el Curl ar is lCurlr
What I am looking at is a web editor that keeps content OFF the web, pulls it in local, safely-enough encrypted, and leaves the creator with ALL use rights intact including "first rights" and that the use of which has no possible construal as "publishing" or sharing content.
A rich-text editor should be all that a writer needs on a netbook or ultrabook under Windows, Mac or linux.
In exchange for the encrypted web store use, the users will be able to report bugs and offer us a limited royalty-free use of any ideas which they offer for features, fixes or improvements to the editor and its functions IFF offered to the developer(s) AS SUCH and only via submission in THAT mode and NOT when simply in their own edited content.
Users will be asked to accept that the encryption is only good-enough for writers engaged in activity which would not be deemed criminal under the laws of some nation(s) or state(s) of THEIR choice.
Users will be urged to use the desktop version ( Dcurl ) whenever and wherever possible (i.e., when on linux, Max or Windows device.) Off-line use will be supported on those 3 platforms.
So where is the legal flaw here ? The Curl open-source license terms ? No stipulation as to what would constitute a commercial user ? No way of saying without seeing the waiver of responsibilities for suitability of use ? No definition of who is and is not deemed to be a "writer" for the purposes of the app ? No statement of the effort to be made NOT to change the Terms of Service ? No commitment to use only file servers located in countries which are both Berne signatories and deemed to be upholding conventions on intellectual property rights ?
*IFF if-and-only-if
