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

[Lie]

On Jun 10, 2:49 pm, Kless <jonas.... at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 9 jun, 22:46, "Diez B. Roggisch" <de... at nospam.web.de> wrote:
>
> > Kless schrieb:
>
> > > On 9 jun, 21:40, Lie <Lie.1... at gmail.com> 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:
>

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.

> > 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.

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 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.

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.