On 9 jun, 22:46, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?" I don't speak about hosting else rights about data, data that are entered by people:
"By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non- exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services..." "You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services..." > Or if they prohibit you to host malicious, offending or otherwise > problematic content served by the free apache - is that "against free > software?" Please, don't be demagogue. > A service is a service. It is offered as is, under whatever conditions > the provider likes it. A service or web service to follows being software. A software where is more easy to add restrictions, in this case those restrictions goes against the freedoms of the free software. > 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. Offering access via Apache 2.0 -wich is not compatible with GPLv2- to a non-free service is a mortal trap where people are falling. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
