I"m thinking of turning the widget into a browser which doesn't open a web page, but retrieves just the data, which I guess is what Vad_M has done. It's perfectly within the law to browse for specific information on a website, that's what we do all the time. We aren't required by law to open a whole page. A download manager doesn't open a window, it may just lead you to .jpeg's if that's how you set it up. You aren't bound by a license agreement if you don't use the feed, you're just browsing for specific information available to the public. There's nothing wrong, illegal or immoral in retrieving publicly available data. This is a big deal, because cluttering up he widgets with logos, etc., and requiring the user to subscribe unnecessarily is going to dissuade a lot of people from using weather widgets, no doubt the main reason for most to use DesktopX. That will in turn affect DesktopX sales, and cause Stardock to lose interest in DesktopX.

It would be easy to make a web browser that only hunts for specific file extensions, for instance. What could possibly be illegal or wrong about that?

Well....at last some lively skinning talk.....

....much of it very out of step with reality.

Once upon a time anyone who wanted to check the weather accessed a weather website...and checked.

Then one day various entities [not just Stardock] developed little gizmos that could access this info frequently and less invasively [for the user] than re-opening their browser to that same site each time.

These companies/weather sites noticed the increased load on their servers [particularly from users who probably had no idea of the source of the info...no brand recognition/advertising even] so they changed their method of data release....clearly intentionally to re-establish property rights to their data.

Now you have to be a personal 'customer' of the service to obtain their data.  That's something ONLY each individual 'Weather Widget' USER [not skinner/coder] can do.

A skinner can change his widget....for himself...for his OWN computer .... but that will not help anyone else....not the way the Terms Of Use are worded.

The ONLY way I can see a logical solution that is also LEGAL is to code a widget that when loaded sits there and asks you to input your user licence info [as the user] into it before it functions.  This is clearly what the weather provider is wanting....no more data-mining.

In the past it was not an issue...as it was relatively uncommon.  Clearly since the advent of Vista and its adoption of widgets there has been  a significant growth [and impact].

Now, it seems that ALL of the widgets that are currently failing are third-party produce....made/coded/altered by skinning community members.

NONE of that is the responsibility of Stardock [other than their DX widget popularity adding to the weather site 'load'] and no-one, including the skinners is responsible for the current failure of their creations' function.

As JCRabbit said, they changed the method of access and broke it for everyone, no matter who.

As also mentioned....the best short-term solution will be to leave weather widgets that use that service OUT of DX Themes so Users can decide whether to take the effort to sign up for the service....or not.

If/When they do they can also look forward to 'enjoying' the weather service's LOGO being properly [permanently] displayed in whatever form the TOU cites.

Coding work-arounds that bypass the user sign-up will all be TOU violations and thus legally suspect.

As and when there is an OFFICIAL STARDOCK determination on what we, here on Wincustomize.com can/will do with dealing with the situation....you'll see it here [on our forums] first.

Hopefully a magical and simple solution will arise...;)

Unfortunately this is one of the best Weather services on the web. At least it more informative and usefull than AccuWeather. There is only one alternative I've found - the MSN Weather! Their data base of locations (Cities) is even bigger than on in TWC! About 38000 on TWC and more than 40000 on MSN!!! So I'm thinking to "migrate" on MSN in a future.

The WeatherUnderground seems may be used too but we need to study the total amount of available locations on this site (i.e. the data base of world cities).

They don't require you to give them credit when you browse, and they aren't asking for credit anyway. Credit doesn't mean putting a logo and advertising on something, it means saying that you're source is this or that as a comment or attribution. When you use someone's photo, you don't put the credit on the photo, you put it somewhere else. What they are asking for is to operate by the license if you SUBSCRIBE TO THE FEED. That has nothing to do with giving credit. It's a contract. If WC wants to require  skinners to attribute the source of the information in their comments, that's giving credit.

By going to their site you are getting who the data is sourced from and you are getting their branding; no need to source it more.

https://forums.wincustomize.com/358892

Jafo

You're missing the distinction between the subscriber feed to which the terms of service do apply, and browsing for the information, to which they don't. Making a widget a web browser is completely different legally than it being a feed subscriber.

Also, if you read the agreement, it is the maker of the application that is required to adhere to the agreement, not the user of the application. Having the user sign up is one way to do it, but the skinner should be the one signing up.

Making the widget a browser isn't a workaround, it's just a browser like IE or Firefox. It doesn't skirt the rules The browser would merely enter the location in the appropriate boxes, and the website would deliver the PUBLICLY AVAILABLE information in a normal manner. Their's nothing devious about that.

Currently,  in the four dxbased gallery we have only ONE working weather gadget ...

THATS the BIG trouble now..

I know, sViz hardly work on put ID/KEY/LOGO/LINKS.. to use TWC feed..but useable for users? dunno....

I'm not seen any chance to fixes...

What u need Zu?

Whats your answer,opinion,result.. for users, and for dx skinners...

Honestly, this damned problem is so tired me that I decided to propose you one simple deal.

How much may cost the "corporate" license to full access for TWC feeds? A few hundreds thousands of dollars or less? I think we may to solve this problem by very easy way. Let's buy together a corporate (i.e. full) license for Wincustomize.com that allow its users and members use the TWC feeds without any logos and other unnecessary and unwanted things.

Look: If each of tens millions WC members/users would give at least $1 for this we will be able to buy not only the TWC license but a big part of theirs business! So if you are ready just let's do it and we will never talk (and even hear) about the similar problems!

P.S. Right now I'm ready to donate $50 for this despite the fact that I had no free money during this year..

Actually there is no difference.  They control their website...and thus they control their brand-awareness and advertising...whatever they wish.  If when datamined via any external method that information is displayed to a third party WITHOUT equivalent [and that which they have clearly stated] advertising and 'Logo' you the 'provider'/skinner/widget maker AND ultimately the third party user are violating their TOU.

Would you call going to Google Images and grabbing a picture from a website, and not looking at what they designed scraping or mining? Would you call using a download manager to access a specific type of file without looking at their design the same? What is terribly wrong or in violation of copyright laws about doing that? Read the terms of use on TWC, and show me where it requires you to look at their design. If you think it might be polite to do so as a favour, that's one thing.

Finding a loophole shouldn't be the goal; finding a solution should be.

Exactly!      Jafo, please answer your email. Spencer, you too, please.

Faulty logic at work. Accessing a particular item is not modifying it in any way; to modify means to change something. The page is not modified, the data is not modified, you just aren't viewing it. What if you used a widget to put a black box over part of the page--have you modified the page?

Maybe someone should download the SDK and find out if you are even allowed to use DesktopX in the creation of the tools for using the subscriber feed. If you don't want to violate the spirit of the agreement, then things like sViz hiding the links shouldn't be permitted, you might call it modifying the data. That's why using a browser instead is a solution, not a loophole. The terms for using the subscriber feed are very strict, and could likely require the tools to be made using their SDK, with their icons, and likely require that the links be visible, as it clearly states that they must be in proximity to their logo. The whole agreemet is in one of her posts. here's how to find the SDK:

"The comnplete terms and conditions surrounding the use of the Service can be found in the developer SDK along with graphical icons that are necessary to represent the sky conditions associated with our current conditions and forecast data, and our logo. This SDK can be accessed by clicking on the link below.
http://download.weather.com/web/xoap/sdk.zip"

What about using government weather data instead of a commercial service. It probably wouldn't be that hard to access individual government services if necessary. That's probably where the Weather Channel gets their data anyway.

Here's the bottom line:  We have told the community what is acceptable.  Anything elde isn't.

• There are solutions in place for end users. 
• There are solutions in progress for authors.

What's your goal here?WC is trying to respect the rights of the source data.  Implicit, implied and in spirit.  It's the way we'd want our stuff to be treated; o more, no less.

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.