> I understand very well that a service is a software which is accessed > through a network.
No, you obviously don't understand. A service is something that is offered to you, for free or not, and that you might use on the terms the service provider lays down. Some examples? Pizza delivery service Shoe cleaning service Car wash service Online software store Google search engine/mail/groups/other services All these are services. You are free to use them, on their terms and conditions. Some require you to pay money. Some take your data, enrich/recombine or do whatever with it, and provide you added value - for the cost of you giving away the data for free and agreeing on using it, and for having to look at advertisements when using the service. > And the description given on Wikipedia [1] is "A 'Web service' (also > Web Service) is defined by the W3C as "a software system designed to > support interoperable Machine to Machine interaction over a network." A webservice is a technical term for software interoperation. It has *nothing* to do with a service in the above sense. It defines an interface, it might come with a example implementation under a FOSS license. > Now, to ending with this. I understand that (almos) everybody is pro > Google (and anti Microsoft), thinking that they have given a lot of > services for free. And it's very hard that people understand my > thinking. because it is obviously skewed. Just because the term "service" is used in two meanings does not mean they are the same... > All that "free service" has a great price, that are the rights > about those data, and when Google want can to disable the free access > to that information. Yes, they can. That are their conditions. But this has *NOTHING* to do with them offering a piece of software under a FOSS license. > People don't realize that it's one more a company and like so it has > only an end, that is to obtain the greater number of benefits which > will be distributed between his shareholders. Within any years Google > will be as hated as Microsoft. Maybe, maybe not. > At least I try to use the less possible those services than limit my > freedoms about data that has been contributed by me and another users. You are free to do so, and I can't say a single word against it. But you say """ There is certain deceit because they have used a free license as Apache 2.0 so that people think that it is a free program, but it stops of being it when there are terms/conditions of this style. They use to the community to get information as data about geo- localization. You haven't any right about its *free software* but they get all rights about your content. And they could cancel the service when they want. In addition these terms are more restrictive that the owner software, because you could not duplicate any service. Please read well those terms and conditions before of use that library because *IT IS NOT FREE SOFTWARE*. """ It is FREE SOFTWARE. You can take the software ,manipulate it, redestribute it under the terms of the GPL and so forth. That has NOTHING to do with the service offered by google HOSTED AT THEIR SITE, PROGRAMMED AT THEIR EXPENSE, OPERATED AT THEIR COSTS to be something they put out for free. They do gather your data to make a richer experience for others, including yourself, and cashing in on advertisements or whatever business-model they like. If you don't like that, fine. But that has *nothing* to do with free software they might offer to access that service. Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
