they only handle things as raw disk blocks/IP packets and below, they don't need a license to them.
https://medium.com/p/9db0094a1e0f
"By furnishing your User Content to Medium, you give Medium a non-exclusive worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable license to utilize all copyright rights now in existence or that may arise in the future with respect to your User Content, in any medium that now exists or may arise in the future, as well as to do anything else that is reasonably appropriate to our Service and its use of your User Content (including, but not limited to, use of your name in association with your User Content to identify you as the contributor). The license has no restriction as to the medium, dissemination method, type of Service we may offer, or the type of systems or products that may be used in conjunction with your User Content."
Anyone went into this fully conscious about this aspect? Do you feel it's reasonable?
To be honest, at this point I think I'd rather pay for a service and keep ownership.