Wolfram|Alpha's Surprising Terms of Service 303
eldavojohn notes that Groklaw is highlighting the unexpected Wolfram|Alpha ToS — unexpected, that is, for those of us accustomed to Google's "just don't use it to break the law, please" terms. Nothing wrong with Wolfram setting any terms they like, of course. Just be aware. "We've seen people comparing Wolfram's Alpha to Google's Search from a technical standpoint but Groklaw outlined the legal differences in a post yesterday. Wolfram|Alpha's terms of use are completely different in that it is not a search engine; it's a computational service. The legalese says that they claim copyright on the each results page and require attribution. So for you academics out there, be careful. Groklaw notes this is interesting considering some of its results quote 2001: A Space Odyssey or Douglas Adams. Claiming copyright on that material may be a bold move. There's more: if you build a service that uses their service or deep-links to it, you may be facilitating your users to break their terms of use, and you may be held liable."
Database Rights? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a British company (god save the Queen!) - aren't they talking about database rights [wikipedia.org]? If so, I think they're not enforceable outside the EU.
This just seals the deal. (Score:2, Interesting)
Gave wolfram alpha a spin today and found it extremely uninspiring. Given these ToS I doubt I will ever go back.
I don't really see a problem... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course I can see them wanting to be attributed for calculations? But what's the problem with that? I *want* to see attribution when a blog, newspaper, or scientific report spits out a series of numbers anyway, especially if it involves something else than raw mathematics, like statistics. That's something I see as important as they can just as well demand it in my opinion. I consider it a service to me.
If there's something that annoy me, it's unsourced calculations. If it's attributed to WA, then I can at least use the same query on WA and in turn see what WA used as sources for that specific query (under the "source information" link at the bottom of each page)
Re:Hah! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure how revolutionary Wolfram Alpha [wolframalpha.com] really is. But, if you've tried it, you'll have discovered that it's not a google alternative - It's not even trying to be. It's a completely different tool. It's kind of fun to tinker with, but I haven't decided yet how useful it will be.
And, just so that I can blatantly violate their TOS (which I've yet to read except for in TFS and I've not agreed to), here are the results for 2+2:
Input:
2+2
Result:
4
Number name:
four
Visual representation:
* * * *
Re:This just seals the deal. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This just seals the deal. (Score:1, Interesting)
It seems to me that the only thing I could use Wolfram Alpha for is as a web frontend to Mathematica frontend that doesn't require me to fire up Mathematica just to integrate something real quick.
(I know, I know, I know, integrals.wolfram.com [wolfram.com] exists, but it doesn't do anything but integration and also doesn't let you specify integration limits.)
Re:This just seals the deal. (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, that's how I would characterize the entire system: interesting, but not what I was looking for.
Finally, I tried Hickman, CA again, and realized it had recognized California, but instead was comparing the location of Hickman Kentucky with California. So I now know how the lowest point in California compares to the lowest point of Hickman Kentucky. Except it didn't actually list the lowest point for Hickman Kentucky.
Then, a search for "Angelina Jolie nude" resulted in Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input. Hmmmmm.
Re:Hah! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nothing to worry about for academics (Score:5, Interesting)
Good Attribution, Useless Result (Score:5, Interesting)
I typed: airspeed velocity of a swallow
Input Interpretation: estimated average cruising airspeed of an unladen African swallow
Result: there is unfortunately insufficient data to estimate the velocity of an African swallow
(even if you specified which of the 47 species of swallow found in Africa you meant)
(asked of a general swallow (but not answered) in Monty Python's Holy Grail.)
Of course, now I know there are 47 species of swallow in Africa.
Re:That's pretty standard (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see the problem here. It really would be plagiarism to copy paste one of those plots into your paper and claim you generated it yourself.
I think we would need a lawyer for any further analysis, but I never really did think I could just gather a bunch of PDFs from Alpha (e.g. pages of common probability distributions) and claim the compiled book as my own.
deep links (Score:5, Interesting)
I note that Wolfram|Alpha happily deep-links to Google Maps.
Re:Hah! (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell, my wife does that every day.
I'm supposed to be impressed because the people who sell Mathematica have figured out how to solve a differential equation? Call me when Wolfram Alpha can solve Schanuel's conjecture. Then, I'll be impressed.
I just asked Wolfram Alpha if every finitely presented periodic group was finite and it told me to go fuck myself.
Re:This just seals the deal. (Score:3, Interesting)
I just tried comparing "Wales" and "Scotland" in WA. Instead of the countries, I got information about two cities. Hmm. Then again, comparing "Welsh" and "Scottish" returned some genuinely interesting information about the two languages.
Comparing "Badger" and "Giraffe" returns some interesting comparisons.
Comparing "Java" and "Lisp" returns nothing.
I agree: an interesting toy, but not terribly useful at present. I'll keep an eye on it though.
Re:Database Rights? (Score:1, Interesting)
Don't you mean "Wolf It"? (Like "devouring a book"/"wolfing down a meal", except with queries)...
Re:Nothing to worry about for academics (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This just seals the deal. (Score:4, Interesting)
Why build another text search "library index"? It's been done out the ying-yang. This system is orders of magnitude more ambitious and complex and while still in it's infancy, it's a pretty spectacular achievement already IMO. Just allow yourself to think outside of the 'search engine' box. While it contains some facts about the world, it's not a search engine.
Re:That's pretty standard (Score:5, Interesting)
From the terms of service:
If it didn't exist before I asked for it, and my asking for it was the only human action that caused it to come into existence, if there is an "author" for copyright purposes, it's me. The only way Wolfram could, therefore, claim copyright on it is if it was a work for hire, but since I'm not a Wolfram employee acting within the scope of my employment, and since there is no agreement signed by both parties designating it a work for hire, that doesn't work either.
Consequently, I'd say their own terms of service defeat their claim to copyright.
Re:Hah! (Score:3, Interesting)
I also tried various approaches to things it *should* be good at, but once again, not very impressive. I first tried "transfer function zero order hold" and variations on that. I expected to get something like "(1-e^-st)/s" and some words or a derivation. Should be right up it's alley, but no, it just failed, no results at all. I typed in "(1-e^-st)/s" and got a series expansion of that, several graphs of debatable accuracy of value, but nothing like "this is the equation of a zero-order hold" or even a question about s, "do you mean s=jw" or anything like that. I don't need the series expansion and I certainly wouldn't trust Mathematica to do it if I did. I still have a pencil and paper. Maybe there's something I was doing wrong, but it didn't give me results I would have expected.
On the topic of the immense hype, uh, duh, it's Wolfram, legend in his own mind and self-declared smartest man in the world. I am sure if he reads this his first reaction will be that "you guys are too stupid to grasp the brilliance, I am casting pearls before swine, I'm going to demonstrate the unified field theory with cellular automata". Insufferable even from his press releases - which I might add is common among quasi-geniuses. I have worked with some of the guys who *invented* most of the ideas behind satellite design, true geniuses whose names will never be widely known outside a few buildings at Lockheed Sunnyvale due to the nature of their work. One thing in common - the true geniuses are a lot like Feynman, personable, can explain and are willing to explain exactly why it works to anyone. The wannabe geniuses are like Wolfram seems to be - insufferably arrogant pains in the ass. Of course I only know Wolfram from his press releases, so I am making an unfair analogy or extrapolation from past experience, but I did read and understand, to the extent necessary, his book.
Brett
Re:Nothing to worry about for academics (Score:1, Interesting)
you cite one piece of softare, do you cite every piece of hardware you used? like the keyboard you used to type up the paper?
Re:Wolfram|Alpha just killed their business (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nothing new for Wolfram (Score:5, Interesting)
Could you give some examples? Not that I'm doubting you, I'm just curious.
I've been left without access to mathematica licenses on multiple occasions due to misunderstandings between Wolfram and my institution. Because Mathematica was my primary platform at the time, that meant days that I was unable to do or access my work.
The first time that happened, I decided to learn an open platform; the second time, I migrated. In my projects, I now absolutely avoid writing core functionality in Mathematica.
Another complaint: you can't discover how defaults work in some cases. As far as I can tell, setting things to "Automatic" means "proprietary and undescribed." I've asked Wolfram for details in one case, only to get a "we can't tell you" response.
Oh, and being told off for filing bug reports is pretty unimpressive. I separately reported different manifestations of the same bug, separated by some time. I'd actually forgotten about the first report, but if they'd fixed the bug, the situation wouldn't have arisen. When I've submitted a bug report to open source projects, they have usually been along the lines of "this line is wrong, and this seems to be an acceptable fix."
I think the arguments for open, modifiable, redistributable source code (that is guaranteed to retain those properties) are extremely strong. I.e. the GPL, probably v3. Once you know it well, Mathematica is a stunning programming language and library set, but I now don't care: as a whole, the platform has been unreliable for me.
Re:That's pretty standard (Score:1, Interesting)
According to German law, I can not transfer copyright nor can I grant an exclusive license without adequate compensation (a non-exclusive license is possible). So internationally they might still have some issues.
apple/day (Score:1, Interesting)
apple/day [wolframalpha.com]