I have the SDK and have been over it numerous times. The terms they use are Your Designated Location and Your Desktop Application. The data must be shown on Your Designated Location. Your Designated Location can be Your Desktop Application. They do not have any restrictions on how you build your desktop application, just on how you use their data.

The major points (paraphrased):

* Show the time the information was retreived <lsup>
* Adhere to the refresh rate standards (25 min for current, 210 min for 5 day)
* Must cache the information in the interval between updates.
* No latitude longitude info
* Include Advert links (text should be limited to 35 characters)
* Must use provided link when linking to TWC
* Must show the <dnam> display name
* Must at least show current temp and weather icon
* Must group the current stuff separate from the forecast stuff
* Once current morning info is unavailable, you must show N/A or remove the info
* Must include text form of The Weather Channel with trademark sign and in correct stylings
* Must include logo as outlined in agreement

Further they say you "may" use the icons provided with the SDK; may not must. They say you "must" show the attributes at all times. They do not say you must show the links at all times only that they be in close proximity to the weather information and be displayed in accordance with the SDK.

I'm not going by spirit; I'm going by what they have laid out in their license agreement as per the terminology used.

John, the bottomline is you have to decide what you are going to do; we're all just trying to find and offer solutions that work. It's up to each author/end-user to choose whether or not to implement them or find one of their own.

Lantec mentioned METAR from NOAA and it looks doable. Daunting, but doable.

Kudos.  I think that pretty much addresses the question of whether or not anybody cares about such things.

What's your take on who opens the account with Weather.com, the end user or the program / web page creator?  I keep looking at the TOS and the signup sheet and I'm still not sure, kind of seems like it's geared to the creator.  I can send them an email and just ask if you like, but I'd imagine it'd be buried in an electronic pile at this point.

I sent them an email....I'm not holding my breath for a response.

I have the same confusion as you. I look at it this way (until further official clarification.) Since the data must be displayed on Your Desktop Application then I can sign up for me and my own personal desktop application.

My end-users download my widget and it becomes their personal desktop application, therefore they must sign up for their own license key and ID to use on Their Desktop Application.

Not saying that's that, but it's what I understand at the moment.

sViz

Thanks--I guess if anyone was going to do it, it would be you (the SDK). I'm trying to suggest a browser instead of a feed reader. Zubaz thinks a browser that ignores part of a page or site modifies the page. I don't. The page remains intact, just like if you use add-ons to a browser like an ad blocker, or picture finder. That's a tiny stumbling block to me. I'm trying to establish that it's perfectly alright to do so. It's certainly legal. Anyway, your solution works if you don't mind registering. I'm going to look at government websites; they are the source of most weather information anyway, and they are required by law in the U.S. to release the information to the public. I think that's a better alternative, but I believe you said it would be a tough job. Thanks again, you're doing your usual excellent job.

willistuder, *I* believe that adblockers *do* violate a social contract.  Some sites, like MySpace, specifically have "no adblocker" clauses in their terms of service.  I believe that if a user wants to use a site that is funded by ad-views or ad-clicks they have an obligation to load those ads or not use the site.  I subscribe to sites who offer a subscription to not see adverts and pay my way.

The fact is that widgets that modify (from the moderator's view-point; not the athors or users) data feeds will not get through moderation.  Again, we will continue to protect the rights of the source.

If an author wants to pursue this further with a sites owner and comes to a resolution that allows it, they can pass that communication on to the moderators we would modify our policy.  Fair enough, yeah?

Use of a browser to access the info....namely laoding the proprietary site is not an issue....you are accessing their data  AS INTENDED...hence their provision of the site itself.

Extracting their information in whole or in part, no matter how, what or why will violate their TOU...unless you personally have consent to do so.

I'd strongly suggest people wishing to argue/debate the TWC TOU take an extensive course in Copyright Law or at least flick through a few dubious links on Google.

Fact.  TWC obviously now objects to the scope and extent of datamining of their content by any and all methods, including Widgets and has enacted counter measures to prevent further such mining.

Fact. If a widget skinner wants to have a functional and legitimate weather object he will need to either set it to abide by the restrictions imposed by TWC or alter it to adopt/use an alternate data source that has no such limitations/restrictions.

That's it in a nutshell.

I can almost agree with the social contract thing, but not really, if that makes any sense. It has some merit, at least, and I don't completely disagree with it. If I want to be nice to them, maybe I'll look at them, but I'm still willing to bar them from my desktop. You might take your social contract a little further and click on their ads, as that is also clearly their desire.

As for your last point, plenty fair enough. Anyway, another crisis nearly resolved, right?

I extract skins from Wincustomize. Am I violating your terms of service? I've read the terms of service for both the website and the subscriber feed, which are different, as I've mentioned before, and one doesn't govern the other. You can't just mix them up like you do. Now suppose I go there and extract the weather information, or a file. Do you really think I'm violating the terms?

I've read the Copyright Act a few times, read books on the subject and written contracts. Maybe you should read it. You referred to a mysterious third party in one of your posts. Who is the third party you are talking about? There is the website and me. That's two.

Speaking of violations, Stardock/Wincustomize and the proprietors have allowed and overlooked those violations from the very beginning. TWC copyright claims date back to at least 1999, I forget exactly which year. It's only now that they've crippled the feed that a few people have suddenly become deeply concerned citizens. If you're such an expert on the act, and so concerned, where were you the last few years? Anybody who knows anything about copyrights would know that the data is private property. I'll ask you again, where were you? It's a bit much to get a lecture from someone who's tolerated these violations all this time. For years, you allowed it, and now you're wielding the mighty sword of righteousness in our faces.

I disagree to create "Their Desktop Application" for TWC. First they must pay money to me for this job! So I want make my own applications. And If it became outlaw I will not upload my new gadget here but still use it only on my desktop. And no one can forbid me to do so!

That's all that I have to say... 

You're perfectly right and in same spirit, if Stardock / Wincustomize don't buy / negociate a global license / rights for all his customers, it should be the same ...

Winstep Xtreme uses BOTH Weather.com and METAR data. The problem with METAR is that it provides no weather forecast, and locations are limited to airports worldwide (since it's from airports that NOOA gets their METAR data).

Probably needs a little more thought...so it can be seen clearly to reside in the 'un-doable' ...

It's the feeds themselves which are outside of others' control.  When they stop [for whatever reason] the receiver [widget in this case] becomes nothing more than an inanimate blob on the desktop.

The only way to potentially 'guarantee' a continued data source feed is to ensure THEY are contactually obligated to provide YOU with one....and even then there's no certainty in perpetua.... otherwise there'd be no needs in this world for tort Lawyers...

For what it is worth . . most weather sites have RSS feeds . . there are many RSS widgets (and scripts available to make new widgets).  RSS feed restrictions are often more lienient than other feed types (like the XML and XOAP calls widget most often use).

(RSS widgets can be used for other things than just weather too. )

I'm just sayin'

I use confabulator/yahoo's weather widget.  I get a 5 day forcast and a complete daily forcast.  So untill new widgets are made to the old/newly enforced standards, thats an option.

After all my drama queen crap I just went and applied the fixes provided by sViz which since have been taken down or rather he removed. I copied the info. My widgets work fine now although you do have to fix them one by one. I guess posting shots with these widgets is a no no? Anyone have that answer?