Telling the user to use a specific browser... I thought we were over this in the 2000's already. ;-)
I think this whole discussion is missing the point. It is rather clear that usual browser usage (whichever that is) is ok, and if you use some exotic non-compliant thing, things may not work out.
No matter what you write in the TOS, github or somewhere else will prevent users from being scammed by third parties. The right place to warn the users would be a big note on the physical board itself.
Or maybe work out an acceptable solution before shipping the product. Just a thought.
@Toadofsky said in #70:
> > Wait what I lost you.
> > I simply said that ToS doesn't provide the list in GitHub you showed about browsers, that's make difficult to understand what are ways to interact with the platform that are 100% fine.
> > Specifying platform that are 100% fine will also clearly imply that any other platforms not mentioned may be not fine (so the user will know that it's an "use at your own risk").
> >
> > Any ToS that requires the end user (maybe not a tech savvy one) to find a related GitHub project and read a project documentation file here it's not straightforward IMHO..
> >
> > Sorry again I don't understand anything of this rant.
> > My argument is short, clear and simple.
> > Consider putting the browser list (you provide from GitHub) in ToS (maybe explaining that extension also are at risk, while official app are fine too).
> > Regular user will not read ToS and GitHub documentation file to try understand that (aka making detective job).
> >
> > That said happy Christmas and as for everyone celebrating drink responsibly.
>
> I assume there are legal risks in Lichess pigeonholing itself by requiring specific browsers to be used, but not enforcing that requirement. Also, users on legacy operating systems using unsupported browsers (because there is no other option) would be considered cheaters. Further, privacy-minded users using Waterfox or Icefox or Vivaldi or similar (or playing on a mobile device which doesn't have a supported browser installed) would be violating ToS.
I don't know for sure (not a lawyer), but I am quite confident that (at least in my country) an explicit list of products that are certainly fine, is not a restriction on whichever products may the user would use.
It's simply tell user to be extra cautious about product not on such list, because could lead to ban if not compliant to Lichess guidelines and API usage.
After all it's just a way to inform the users on a technical thing that otherwise may be missed.
@Toadofsky said in #70:
> Finally, if as you suggest regular users aren't reading the ToS, scammers [..]
Don't change my words, I said regular user wouldn't check GitHub documentation.
And that probably they may do not know what an API is surely.
But if they either don't know what a browser is..I think it's too much IMHO to set the "benefit" of incompetence on (sorry I don't really know how to properly translate such way of speech in English, hope you understand the meaning).
For that reason I think making an allow list with clearly stated of product that are 100% safe to use it's a good practice (obviously not forbidding anything but making obvious there may be issues).
If ever an user wouldn't understand that (quite possible) it's a solely responsibility of the user, because basically he/she claims a level of incompetence really high..
@nadjarostowa said in #71:
> Telling the user to use a specific browser... I thought we were over this in the 2000's already. ;-)
>
> I think this whole discussion is missing the point. It is rather clear that usual browser usage (whichever that is) is ok, and if you use some exotic non-compliant thing, things may not work out.
>
> No matter what you write in the TOS, github or somewhere else will prevent users from being scammed by third parties. The right place to warn the users would be a big note on the physical board itself.
>
> Or maybe work out an acceptable solution before shipping the product. Just a thought.
Strange I thought it's more common.
And I think corner cases exist that make the question less trivial than you think.
OpenAI Atlas browser may interact (as fair as I know never tried) with pages in agentic way, basically an LLM interact with the page AFAIK, doing what user requested.
I don't think it's compliant with ToS, still a browser anyway..
About the board thing I 100% agree, a producer should clearly state which are limitations and risks of his product.
If a producer doesn't do that it's clearly a lack on their side no doubt.
@Ender88 said in #65:
> the effort of making an allow list (in ToS) wouldn't be too much if such list is minimal.
Yes an 'allow list' sounds great but do you think any electronic chessboard manufacturer is both competent enough and trustworthy enough to be put on such a list? Chessnut might have been put on it in the past. Have any eboards released in the last few years got their basic functions working well enough to not still need more updates changing/fixing how they connect? Even if any of these companies signed a contract with Lichess to not violate TOS, that doesn't guarantee it'll always be correctly adhered to so it'd require a lot of ongoing effort.
Lichess already say what's on their allow list:- use of the Lichess API. I think it'd be a good idea to also explicitly say that the user must check with an eboard's manufacturer/seller whether their product is compliant with Lichess before using it. That would've stopped what happened with this user. It'd be a short instruction that doesn't rely on tech savviness, and doesn't require "API" to be understood or even mentioned to the user at all. It'd avoid misunderstandings as it'd help make it clear (without sounding threatening) that the user, not Lichess, is responsible for checking that, and that it's the user, not the board manufacturer, agreeing to Lichess TOS. It'd simplify things for Lichess and users by replacing complex, long, incomplete disclaimers/instructions. It'd also be low effort for manufacturers. Even Chessnut gives an answer to that in many places on their website. It'd have positive side effects, like encouraging board manufacturers/sellers to advertise Lichess after they discover that they need to tell people they're compatible with Lichess, or encourage them to correctly use the API if they don't already.
Your expectation amounts to Lichess saying something like "Products A and B might* be compliant" surrounded by lots of disclaimers, which is neither as simple or as useful as you claim, and is basically what https://lichess.org/page/eboards already is. The instructions provided on that page are already simplified so much that they don't guarantee not getting banned, as some ebords and apps do use the API but also use other methods to do things not allowed by the API.
Who/what would be put on the simple and minimal 'allow list' (without exposure to risks) in your ideal version of Lichess TOS? Lichess alludes to two eboard manufacturers being maybe-safe on the page linked to above. One them claims to make the only board that's compatible with the other big chess website despite that compatibilty still seeming sporadic after more than a year of working on it and blaming the platform, making their claims regarding compatibility with online platforms appear disingenuous or beyond their skill, so would you feel safe vouching for their future ideas and software updates? The other manufacturer is a bit hit-and-miss.
> It's very doable, I do it for you as example:
> "- compatible browser: Edge, Opera, Chrome and Firefox. Latest version only.
The companies who own those web browsers are competent enough and trustworthy enough to have their products listed as compatible.
@DickieSteele said in #74:
> Yes an 'allow list' sounds great but do you think any electronic chessboard manufacturer is both competent enough and trustworthy enough to be put on such a list? [..]
What you have written is not my point.
I never said that Lichess should trust or put any third party chessboard producers into the list.
I only told that using technical jargon as API is in a ToS IMHO make it less understandable by end user.
As will be expecting end user goes to GitHub to read Lichess documentation.
Really what's so difficult to understand? API it's a very technical term few people know.
Saying otherwise which browser and official apps are 100% fine, require only a short list of 5-6 entries that anyone could understand.
Anyone also will understand that using ANYTHING out of such list poses them at some kind of risk.
Really you can disagree, but hell seems like you have difficulties understanding the meaning of what I have written (very frustrating)
@DickieSteele said in #74:
>Who/what would be put on the simple and minimal 'allow list' (without exposure to risks) in your ideal version of Lichess TOS?
Already said: Chrome, Edge, Opera, Firefox and official app. Nothing else is 100% safe IMHO.
Take for example agentic browser from OpenAI it's very likely out of ToS if some users use it to make AI interact with the site.
Ps: about the link you provide https://lichess.org/page/eboards
That's actually a very informative link, I wonder why is not in ToS.
May have helped
@Ender88 said in #75:
> Really what's so difficult to understand? API it's a very technical term few people know.
I was agreeing with you on that. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.
The solution I proposed (2nd paragraph) doesn't need "API" to be mentioned at all.
I think you're failing to understand that providing an 'allow list' informing users which apps/boards are compliant would require APIs to be mentioned (and understood, to a certain extent) in the list itself or in the list's disclaimers, which would need to contain ugly technical information.
The 'allow list' you've given doesn't do anything to accurately inform users about which eboards, apps, and browser extensions can/can't be used without violating TOS. (Some eboards connect to Lichess via browser extensions.)
@DickieSteele said in #76:
> > Really what's so difficult to understand? API it's a very technical term few people know.
>
> I was agreeing with you on that. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.
>
> The solution I proposed (2nd paragraph) doesn't need "API" to be mentioned at all.
>
> I think you're failing to understand that providing a 'safe list' informing users which apps/boards are compliant would require APIs to be mentioned (and understood, to a certain extent) in the list itself or in the list's disclaimers, which would need to contain ugly technical information.
Mmm I don't think, why you believe that the a list such the one I provided need to mention technical terms?
@Ender88 said in #77:
> Mmm I don't think, why you believe that the a list such the one I provided need to mention technical terms?
> Already said: Chrome, Edge, Opera, Firefox and official app.
The 'allow list' you've given doesn't do anything to accurately inform users about which eboards, apps, and browser extensions can/can't be used without violating TOS.
@Ender88 said in #72:
> I don't know for sure (not a lawyer), but I am quite confident that (at least in my country) an explicit list of products that are certainly fine, is not a restriction on whichever products may the user would use.
> It's simply tell user to be extra cautious about product not on such list, because could lead to ban if not compliant to Lichess guidelines and API usage.
> After all it's just a way to inform the users on a technical thing that otherwise may be missed.
https://lichess.org/terms-of-service explicitly, repeatedly warns users to be cautious. It's not that simple.
@Ender88 said in #72:
>
> @Toadofsky said in #70:
> > Finally, if as you suggest regular users aren't reading the ToS, scammers [..]
>
> Don't change my words, I said regular user wouldn't check GitHub documentation.
> And that probably they may do not know what an API is surely.
> But if they either don't know what a browser is..I think it's too much IMHO to set the "benefit" of incompetence on (sorry I don't really know how to properly translate such way of speech in English, hope you understand the meaning).
>
> For that reason I think making an allow list with clearly stated of product that are 100% safe to use it's a good practice (obviously not forbidding anything but making obvious there may be issues).
> If ever an user wouldn't understand that (quite possible) it's a solely responsibility of the user, because basically he/she claims a level of incompetence really high..
There are no 100% safe to use browsers, because users and/or viruses can hack users' browsers. For example https://github.com/jameslinimk/chess-com-cheater
Obviously fault lies with the manufacturer/seller if a user purchases a computer or a board which is designed to break the site's terms of service. I already quoted Lichess ToS explaining the situation, and I explained that Lichess is a charity, not a regulatory government agency selling equipment or engaged in commerce. Lichess ToS further explain:
> Cheating - We prohibit the use of any external assistance used whilst a game you are involved in is ongoing... [using] certain software or extensions at our discretion.
All these suggestion about specifying certain browsers, etc. start to engage in commerce/advertising, which are beyond the scope of Lichess and its mission statement as a charity.
@DickieSteele said in #78:
> > Mmm I don't think, why you believe that the a list such the one I provided need to mention technical terms?
>
> > Already said: Chrome, Edge, Opera, Firefox and official app.
>
> The 'allow list' you've given doesn't do anything to accurately inform users about which eboards, apps, and browser extensions can/can't be used without violating TOS.
Not true, if in ToS you find "it's ok to use products A and B, use everything else at you own risks" that very clearly inform you that any products not in the list (A and B in the example) can cause you issue.
So because in my list there wasn't any eBoard user will be very clearly informed about risks associated with those tools
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.