4 ms·
I agree that ignorance of scrollytelling existence was the most likely cause for the situation. If you put the CDN bandwidth tester file aside. Wouldn't a pay
by frankydp 10y ago
I agree that ignorance of scrollytelling existence was the most likely cause for the situation.
If you put the CDN bandwidth tester file aside.
Wouldn't a paying client of scrollytelling be able to distribute that product (CSS included) if they wanted to? If their platform is a content creator/editor then the purchaser should be able to redistribute, and if they are a production shop then the same would be true. If not wouldn't it be similar to photoshop or sublime claiming copyright on something created with those tools, and if they are a production shop something similar to a commercial studio claiming copyright to something they produced and then sold to someone after they resold it.
I understand they are providing a service and a value add, but wouldn't the output belong to the purchaser? I assume scrollytelling could have a very onerous license that prohibits this, but it seems if their customers knew those limitation they would probably be hesitant to purchase.
- danso 10y agoI'm assuming that scrollytelling has this as part of their terms. I mean, that's the only way to get customers to pay the €399/month subscription fee [0], which seems to be the minimum offering, i.e. there's no plan for just using the editor and then exporting it as flat files that can be uploaded to any file server. [0] https://www.scrollytelling.io/#pricing https://www.scrollytelling.io/#pricing