Kless schrieb:
On 9 jun, 21:40, Lie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you notice that the terms are for the SERVICE not for the SOFTWARE.
The terms for the service is quite reasonable, as I see it.
The software itself is governed by the Apache License 2.0, detailed
here:http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Well, it's used a free license to access to a service that is not free
-it's owner and too restrictive-. And it isn't nothing reasonable that
Google get many rights about your content, and that you have not any
right about the rest of the content.
This goes against the free software, considering that a service is
software.
This is nonsense. If a hosting provider offers you free hosting based on
linux - and then goes out of business or is forced to charge money - do
you say "that's against free software?"
Or if they prohibit you to host malicious, offending or otherwise
problematic content served by the free apache - is that "against free
software?"
A service is a service. It is offered as is, under whatever conditions
the provider likes it.
Offering a convenient way to access the service using a FOSS license is
good style. But you aren't forced to use that, you can write your own.
But that doesn't change the terms and conditions of the service itself.
Diez
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
