3 ms·
Almost all the instances of people getting upset by language like that it's because they refuse to understand that it's required for you the customer being able
by knorker 2y ago
Almost all the instances of people getting upset by language like that it's because they refuse to understand that it's required for you the customer being able to share the photo with others.
Why sublicense? Well, because the way they create the service may involve a third party CDN.
In this case though, the limiting part where this license will ONLY be used to do what you the customer intended (e.g. share or publish the photo on their platform) is missing. And that's suspicious.
- dathinab 2y agobut it didn't matter weather they have a reasonable use case for it it's a gross overreach they could abuse at any point in time without any additional consent from you one which can force you to grant them permissions you legally are not allowed to do weather they had no intention to to abuse it really is irrelevant as long as they didn't legally constrain themselves further in ways they don't do furthermore given Adobes post actions assuming they have no intention to abuse it and will not start having such intentions in the future is IMHO highly foolish with a large degree of worldly innocence
- knorker 2y agoI agree. Like I said, most of these "sublicense[...]third parties[...]publish" things end with "for the sole purpose of providing the service you asked for". This license doesn't seem to do that. And that's a problem. Because then they can abuse it. I thought the third paragraph in my previous comment made it clear that I'm not excusing Adobe, here. Your reply seems to assume that I'm on Adobe's side.