[quote:3jbt7qw4]So I'm just going to ramble a bit about the license, most of what I say is probably going to be irrelevant, but since you asked for feedback, here goes:
Not at all irrelevant! I'm happy people are reading it and giving feedback, it's really important.
[quote:3jbt7qw4]You must inform Scirra of a licensed employee's termination in all cases or only if you want a new license? What if I terminate an employee but he keeps the license? Shouldn't the "named employee license" only be usable by said person within the context of the business or can the employee use the license for its own benefit?
Rephrased for clarity in next revision:
If the license is issued to a named employee and that employee is no longer under employment by the business, the license is no longer valid for use. You are allowed a reissue of the license, to do this please email a copy of the license to Scirra. We will then revoke the Business License and issue you with a new Business License.
[quote:3jbt7qw4]Might want to define what "revenue" means, preferrably in section A.1. Does it mean profit or raw income? Before or after taxes? Does paying the employee constitute an expense?
I don't think this needs changing, revenue in business is clearly defined as all income before any deductions (taxes, expenses etc).
[quote:3jbt7qw4]You don't need to pay *Scirra*, other conditions might apply.
Edited for clarity in next revision.
[quote:3jbt7qw4]May also put in a clause saying you're free to modify and/or reverse engineer the OUTPUT of the program.
Edited to:
Without express written permission from Scirra you are not permitted to reverse engineer any part of the Construct 2 software or the Construct 2 licensing system. You are not permitted to distribute or generate your own licenses or versions of Construct 2 designed to circumvent restrictions on usage.
[quote:3jbt7qw4]Might want to reinforce that free upgrades are for the "2" version of the editor. You aren't entitled to a free upgrade to Construct 3. Also might want to add that you're not entitled to free access to any addons to construct that may or may not happen.
I think it's clear enough it's for the Construct 2 editor as is. Updates/addons that aren't part of the Construct 2 editor are not implied so I don't think this needs modification.
[quote:3jbt7qw4]Missing a comma between simultaneously and provided. Also the 10 users seems a bit arbitrary but whatever.
It does seem arbitrary but just stops rampant abuse. It seems to be fairly common in other licenses.
[quote:3jbt7qw4]should be "create" instead of "creative".
Thanks
[quote:3jbt7qw4]Or if the work itself is an advertisement. Like I said, there's an use case of construct 2 where the user creates small advergames. Also, the word "online" doesn't make sense here. What if a game I created is being advertised via print, or offline digital media?
Have modified (see above) for advertising content related to work for distribution. Regarding works that are advertisements themselves, I'm happy to restrict this. The asset store is meant to be for people making games, not making advertisements and I want all buyers/sellers to know this.
If there is a professional advertising agency that wants to buy royalty free graphics for these advertisements it's prohibited and they can contact the seller directly if they really want it.
[quote:3jbt7qw4]Licensee must with immediate effect stop using the Licensed Content, destroy, delete and
remove the Licensed Content from Licensee’s premises, computer systems and storage.
[quote:3jbt7qw4]And inform all parties who may have copies of the licensed content to do the same - Example: you must remove your stuff from kongregate as well.
Added Licensee must also make all reasonable efforts to ensure that copies of the licensed content are removed from any locations it has been distributed to.
[quote:3jbt7qw4]Get rid of the word "commercial" here, it makes no sense.
You're right, removed.
[quote:3jbt7qw4]Add a disclaimer stating that you may still not resell the content directly (actually it would be better if you defined "project" in section A.1)
I don't think this needs repeating.
[quote:3jbt7qw4]Also merging C.4 and C.5 would be better for clarity
Merged and removed duplicate statements
[quote:3jbt7qw4]"you must destroy/delete/remove yadda yadda yadda" <-- reinforce this
Edited to If you receive a refund for payment of Licensed Content in part or full, your license is terminated with immediate effect and you must follow all termination procedures listed in (c3). If you purchased Licensed Content at an exclusive price it may be relisted for sale in the store.
[quote:3jbt7qw4]Unless everyone else you're interacting with also has a license? I mean if you buy the ebook for everyone then you could use it for teaching within your organization right?
Added (teaching is only permitted on the condition each student owns a valid license for the e-book).
[quote:3jbt7qw4]Can it be relisted? What if the seller modifies it and relists it? Can the seller still maintain it listed on other sites? Can I then list it?
No and no, this will be covered in the seller agreement though (still being drafted).
Now for the more difficult point
[quote:3jbt7qw4]Please get rid of the "commercial" project. A project is a project is a project. Even with the definition of "commercial" that follows this statement, the license still allows you to use the content to make projects with no intention of being commercial (such as fangames or portfolio pieces) that indirectly generate revenue (by attracting traffic to other ad-supported sections of the site, for instance).
[quote:3jbt7qw4]This is untenable and impractical. Different laws are often contradicting, the licensee isn't obliged to know all laws his work may appear on. A clause where the licensee accepts liability for his work in all applicable jurisdictions would be way way better, and allow you to get rid of the "pornographic/defamatory" clause. Also you mention *********** but neglect violence and gambling, which makes this clause extra-weird.
I'm happy with how it is defined at the moment. I do appreciate that portfolio pieces et al do have indirect benefits. If anyone else wants to weigh in on this it would be appreciated.