The revision, which directly incorporated irate users' demands, prompted the end of a GeoCities boycott and received favorable comments from Internet rights experts.
The change went into effect last week.
The agreement included language that seemed to grant Yahoo! a license to reproduce content posted on any GeoCities site, which worried users who post their professional work on their sites.
Yahoo! later revised the agreement, but the new language still appeared vague to many users.
Separate GeoCities accord
The new agreement reads, in part: "Yahoo does not claim ownership of the Content you place on your Yahoo GeoCities Site. By submitting Content to Yahoo for inclusion on your Yahoo GeoCities Site, you grant Yahoo the world-wide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish the Content solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting your Yahoo GeoCities Site on Yahoo's Internet properties. This license exists only for as long as you continue to be a Yahoo GeoCities homesteader and shall be terminated at the time your Yahoo GeoCities Site is terminated."
Protesters pleased
"The new GeoCities TOS addresses each of these concerns in a clear, positive and concise manner which may well serve as a blueprint for similar Terms of Service agreements throughout the young Internet community," he continued.
Old terms too opaque
She said the EFF viewed the new agreement before Yahoo! finalized it.
"They've really tightened up the language, and shown that the intention was not in any way harmful," Lemmey said.
So now the company has created a separate agreement for GeoCities.
GeoCities protesters welcomed the move, which addressed several specific concerns.
![]()
'They've really tightened up the language, and shown that the intention was not in any way harmful.'
-- Tara Lemmey, Electronic Frontier Foundation
![]()
The problem was never that Yahoo! intended to grab whatever content it could from the GeoCities Web sites, as some users believed, according to legal experts. Rather, it was that the terms of service were unclear.











