> The part that reads:
>
> "By submitting Content to any Yahoo property, you automatically grant, or
> warrant that the owner of such Content has expressly granted, Yahoo the
> royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable
> right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate,
> create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content
> (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any
> form, media, or technology now known or later developed. "
> is what everyone is getting worried about, but as has already been stated,
> Yahoo IS NOT THE OWNER - you are! It is, form what I can gather, basically a
> statement to protect Yahoo from ramifications if someone else puts
> copyrighted material up on their webpage, ensuring that the owner of the
> site takes responsibility for everything that is put up, and not Yahoo.
> Which is fair enough, IMO.
That may be the intent, but the clause you just quoted, while you're correct in saying does not transfer ownership of the copyright, basically gives Yahoo all the publication rights you could shake a fist at. No _exclusive_ rights, which is probably what would concern the average fan, but theoretically the above gives Yahoo the right to do whatever they deuced well like to your Content, short of asserting any such rights.
Though since Yahoo isn't in the business of writing articles about Glorantha, this last seems a more theoretical than actual difficulty.
NB: Don't mistake me for a lawyer, or this for legal advice.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail