Does the python library of Google Data API is truly free?

[Kless]

The Python Client Library for Google Data APIs [1] has been licensed
as Apache 2.0 -a free license- but at the same time they are
restricting the rights of the users with these conditions [2], and I
don't like for anything this.

--With a hand I show you one thing but with the another one I make
another thing very different--.

I'm goingo to write anything of those terms of a "free software":

------------------
1.1 Your use of the Python Client Library for Google Data APIs
(referred to as the "Client Library" in this document) is subject to
the terms of a legal agreement between you and Google.

2.3. You may not use the Client Library and may not accept the Terms
if (a) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with
Google,
------------------
4.3. As part of this continuing innovation, you acknowledge and agree
that Google may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the
Services (or any features within the Services) to you or to users
generally at Google's sole discretion, without prior notice to you.
------------------
5.6. Unless you have been specifically permitted to do so in a
separate agreement with Google, you agree that you will not reproduce,
duplicate, copy, sell, trade or resell the Services for any purpose.
------------------
8.1. You understand that all information (such as data files, written
text, computer software, music, audio files or other sounds,
photographs, videos or other images) which you may have access to as
part of, or through your use of, the Services are the sole
responsibility of the person from which such content originated. All
such information is referred to below as the "Content."

8.2. ... You may not modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or
create derivative works based on this Content (either in whole or in
part) unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by
Google or by the owners of that Content, in a separate agreement.
------------------
10.1. Google gives you a personal, worldwide, royalty-free, non-
assignable and non-exclusive license to use the software provided to
you by Google as part of the Services as provided to you by Google
(referred to as the "Software" below). This license is for the sole
purpose of enabling you to use and enjoy the benefit of the Services
as provided by Google, in the manner permitted by the Terms.

10.2. You may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy,
modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or
otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any
part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law,
or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by
Google, in writing.
------------------
11.1. You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in
Content that you create, submit, post or display on or through, the
Services. 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. This license
is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and
promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as
defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

11.2. 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, and to use such Content in connection with the
provision of those services.
------------------


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*.


[1] http://code.google.com/apis/gdata/
[2] http://code.google.com/apis/gdata/client-py-terms.html

 

[Lie]

The Python Client Library for Google Data APIs [1] has been licensed
as Apache 2.0 -a free license- but at the same time they are
restricting the rights of the users with these conditions [2], and I
don't like for anything this.

--With a hand I show you one thing but with the another one I make
another thing very different--.

I'm goingo to write anything of those terms of a "free software":
(snip)

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.

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

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*.

[1]http://code.google.com/apis/gdata/
[2]http://code.google.com/apis/gdata/client-py-terms.html

 

[Kless]

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.

 

[Diez B. Roggisch]

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

 

[Kless]

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.

 

[Lie]

I don't speak about hosting else rights about data, data that are
entered by people:

This shows you have not made any efforts to understand the difference
between software and service: SOFTWARE != SERVICE.

The freedom and the restriction of the software is governed by the
Apache License 2.0. On the other hand, the freedom and the restriction
of the service is governed by this rules, which has a pretty
reasonable terms for a service.

"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 have cut an important line to support your proposition:
This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display,
distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain
Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those 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..."

Without this line, there is no way the service could work, since
basically the service (GData) is all about making your data available
to other people.

Please, don't be demagogue.


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.

Some companies advertise Software as a Service, in those case the
Service is equivalent to the Software. In this case, the service is
GData Service and the Software is the GData API.

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.

Whether Apache 2.0 is GPLv2 compatible or not is irrelevant, GPL is
only one type of license, no more no less, it's not the Holy Grail of
free software spirit. The fact that many other softwares use GPL
license is because the license has been designed for general use and
many open source groups doesn't really have the knowledge, capability,
and/or time to create their own license (creating a license is not as
easy as it seems), most doesn't even care what their software is
licensed on and their exact terms. The use of a well-known license
also made it easy for the users to know the license he's agreeing to
without reading and reading and reading a license again and again and
again.

 

[Diez B. Roggisch]

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..."

This does not affect the distinction between a SERVICE that has it's own
terms and conditions with a SOFTWARE that provides the means to use that
service from a programmers or users point of view. Unless you rid yourself
of that misconception, this discussion is fruitless.

Please, don't be demagogue.

It is not "demagogue" - it's a simple question that illustrates the same
issue: free software as means to access content that don't share anything
wrt to licensing or such.

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.

A service is a service. It might be IMPLEMENTED using software, free or not,
which is totally irrelevant for the discussion of the terms of the service.

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.

What's that supposed to mean? Do you say that any site that is being served
by free software (under whatever license) has to do that for free? Like
ordering a 42" TV online on a apache hosted site requires them to give it
to me for free?


Diez

 

[Dan Upton]

Or if they prohibit you to host malicious, offending or otherwise

Please, don't be demagogue.

Please don't be [a] troll....?

I fail to see what is so hard to understand about the difference
between free software and services provided via free software.

 

[Kless]

I understand very well that a service is a software which is accessed
through a network.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_service

 

[Diez B. Roggisch]

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

 

[Eduardo O. Padoan]

I understand very well that a service is a software which is accessed
through a network.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_service

It is not a pro-GOOG/anti-MSFT child-thing. Google is a for-profit
company. They are in it for the money. There is nothing wrong with it
in a capitalist world, if you play by the rules.

Also, services like this are scarce resources, it demands storage
space, processing power, bandwidth, and etc to provide it, so it makes
absolute sense that one would want money to keep providing it.

Software per-se isn't scarce resources - you can copy it infinite
times (but the work of writing it is, that is why there are
programmers payed to write Free Software).

Now you seem to be saying that if Google doesn't provide a scarce
resource to you for Free (as in "Free Beer"), they will be hated just
as you seem to hate Microsoft. I would hate Google if, after proving
so much good stuff as free software, they gonne bankrupt for providing
services without restrictions, completely for free.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity

 

[Terry Reedy]

| All that "free service" has a great price

Just about everything has a price. The fraudulent 'free' offeres are those
that charge fees and what not to collect the 'free vacation' or 'free
money' (which never appears) or whatever. But I have not heard of Google
doing that.

Anyone offering free data storage is usually expecting to sell ads or
premium services. What to watch out for is a site with hidden or
later-added claims of ownership over non-trivial amounts of data uploaded
to a site. But I don't believe Google does that and don't expect they
will, since it would kill the good will that they depend on.

So do read Terms of Service. If you do not agreee, do not check the
'[]agree' box. Just leave.

Python is about as free as anything. The price of using it is the work of
downloading and installing and the agreement to act civilized and neither
falsely claim authorship nor sue the provider (PSF) you never paid anything
to.

Contributors, on the other hand, have to sign a form giving the PSF the
irrevocable perpetual right to distribute Python with their contributions
included -- or someting like that.

tjr