Details

Author: Aslan-Gabriel Moran >>

Date: January 10th, 2026

See License >>

Summary:

This article outlines the legal complexities of using third-party design assets like UI kits and templates in digital products, emphasizing that creators often misunderstand licensing terms, particularly for redistribution. It provides a detailed legal framework, distinguishing between proprietary and open-source licenses, and analyzes major design system licenses from Apple, Google, and Microsoft to clarify permissible and prohibited uses.

Main topics covered:

Disclaimer

This article is provided for informational purposes only and is intended to offer general context and resources to support compliance efforts. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by its use. Laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction and are subject to change. You should conduct your own research and consult with a qualified attorney—such as an intellectual property or trademark attorney—before making decisions or taking actions based on the information contained herein.

Introduction: The Creator's Dilemma in a World of Borrowed Assets

The modern digital product landscape encourages creators to build upon existing foundations. Design systems from technology leaders like Apple, Google, and Microsoft offer a powerful shortcut, providing high-quality, platform-consistent assets that can dramatically accelerate the development of applications, websites, and design templates. This convenience, however, is counterbalanced by a complex and often misunderstood web of legal obligations that govern the use of these assets.

A common and perilous assumption exists among creators: that permission to use these assets is implicitly granted so long as the final product created with them is intended for the asset provider's ecosystem—for example, building an iOS app using Apple's UI resources. This report must state unequivocally that this premise is a critical and dangerous misunderstanding of the law and the specific license agreements in question. The licenses for proprietary assets, particularly those from Apple, are typically granted to the developer of a final, end-user application, not to creators of intermediate tools or assets intended for redistribution, such as UI kits or design templates.

While this report will provide the requested disclaimer language, its primary purpose is to deliver a more fundamental and vital service. A simple disclaimer is insufficient to mitigate the legal risks of a product that is, at its core, non-compliant with its underlying licenses. The true goal of this analysis is to provide a comprehensive legal and strategic framework, enabling a product creator not just to warn their customers of potential liabilities, but to build a business that is compliant from the ground up. This requires a deep understanding of which assets can be legally included in a commercial product for redistribution and which cannot.

This report will navigate this complex terrain by first establishing foundational legal principles. It will then proceed to a forensic analysis of the specific license agreements from Apple, Google, and Microsoft. This analysis will inform a strategic risk assessment, culminating in actionable legal drafting, a set of operational best practices, and a library of essential resources for any creator in this domain.

Section 1: The Legal Landscape of Digital Design Assets

To properly assess the risks and opportunities associated with using corporate design systems, one must first understand the fundamental legal concepts that govern them. The world of digital assets is primarily divided along a line separating proprietary and open-source licensing philosophies, each with profound implications for how a creator can use, modify, and distribute their work.

1.1 Proprietary vs. Open-Source Licensing: A Fundamental Divide

The license under which a design asset is offered is not merely a legal formality; it is a declaration of the owner's intent and philosophy, dictating the degree of freedom a user has.

Proprietary ("Closed-Source") Licenses

Proprietary licenses, also known as closed-source licenses, are characterized by restriction and control.1 These licenses are owned and exclusively controlled by a single entity—the vendor—which retains all rights to the underlying intellectual property.2 The source code or original asset files are typically treated as a trade secret.4 Users are not purchasing the asset itself but are instead paying for or being granted a limited "license," which is merely permission to use the asset under a strict set of rules defined by the vendor.2

Key characteristics of proprietary licenses include:

  • High Vendor Control: The owner dictates all terms of use, modification, and distribution.2
  • Limited Customization: Users are often prohibited from modifying the asset beyond what is explicitly allowed.3
  • Vendor Lock-in: Dependence on the vendor for updates, bug fixes, and support can create a situation where it is difficult or costly to switch to an alternative.2

    • Apple's design assets are a quintessential example of a proprietary licensing model.

Open-Source Licenses

In stark contrast, open-source licenses are designed to encourage collaboration, sharing, and modification.1 The source code or asset files are made freely available, and the license grants users a broad set of permissions.3 Common and highly permissive open-source licenses include the MIT License 6 and the Apache License 2.0.7 These licenses generally allow for:

  • Free use, copying, and modification.
  • Distribution of the original or modified versions.
  • Sublicensing (allowing your customers to use the assets within your product).

These rights are usually conditional upon including the original copyright notice and a copy of the license text with the distributed product.6 Google's Material Design assets are a prime example of an open-source approach.

The Hybrid Model

Some companies employ a hybrid model, which can be a source of significant confusion and legal risk. In this model, different parts of a product are released under different licenses. Microsoft's Fluent UI is the most prominent example. The core code for its components is released under the permissive open-source MIT License, encouraging wide adoption by developers.8 However, the visual assets that give the system its distinct brand identity—the fonts and icons—are governed by a separate, highly restrictive proprietary license.8 This dual-license structure creates a trap for unwary developers who may assume the entire system is open-source based on the code license alone.

The choice between these licensing models reflects a company's core business strategy. Apple's proprietary approach creates a tightly controlled, premium "walled garden" ecosystem. By providing high-quality assets for free to developers, they incentivize the creation of apps for Apple platforms, which in turn strengthens the value of their hardware and services.11 Allowing redistribution of these assets would dilute their brand and cede the very control that defines their strategy. Conversely, Google's open-source strategy for Material Design aims for ubiquity.12 By making assets free and open, they encourage adoption across all platforms, making their design language a de facto standard and extending their influence across the entire internet. Microsoft's hybrid model seeks the best of both worlds: attracting a large developer base with open-source code while maintaining strict brand control and driving integration with their paid services through proprietary assets.8 Understanding these underlying motivations is key to anticipating how these companies will enforce their licenses.

1.2: Core Legal Concepts: Copyright, Trademark, and the Nature of a License

Underpinning all license agreements are fundamental principles of intellectual property (IP) law.

  • Copyright: Copyright is a legal right that protects the original expression of an idea fixed in a tangible medium.14 For digital assets, this includes the specific code of a software component, the visual design of an icon, the letterforms of a font, or the layout of a template. The copyright owner holds a bundle of exclusive rights, including the right to reproduce the work, distribute it, and create derivative works (modifications).15 A license is a legal instrument through which the copyright owner grants another party permission to exercise one or more of these exclusive rights, subject to specific conditions and limitations.16
  • Trademark: A trademark protects brand identifiers—such as logos, names, symbols, and slogans—that distinguish the goods or services of one party from those of others.14 The primary purpose of trademark law is to prevent consumer confusion about the source or affiliation of a product. Using a company's trademarked logo or icon in a way that suggests an official relationship, sponsorship, or endorsement can constitute trademark infringement. This is a critical concern for assets like Apple's SF Symbols, where the license explicitly prohibits their use in logos or any other trademark capacity.11
  • The License Agreement: It is crucial to recognize that a software or asset license is a legally binding contract.19 When a user downloads assets or clicks an "Agree" button, they are entering into this contract and are legally bound by its terms.19 Any informal assumptions, industry conventions, or perceptions about what is permissible are superseded by the explicit text of the agreement.

1.3: The "Fair Use" Doctrine: A Common Misconception in Commercial Products

The "fair use" doctrine is a limited exception in U.S. copyright and trademark law that permits the unlicensed use of another's IP under specific circumstances, such as for criticism, commentary, news reporting, parody, or academic purposes.23

There are two primary types of trademark fair use:

  • Descriptive Fair Use: Using a term in its ordinary, descriptive sense rather than as a trademark (e.g., a bakery called "Delicious" cannot stop a competitor from advertising their cakes as "delicious").24
  • Nominative Fair Use: Using a trademark to refer to the trademark owner's product, which is necessary for identification (e.g., a repair shop advertising that it "repairs iPhones").14

    • While these defenses exist, it is vital to understand that fair use is an exceptionally weak and unreliable defense for a business model that involves packaging and reselling third-party assets. The creation and sale of a commercial UI kit that incorporates another company's design assets is not commentary or criticism; it is direct commercial exploitation that directly competes with the IP owner's control over their assets and potentially their own market. The use is not merely "referential"; it constitutes the core of the product being sold. Relying on a fair use defense in this context would be a significant and likely losing legal gamble.

Section 2: In-Depth Analysis of Major Design System Licenses

The general principles of IP law provide the context, but the specific license agreements for each design system contain the definitive rules. A forensic examination of these documents reveals a landscape of starkly different permissions and prohibitions that directly impact the viability of creating commercial digital products with these assets.

2.1 Apple's Walled Garden: A Deep Dive into a Proprietary Ecosystem

Apple's legal framework is designed to maintain absolute control over its brand and user experience. The use of any developer asset is governed by a hierarchy of agreements, with the Xcode and Apple SDKs Agreement serving as the master document that all developers must accept.11

Analysis of Key Terms

The precise wording of Apple's legal agreements is the key to understanding their intent. Two definitions are particularly crucial:

  • "Application": The license defines an "Application" as a software program developed by "You" (the licensee) for use under "Your own name, trademark or brand," and importantly, "specifically for use on Apple-branded products".11 A UI kit or design template sold to other developers does not meet this definition. It is not a final, branded application for end-users; it is a tool for making applications. The license to use Apple's assets is granted to the creator of the final "Application," not to the creator of an intermediate development tool.
  • "System-Provided Images": This category includes assets like the ubiquitous SF Symbols.11 The license for these images is granted "solely for the purpose of developing Applications for Apple-branded products".11 The emphasis must be placed on the act of "developing." The license permits a developer to use the symbols in their own app during the development process. It does not grant a license to redistribute the symbols themselves as part of a separate commercial product.

Specific Asset Licenses and Prohibitions

Beyond the master agreement, individual asset types have their own explicit licenses that reinforce these restrictions.

  • SF Symbols: As "System-Provided Images," their redistribution is not permitted. Furthermore, the Human Interface Guidelines explicitly prohibit using the symbols—or confusingly similar images—in app icons, logos, or any other trademarked use.11 This is a direct prohibition on incorporating them into any branding.
  • San Francisco Font: The license agreement for Apple's system font is exceptionally clear and restrictive. It states in no uncertain terms: "THE APPLE SAN FRANCISCO FONT IS TO BE USED SOLELY FOR CREATING MOCK-UPS OF USER INTERFACES TO BE USED IN SOFTWARE PRODUCTS RUNNING ON APPLE'S iOS, OS X OR tvOS OPERATING SYSTEMS".19 This license is for the purpose of creating static design mock-ups. It is not a license to embed or bundle the font file for redistribution within a commercial UI kit or design tool.
  • Apple Design Resources (UI Kits, Templates): The license for Apple's official design templates (e.g., for Sketch or Figma) provides the most direct and damning evidence. The license grants a limited right "solely for creating mock-ups of user interfaces".22It then explicitly forbids the core activity of a UI kit creator: "You may not embed the Apple Design Resources in any software programs or other products... Except as expressly provided for herein, you may not use the Apple Design Resources to create, develop, display or otherwise distribute any... website content or any other work product... you may not... sell, sublicense or otherwise redistribute the Apple Design Resources in any unauthorized way".22

Key Finding

The conclusion from this analysis is unambiguous: Apple's licenses are meticulously structured to prevent the very activity of creating and selling digital products that bundle their proprietary design assets. Including Apple's fonts, icons, or official UI templates in a commercial product for sale or distribution is a direct and clear violation of their license agreements. Any business model built on this practice is operating on a foundation of significant legal risk.

2.2 Google's Open Approach: Navigating Material Design and Google Fonts

Google's approach to its design system stands in stark contrast to Apple's, favoring openness and widespread adoption through permissive licensing.

  • Material Icons: The comprehensive library of Material Design icons is made available under the Apache License Version 2.0.12 A review of this license reveals its permissive nature. The Apache 2.0 license grants a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, and irrevocable license to use, reproduce, prepare derivative works of, and distribute the licensed work in source or object form.7 This explicitly allows for the inclusion of Material Icons in commercial products, including UI kits, for sale or redistribution.
  • Google Fonts: The vast majority of fonts available through the Google Fonts library are licensed under similarly permissive open-source licenses, most commonly the SIL Open Font License (OFL) or the Apache License.13 The Google Fonts FAQ explicitly confirms that these fonts can be used commercially and included within products that are sold commercially.13 This makes them a safe and reliable choice for inclusion in digital design products.
  • The Critical Exception - Brand Fonts: It is crucial to note that Google's open approach does not extend to its own corporate brand fonts. The FAQ and other resources explicitly state that fonts like Product Sans and Google Sans are proprietary, owned by Google, and reserved for use only in Google's own products.13 Attempting to use or redistribute these fonts would be a license violation. This serves as an important reminder that even within an "open" ecosystem, one must always verify the license for each specific asset.

Key Finding

Google's primary design assets (Material Icons and the general Google Fonts library) are generally safe to include in commercial digital products. This is contingent on complying with the simple terms of the applicable open-source license (e.g., retaining the copyright and license notices) and diligently avoiding the use of Google's specific, proprietary corporate fonts.

2.3 Microsoft's Hybrid Model: The Nuances of Fluent UI

Microsoft's Fluent UI presents the most nuanced and potentially treacherous licensing situation for a digital product creator. It operates under a dual-license model that can easily mislead those who do not read the fine print carefully.

  • The Dual-License "Trap": At first glance, Fluent UI appears to be open. The code components, such as the Fluent UI React library, are licensed under the highly permissive MIT License.8The MIT license allows for free use, modification, and redistribution in commercial products with very few restrictions.6 This gives developers a false sense of security that the entire system is open.
  • The Restrictive Asset License: The critical detail is that the visual assets—the elements that define the Fluent look and feel, specifically the Segoe UI font family and the official Microsoft icons—are governed by an entirely separate and far more restrictive proprietary license: the Microsoft Fabric Assets License Agreement.10 The LICENSE file within the Fluent UI code repository even contains a note explicitly directing users to this separate asset license.9
  • Analyzing the Fabric Assets License: This proprietary license is the key. It grants the right to use the covered assets "exclusively for the following purposes: In connection with the use of a Microsoft API within the development of a software application, website, or product you create or a service you offer designed to provide access or interact with a Microsoft service or application".10

Key Findings

The official Fluent UI fonts and icons cannot be included in a generic UI kit or design template for general-purpose use. Their use is contractually tied to the creation of an end product that specifically integrates with a Microsoft service or API (e.g., an Outlook Add-in, a tool that connects to Microsoft Azure, or an app that uses Microsoft 365 APIs). A creator cannot legally distribute these assets in a product that is platform-agnostic or intended for building websites and apps that have no connection to the Microsoft ecosystem. This dual-license structure is a common trap that can lead to inadvertent but serious license violations. One potential mitigation strategy, as discussed in developer forums, is to use the MIT-licensed code components but substitute the proprietary icons with an alternative, fully open-source icon set.29

The initial query for a disclaimer reveals a misunderstanding of the legal hierarchy at play. The detailed license analysis shows that for Apple and Microsoft assets, the creator of a UI kit may not have the right to distribute the assets in the first place. This act of distribution itself would be the primary infringement. A disclaimer warning a customer to "comply with Apple's license" is legally incoherent if the product they purchased is already an infringing copy. It is analogous to a pirate selling illicitly copied software while including a note advising the buyer to ensure they have a legitimate license. The note does nothing to absolve the pirate of the initial act of infringement. Therefore, the core legal advice must shift from "how to write a disclaimer" to "how to construct a legally compliant product." The disclaimer becomes a secondary tool for managing the use of the creator's own IP and any permissibly included third-party assets, such as those from Google. The primary strategic imperative is the removal of all impermissibly included assets from the product.

Section 3: Comparative Analysis and Strategic Risk Assessment

Synthesizing the detailed license examinations into a clear, comparative framework allows for effective strategic decision-making. A product creator must not only understand the rules for each system but also weigh the relative risks associated with using them.

3.1: At-a-Glance Comparison of Design System Licenses

The following table distills the complex legal terms from the preceding analysis into a concise, actionable format. It directly compares the core permissions and restrictions of the three major design systems, providing a clear guide for product development.

Comparative License Terms for Major Design Systems
Feature Apple Design System Google Material Design Microsoft Fluent UI
Core Component License Proprietary (Xcode/SDK Agreement)11 Open Source (Apache 2.0) 7 - 12 Open Source (MIT) 6 - 8
Asset (Icon/Font) License Highly Restrictive Proprietary 19 - 22 Open Source (Apache 2.0 / OFL)12 - 13 Restrictive Proprietary (Fabric Assets License)10
Permitted in Commercial UI Kits for Resale? No. Explicitly forbidden.22 Yes. Permitted under Apache/OFL terms.12 - 13 No (for official fonts/icons). Code only.8 - 10
Key Restriction For use in your own final application on Apple platforms only. No redistribution or embedding in other products. 11 - 22 Must adhere to open-source license terms (e.g., attribution). Do not use proprietary brand fonts (e.g., Google Sans). 7 - 13 Asset use is tied to creating an application that interacts with a Microsoft service or API.10
Risk Level for Resale in a UI Kit
Very High. Clear license violation.
Low. Generally permissive and intended for broad use.
High. The dual-license structure is a common trap leading to infringement.

This table serves as a powerful decision-making tool for a business owner who may not be a legal expert. It translates pages of dense legal text into direct answers to the most critical business question: "Which assets can I safely use in my product?" It visually highlights the fundamental differences in approach and immediately flags the high-risk nature of using Apple's assets and the nuanced "trap" of Microsoft's hybrid license. The "Risk Level" assessment provides an expert judgment that helps prioritize compliance efforts, making it clear that addressing the use of Apple assets is the most urgent task.

3.2 Risk Matrix for Digital Product Creators

Building on the comparative table, a qualitative assessment of the risks involved is essential. Distributing a digital product that violates these licenses exposes a creator to significant and multi-faceted jeopardy.

  • Legal Risk: The most direct risk is legal action from the IP holder. This can begin with a cease-and-desist letter demanding the product be taken down and can escalate to a lawsuit for copyright and trademark infringement. Such actions can result in court-ordered injunctions, statutory damages, and the permanent termination of the creator's developer accounts with the respective platform, effectively exiling them from the ecosystem.11
  • Financial Risk: The financial consequences extend beyond potential damages awarded in a lawsuit. Litigation itself is extraordinarily expensive. The business will suffer from the disruption of having to pull a core product from the market, leading to a complete loss of revenue from that product. Furthermore, the creator may be contractually or ethically obligated to issue refunds to all customers who purchased the non-compliant product.31
  • Reputational Risk: In the close-knit developer and designer community, reputation is paramount. Being publicly identified as a vendor selling infringing or "pirated" assets can cause irreparable harm to a brand. It signals untrustworthiness to potential customers and can lead to being blacklisted by peers and platforms, making future business ventures far more difficult.
  • Liability Chain Risk: This is a subtle but severe risk. By selling a non-compliant product to other developers or designers, the creator is distributing an unlicensed tool. When their customers then use this tool to create their own applications, those applications are also technically infringing. If the customer faces legal action from the original IP holder (e.g., Apple), they have a strong case to then sue the UI kit creator for indemnification, arguing that they were sold a product that was not fit for its advertised purpose. This creates a chain of liability that points directly back to the original product creator.

Resources

Apple

Google

Microsoft

Open-Source Licenses

General Legal Principles

Works Cited

  1. binmile.com, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://binmile.com/blog/proprietary-vs-open-source-software/#:~:text=Proprietary%20software%20is%20owned%20and,driven%2C%20and%20open%20to%20customization
  2. Proprietary vs Open Source Software: Which is Better for Your Projects, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://binmile.com/blog/proprietary-vs-open-source-software/
  3. Proprietary software - Wikipedia, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software
  4. Open Source vs. Closed Source Software | Splunk, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.splunk.com/en_us/blog/learn/open-vs-closed-source-software.html
  5. The MIT License – Open Source Initiative, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
  6. Apache License, Version 2.0 - The Apache Software Foundation, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
  7. microsoft/fluentui: Fluent UI web represents a collection of ... - GitHub, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://github.com/microsoft/fluentui
  8. office-ui-fabric-react/LICENSE at master - GitHub, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://github.com/ecraig12345/office-ui-fabric-react/blob/master/LICENSE
  9. Microsoft Fabric Assets License Agreement, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://res-1.cdn.office.net/files/fabric/assets/microsoft_fabric_assets_license_agreement_10262017.pdf
  10. Xcode and Apple SDKs Agreement, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/xcode.pdf
  11. Material Icons Guide | Google Fonts | Google for Developers, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://developers.google.com/fonts/docs/material_icons
  12. Frequently Asked Questions | Google Fonts - Google for Developers, accessed August 9, 2025, https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq
  13. Online Use of Third Party Trademarks: Can Your Trademark Be ..., re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2016-february/online-use-of-third-party-trademarks/
  14. The metaverse, NFTs and IP rights: to regulate or not to regulate? - WIPO, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://www.wipo.int/web/wipo-magazine/articles/the-metaverse-nfts-and-ip-rights-to-regulate-or-not-to-regulate-42603
  15. Free licensing agreement template - Contractbook, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://contractbook.com/templates/licensing-agreement
  16. Guidelines for Using Apple Trademarks and Copyrights, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html
  17. SF Symbols | Apple Developer Documentation, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/sf-symbols
  18. Fonts - Apple Developer, accessed August 9, 2025, https://developer.apple.com/fonts/
  19. Apple Developer Program License Agreement, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://tools.madison-co.net/images/agenda_files/212/Apple%20Developer%20License%20Agreement.pdf
  20. Sample EULA Template [Download] - TermsFeed, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/sample-eula-template/
  21. Apple Design Resources License - Apple Developer, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/terms/apple-design-resources/Apple-Design-Resources-License-20230621-English.pdf
  22. Fair Use Defense: When Can You Use Another Owner's Trademark Without Permission?, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-you-need-permission-use-trademarks.html
  23. Can someone use your marks in ads without permission?, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://www.dwt.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Publications/Baker_Carter_WTR57.pdf
  24. Questions about using SF Symbols and symbol copyright s : r/iOSProgramming - Reddit, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/iOSProgramming/comments/s7g3dk/questions_about_using_sf_symbols_and_symbol/
  25. Apple Developer Enterprise Program License Agreement, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/terms/apple-developer-enterprise-program/Apple-Developer-Enterprise-Program-License-Agreement-20250609-English.pdf
  26. Fonts - Google for Developers, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://developers.google.com/fonts
  27. Are Google fonts free to use for all purposes? - Android Community, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://support.google.com/android/thread/225898262/are-google-fonts-free-to-use-for-all-purposes?hl=en
  28. What kind of projects does the license allow? · microsoft fluentui · Discussion #18407 - GitHub, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://github.com/microsoft/fluentui/discussions/18407
  29. Apple Developer Program License Agreement - Agreements and Guidelines - Support, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://developer.apple.com/support/terms/apple-developer-program-license-agreement/
  30. License - UnifiedUI, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://www.unifiedui.com/license
  31. Legal Agreements for Marketplaces - TermsFeed, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/legal-agreements-marketplaces/
  32. Sample Terms of Use Template and Guide - Termly, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://termly.io/resources/templates/terms-of-use-template/
  33. License Agreement | Untitled UI, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://www.untitledui.com/license
  34. Terms & Conditions | Untitled UI, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://www.untitledui.com/terms
  35. License Agreement - Tailkit, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://tailkit.com/license
  36. Terms of Service - Creative Market, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://creativemarket.com/terms
  37. Terms of Service - Creative Market, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://creativemarket.com/terms
  38. Agreements and Guidelines - Support - Apple Developer, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://developer.apple.com/support/terms/
  39. UNIDROIT Principles on Digital Assets and Private Law, re-revisited August 9, 2025, https://www.unidroit.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Principles-on-Digital-Assets-and-Private-Law-linked-1.pdf

Notes

Author’s Background >>

Recommendations

These are recommendations for writings outside of this blog and website.

The Personalized Education Investment Prospectus: A Quantitative Framework for Determining College Worth

A framework to help you determine if college is your path considering factors such as finances, emotional state and other factors

Explore Framework >>

Let's Break Our Brains!!!

Questions to question your existence…

Question your reality >>

Ads as security threats and safest browsers for vulnerable users

The USA government has classified (some) online advertising methods as a cybersecurity threat - Here, you'll see some tips and recommendations on what to do next to protect yourself.

See more on cybersecurity >>