一些关于自定义默认服务条款的注意事项

[angus (Angus McLeod)]

您 Discourse 安装中的服务条款，您可能并未仔细查看过。它们很可能无关紧要，但也存在（尽管很小）的可能性。

最近，我出于自身目的对标准 Discourse 服务条款进行了初步审查，并整理了一些您可能觉得有用的笔记。但这并非法律建议；如果您对自己的服务条款有所顾虑，应寻求专业法律意见。

我重点关注了我认为对这份特定文件最重要的变更。请记住，在您论坛适用的任何司法管辖区中，服务条款可能包含这些条款完全未考虑的重要方面（例如，您所在司法管辖区的类似SOPPA和DMCA的法规）。请牢记，这不是法律建议，因为我并非您所在司法管辖区的执业律师，且我的评论并非专门针对您的 Discourse 实例。

我的大多数笔记适用于自行运行 Discourse 安装的用户，但也有些领域我认为 Discourse 本身应认真考虑修改，因为这些内容默认包含在标准 Discourse 安装中，且实际上不应包含。我已用 标记了这些笔记。

引言

关于这句话：

以下条款和条件规范对 %{company_domain} 网站及其上或通过该网站提供的所有内容、服务和产品的所有使用，包括但不限于 %{company_domain} 论坛软件、%{company_domain} 支持论坛和 %{company_domain} 托管服务（“托管”）（统称为“网站”）。

我删除了“包括但不限于”之后（含）的所有内容。我的公司并未提供论坛软件、支持论坛或托管服务。

请注意，如果 Discourse 仅是您网站的一部分，此范围条款宽泛到可能被解释为涵盖您的整个网站以及您可能提供的任何独立产品和服务。如果您在与 Discourse 实例相同的域名上提供任何其他产品或服务，应考虑修改此条款。否则，Discourse 的条款完全可能适用于您所做的所有事情。

此范围条款确实应针对标准 Discourse 发行版重新起草。在子域名上使用 Discourse 很常见，Discourse 的服务条款没有必要像现在这样适用于域名的所有部分。此外，除 Discourse 公司本身外，让每家公司都适用“……论坛软件”等条款也是不恰当的。一个相对简单的修改方案是：

以下条款和条件规范对 %{forum_domain} 网站及其上或通过该网站提供的所有内容、服务和产品的所有使用（统称为“网站”）。

请注意，论坛域名不一定等同于公司域名。Discourse 公司可以为自己的网站保留原始版本。

您的账户 - 保持不变。

贡献者责任 - 保持不变。

用户内容许可 - 保持不变。

付款与续订 - 我已完全删除此部分。我目前并未就我的 Discourse 实例收取任何费用，如果/当我开始收费时，我可能会希望有不同的条款。

服务 - 已删除。我不提供论坛托管服务。

“付款与续订”和“服务”条款确实应从标准 Discourse 服务条款中移除，仅由 Discourse 公司根据需要使用。这些条款仅与作为托管公司的 Discourse 相关。它们实际上可能会引发问题，因为它们表明论坛托管方提供了其并未提供的服务。

网站访客责任 - 保持不变。

发布在其他网站上的内容 - 保持不变。

版权侵权与 DMCA 政策 - 保持不变。

知识产权 - 保持不变。

广告 - 我已删除此部分。如果您确实或未来可能希望展示广告，可考虑重新起草此条款。该条款细节不足，且使用了未定义的术语，如“无广告升级”和“服务账户”。

署名 - 我已删除此部分。我不提供论坛软件或论坛软件托管服务，因此这不相关。

如上所述，标准 Discourse 发行版可能不应包含“署名”条款，因为它指的是标准论坛托管方与其用户之间不存在的关系。Discourse 应仅在其希望包含此内容的 meta 站点及其他站点上重新添加该条款。

变更 - 保持不变。

终止 - 保持不变。

免责声明 - 保持不变，除了：

如果您真的在阅读此内容，这里有一份 礼物。

这很可爱 :)……但不应该成为法律文件的一部分。

责任限制 - 保持不变。

一般陈述与保证 - 保持不变。

赔偿 - 保持不变。

杂项 -

此条款存在多个问题，确实需要重新起草，无论是为了 Discourse 公司的目的，还是为了 Discourse 软件的用户。

1. 它截取了 原始 WordPress 条款 中多个条款（“管辖权与适用法律”、“仲裁协议”和“杂项”）的段落，且未按适当顺序排列。

   顺便提一句，如果我是 WordPress，我会考虑重新起草“杂项”条款，因为在合同中包含“大杂烩”条款是个坏主意。但这并非此处真正的问题。

   至少，Discourse（无论是作为公司还是针对 Discourse 发行版）应直接删除此条款，并按 WordPress 协议中的正常顺序保留那三个原始条款。

2. 对于大多数自行运行 Discourse 的人来说，让他们与用户之间的协议受加利福尼亚州法律管辖，并受以下任一约束，是没有意义的：

   • 旧金山县法院系统；或

   • JAMS，这是一家位于美国的仲裁组织。

   在标准 Discourse 发行版中包含这些以加利福尼亚州和美国为中心的冲突法规则弊大于利，除非论坛位于加利福尼亚州或（可能）美国。

   我建议在标准 Discourse 发行版中完全省略冲突法规则（可能是最佳选择），或使用更通用的仲裁条款，例如 ICC 标准仲裁条款。

缺失条款 - 翻译

WordPress 的服务条款包含一些 Discourse 服务条款中没有的条款，其中大部分与 Discourse 无关。然而，WordPress 关于翻译的条款是相关的，无论是为了 Discourse 公司还是为了自行托管实例的用户，都应考虑将其包含在内。

22. 翻译。

本服务条款最初以英语（美国）编写。我们可能会将这些条款翻译成其他语言。如果翻译版本与英语版本之间存在冲突，则以英语版本为准。

如果包含此条款，服务条款的翻译仍会存在问题（法律翻译是一门专业学科；词语在法律中具有特殊含义），但问题将得到显著缓解。

[codinghorror (Jeff Atwood)]

@kemitchell may have more to say about this on our behalf soon

[kemitchell (Kyle E. Mitchell)]

Thanks, @codinghorror.

@angus, thanks so much for your thoughtful post and diligent analysis. In my time helping companies and communities with terms of service, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a message quite like this one!

I’ve recently stepped in to help CDCK with a few legal needs, and revisiting the terms of service, privacy policy, and other public notices for Discourse forums is right up toward the top. There are a few more pressing needs, but I plan to dive into the public-terms project soon. When I do, I’ll make sure to review your post again, and follow up here.

[tophee (Christoph)]

@angus

If you’re actually reading this, here’s a treat .

Which is cute …but shouldn’t be part of a legal document.

Not that this is something to argue about, but: why? What are the downsides?

[angus (Angus McLeod)]

Because it detracts from the seriousness and substance of the clause it appears in.

You have to remember that lawyers take themselves very seriously.

My first job out of law school was working as a clerk for a senior judge on a big important litigation. I can just imagine how my judge would have reacted if there was this sentence in a contract that was part of that case. Particularly if any of the parties were actually relying on the clause in question.

Just picture it. There’s an old fashioned wood-panelled court room. The seats are filled with lawyers in suits. At the front there’s a bar table with barristers wearing robes and wigs. Three judges walk in (also in robes and wigs) and the whole room stands up, only returning to their seats when the judges take theirs.

The senior counsel for the appellants, Mr Havelock QC, stands up and says

Your honours, we direct the Court’s attention to clause 13, the Disclaimer of Warranties, upon which our case is based.

The Hon. Justice Regius Rumpold interjects

Would Counsel care to explain the role of the 4th sentence of the Disclaimer and how the court should interpret the clause in light of it?

Mr Havelock QC (slightly blushing)

Well your honours, it appears the drafter of this clause had a sense of humour…

(the solicitors sitting behind the barristers on the opposite side of the court smirk).

The Hon. Justice Regius Rumpold interjects again

So this clause, drafted by a comedian, is the main basis of your client’s appeal?

Mr Havelock QC

… ahhh yes your honours. If it please the court…

[tophee (Christoph)]

Hm, while I can indeed imagine that situation (thanks for spelling it out in its interactional details, which I think is very important and often neglected), I am not quite convinced yet that having a humorous sentence in your ToS is a bad thing, even in that court room situation you describe. Because the question is, how the interaction continues. One thing I admire about the law professiona is how much weight arguments have and lawyers can systematically determine what matters in a particular case and what doesn’t and why.

So in this case, I would actually expect Mr Havelock to respond not only that the sentence is a humerous interjection but also to suggest that it is entirely irrelevant to the case at hand and can be safely ignored and that judge Rumpold would have to agree (just like a clause that has bren ruled unconstitutional in a previous case would be ignored in this case) and the rest of the trial would proceed as if the sentence wasn’t there, no?

@angus

quite a few judges are in their 60s or 70s.

Which also means they won’t be judges for much longer…

[angus (Angus McLeod)]

Maybe

Or maybe not.

Why take the risk?

[BlackKnob]

I would argue, that having humorous injections in a legal document could suggest that the document wasn’t meant to be taken seriously, i.e. not intended as legally binding. It would be an equivalent to saying something with a wink.
Also, who is supposed to decide which part of the agreement is a joke?

This is just in my layman’s opinion.

[tophee (Christoph)]

@kemitchell

There are a few more pressing needs, but I plan to dive into the public-terms project soon. When I do, I’ll make sure to review your post again, and follow up here.

Any updates regarding this?

[HAWK]

We got busy with the four letter word. I can’t wait until next week when the world doesn’t end.

[yanokwa (Yaw Anokwa)]

Any updates on the ToS, @kemitchell?

[kemitchell (Kyle E. Mitchell)]

@yanokwa, we’ll be sure to make an announcement here on meta when we have something.

[Mark_Finnern1 (Mark Finnern)]

Ping @kemitchell there was a promise to get to it soon Is end of October soon enough?

[kemitchell (Kyle E. Mitchell)]

Thanks to all for patience here. We will have entirely new terms of service for the site here shortly. I believe it’s just a matter of getting them into Discourse’s data format.

[gerhard (Gerhard Schlager)]

The new Terms of Service have been merged: FEATURE: Terms of Service v1.0.0 · discourse/discourse@15e793f · GitHub

[wolftune]

That link doesn’t show the ToS themselves? Where are they? And is there a changelog / diff for the new Terms?

[jomaxro (Joshua Rosenfeld)]

The diff is there, it’s just long so GitHub hides it by default. Click “Load Diff” on config/locales/server.en.yml to see the changes. Be aware, this wasn’t simply an edit of the existing template, but a from-scratch rewrite. The diff isn’t likely that helpful. You may be better off reading it at https://github.com/discourse/discourse/blob/master/config/locales/server.en.yml#L3469.

[kemitchell (Kyle E. Mitchell)]

@wolftune, as a practical matter, the terms have been entirely rewritten.

[wolftune]

Right, so the question for everyone who already has adjusted or rewritten terms for existing forums: is there any summary / changelog / discussion available about the key concerns that the rewrite addresses?

Put another way: we weren’t satisfied with the original (and dated) Discourse ToS based on Wordpress. We went and combined relevant bits into a larger ToS we adapted from GitHub. Now, I want to read the new Discourse terms and have some idea in advance about whether there are particular parts to consider pulling into our terms now (or not).

Also, anyone have the updated terms in place where I can read them rendered rather than raw html?

[kemitchell (Kyle E. Mitchell)]

@wolftune

is there any summary / changelog / discussion available about the key concerns that the rewrite addresses?

There is not.

It’s entirely up to forum hosts what terms of service, privacy policies, and other documents they publish and follow. We’re happy to share the terms that we use as part of the standard install, and to make filling them in simple, using the wizard. But we can’t take attorney-like responsibility for every Discourse host’s decisions, or provide legal advice like commentary or opinions on what we provide.