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.
Re:Database Rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
If so, I think they're not enforceable outside the EU.
Duh. That's a brilliant observation.
I'll never forget the CIO who told me (I was a consultant presenting a Help Desk application that we had been hired to implement and were about to deploy at his company) - "It doesn't look enough like Google. I want it to look like google - just one line that I type what I want into."
Now, to me, google (or google's address bar) is a huge improvement on the Command Line. I bet the same guy wouldn't have wanted to return to the days when you had to guess what the command-line needed you to type, much like an Infocom adventure game.
That's why Google is a huge improvement - it tries to figure out what YOU want. That's the reverse of a command-line, where you have to figure out what IT wants.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wolfram is located a few blocks from me in Champaign Illinois
Re:Database Rights? (Score:5, Funny)
Wolfram is located a few blocks from me in Champaign Illinois
Or just do what I did and "wolfram Alpha it" [wolframalpha.com]* (well, that doesn't quite have the same ring too it).
* © 2009 Wolfram Alpha LLCâ"A Wolfram Research Company
Re:I JUST BROKE WOLFRAM ALPHA (Score:4, Funny)
Input:
4/0
Result:
infinity^~
Oh noes, I broke their terms of service.
Re: (Score:2)
Put in 4/0 (four divided by zero) and you get a divide by zero error, which breaks the page and outputs a bunch of database junk. They didn't think of this?
That's nothing, I just asked it a simple question and their server had an electronic breakdown and started billowing smoke. The question was...
"Why?"
(This may have been a "General" protection fault, ho ho ho...)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This just seals the deal. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Then, a search for "Angelina Jolie nude" resulted in Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input. Hmmmmm.
Wolfram|Alpha is a Slashdotter??
Re: (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: (Score:2, Funny)
"Then, a search for "Angelina Jolie nude" resulted in Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input. Hmmmmm."
Useless crap.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, this is the Integrator on steroids. It'll be great for anyone who doesn't have Mathematica or needs to use Mathematica on the go, like on a phone.
It certainly blows Google calculator away.
That's pretty standard (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't claiming ownership of the bits of data they provide, they're claiming copyright over the whole page. Sort of like how an encyclopedia will copyright the book even if it includes quotes from people. Basically over the presentation of the data.
Additionally much of what they would be claiming copyright over isn't subject to copyright protections. Things such as birth dates and astronomical data aren't subjected to copyright protection.
Re:That's pretty standard (Score:5, Informative)
Then I guess you should have read the actual terms before you posted, hmm?
Attribution and Licensing
As Wolfram|Alpha is an authoritative source of information, maintaining the integrity of its data and the computations we do with that data is vital to the success of our project. We generate information ourselves, and we also gather, compare, contrast, and confirm data from multiple external sources. Where we have used external sources of data we list the source or sources we relied on, but in most cases the assemblages of data you get from Wolfram|Alpha do not come directly from any one external source. In many cases the data you are shown never existed before in exactly that way until you asked for it, so its provenance traces back both to underlying data sources and to the algorithms and knowledge built into the Wolfram|Alpha computational system. As such, the results you get from Wolfram|Alpha are correctly attributed to Wolfram|Alpha itself.
If you make results from Wolfram|Alpha available to anyone else, or incorporate those results into your own documents or presentations, you must include attribution indicating that the results AND/OR [emphasis mine] the presentation of the results came from Wolfram|Alpha. Some Wolfram|Alpha results include copyright statements or attributions linking the results to us or to third-party data providers, and you may not remove or obscure those attributions or copyright statements. Whenever possible, such attribution should take the form of a link to Wolfram|Alpha, either to the front page of the website or, better yet, to the specific query that generated the results you used. (This is also the most useful form of attribution for your readers, and they will appreciate your using links whenever possible.)
A list of suggested citation styles and icons is available here.
Failure to properly attribute results from Wolfram|Alpha is not only a violation of these terms, but may also constitute academic plagiarism OR [emphasis mine] a violation of copyright law. Attribution is something we expect you to give us in exchange for us having provided you with a high-quality free service.
The specific images, such as plots, typeset formulas, and tables, as well as the general page layouts, are all copyrighted by Wolfram|Alpha at the time Wolfram|Alpha generates them. A great deal of scholarship and innovation is included in the results generated and displayed by Wolfram|Alpha, including the presentations, collections, and juxtapositions of data, and the choices involved in formulating and composing mathematical results; these are also protected by copyright.
You may use any results, including copyrighted results, from Wolfram|Alpha for personal use and in academic or non-commercial publications, provided you comply with these terms.
If you want to use copyrighted results returned by Wolfram|Alpha in a commercial or for-profit publication we will usually be happy to grant you a low- or no-cost license to do so. To request a commercial-use license, go to this form and provide the input for which you want to use the corresponding output along with information concerning the nature of your proposed use. Your request will be reviewed and answered as quickly as practical.
DISCLAIMER: These results are the property of Wolfram|Alpha.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You didn't know what you were looking for, we did.
we found it for you, you WILL find that what we gave you is what you were looking for.
If you have a problem with this, we will kill you.
(or failing that, come close enough for a copyright suit... how about a copyright vest? trousers?... what about a copyright shirt and tie?)
Re:That's pretty standard (Score:5, Informative)
Don't see what the big deal is, here. Since Google doesn't host any of the actual information, you don't need to cite them as a source. You do need to cite the page you get to from Google, though. Think of W|A like a procedurally generated encyclopedia/textbook/almanac. Just like any of those other sources, you should cite it as a reference.
The sooner people stop associating Google and Alpha in their heads, the better.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Just like any of those other sources, you should cite it as a reference
I should, if I'm writing an academic paper. I never thought of it as something that should be enforced, with them claiming I've violated the ToS, or threatening copyright infringement, especially when all I'm doing is posting a search result to Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Google does, in fact, host all of the information used in their searches (it doesn't go out a spider the web in response to your request, it spiders it earlier, creates a database, supplements that database with information about your and other users past searches and behavior, and uses that database when you enter a search query.)
Re: (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.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not for lack of trying [techlawjournal.com], though.
Re: (Score:2)
First it would have to actually do something... (Score:5, Insightful)
the legalese says that they claim copyright on the each results page and require attribution.
and that day appears a long way off, especially given the way they hyped it.
Besides, all their data comes from somewhere, and I don't see those attributions. And by all their data I mean symbolic integration, fractals, and Wolfram's formulation of a Turing machine which no one else uses.
I don't know what Alpha will be like in the future, but I was extremely disappointed in the present, and imagine Google^2 will make Alpha obsolete very soon anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, I was pretty impressed with the math example.
On the one hand, with Alpha, no one really needs to learn basic calculus any more. On the other hand, with Alpha, lots of people aren't going to learn basic calculus....
Nothing to worry about for academics (Score:5, Informative)
All they ask is that you attribute them when publishing results derived from their service. Example:
Methods: "The comparative population studies were derived from the Wolphram Alpha service (Wolphram, 2009)"
Regular thing for academics. I cite NCBI blast service, I cite PFAM, I cite dozens of other services out there. Most of these tools require or ask for an attribution; and in most cases, this is anyways necessary in a scientific procedure.
j.
Re:Nothing to worry about for academics (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nothing to worry about for academics (Score:5, Insightful)
You think it's not reasonable? Then write your own Wolphram Alpha, if you really think it is that simple, and use that instead of WA for your work. Man, you have no idea what you are talking about here. Modern biology would be nowhere if people who build such "turing machines" were not credited for their work, and consequently get grants for their research.
For example, tons of software in bioinformatics is written with a completely open source and well known algorithms, using data gathered by experimentalists, and yet they get the recognition -- because someone had to come up the with the idea, gather (and maintain!) the data, run tests, implement, etc. etc. Believe me, even with simple ideas and algorithms and for simpler data sets this is a shitload of work. Heck, even re-implementations of existing tools get recognized.
Secondly, a scientific procedure requires that you publish your methods -- you have used software X to generate figure Y and table Z, then you have to write how you did it. And noone in her or his right mind will reimplement existing tools just for the sake of the current work without a very good reason.
That said, sometimes a tool like that allows you to "get on the trail" -- which you then pursue using something else. For example, WA would give you a hint that there might be a connection between cancer and, say, cigarettes, and you show this connection using clinical trials. In such a case, however, when you do not publish the data from WA directly, nor any figures derived from it, you are not required to cite it.
Note that I am in no way convinced that WA is of any use. The parts of it that overlap with my area of expertise (biology / biocomputing) are naive and rudimentary, and mostly useless to say the least.
j.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is exactly why academics will ignore the Wolfram|Alpha terms-of-service and simply use their own best judgment to decide when to cite it.
No academic would cite Wolfram|Alpha (or any other software package) when they use it to perform some simple calculation, like sin(x) or whatever. But if the piece of software is performing a non-trivial calculation, then it should be cited, both to provide proper credit/attribution, and to make the methods section of a paper complete (it is possible that there is so
Re: (Score:2)
Science is all about having replicable results... how could someone replicate your results if you failed to list all the procedures you used?
Re:Nothing to worry about for academics (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, but such a citation is also very useless for the readers of an article, since a search engine/computational service does not produce immutable results. You never know when you read the article and check the stuff in Wolfram Alpha yourself, if the results you get are the same the authors used.
Basically a service like Wolfram Alpha is not usable as an academic source.
Of course. (Score:5, Funny)
Wolfram Alpha doesn't just provide you with knowledge. It provides you with a new kind of knowledge. Any knowledge you gain from it must be attributed to Stephen Wolfram ... because he invented it. It is actually safer to attribute all citations to Stephen Wolfram, in fact, because he is smarter than you.
Re:Of course. (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, I thought it was Wolfram, not Colbert. Guess I'll pay closer attention next time. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I thought it was the other way around...
Re: (Score:2)
Wolfram Alpha doesn't just provide you with knowledge. It provides you with a new kind of knowledge. Any knowledge you gain from it must be attributed to Stephen Wolfram ... because he invented it.
Note: you may not fully appreciate this joke unless you have read some or all of Wolfram's voluminous tome A New Kind of Science.
Re: (Score:2)
Wolfram deserves a big wet raspberry from everybody who thinks he is nothing more than an insufferable ego-maniac windbag that like the rest of us ride along on the coattails of the really great minds that came before.
A New Kind of Wolfram (Score:3, Informative)
This whole "new kind of [whatever]" meme might be really funny if it weren't so sad -- not because Wolfram doesn't really think he is smarter than almost everybody else (he does), but because - reportedly [google.com] - he can't be prevailed upon to care about what most other people think, let alone how his choices might affect them:
Re: (Score:2)
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)
"Source Information" doesn't mean what you think (Score:3, Informative)
You are making the easily understandable mistake of assuming that the "Source Information" link does, in fact, liest the sources of information used in the query. While you'd think that would be the case, if you actually read the disclaimer at the
I'm not sure what to do with your input (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not Surprising (Score:2)
Wolfram got bit, BAD by its case with mathworld and the corresponding book.
End of story, the tail wag the dog and CRC turned (almost stole) an 'pre-wikipedia' and turned into its own property.
It's not surprising he's being extra careful now.
not quite what it says (Score:5, Informative)
There are couple of really scary things in the terms of use. For instance, minors are not allowed to use the service without the permission of adults, and adults become fully responsible for the actions of the child. I am unsure of why they felt they had to put that in there. Then there is the first sentence "The Wolfram|Alpha service may be used only by a human being using a conventional web browser to manually enter queries one at a time". I hate to have to define what a conventional browser is. For may people it would be only IE.
More scare is the ambiguous policy to deep linking. To wit "It is not permitted to use Wolfram|Alpha indirectly through another website that has created a large number of deep links to Wolfram|Alpha, or that automatically constructs links based on input that you give on that site, rather than on Wolfram|Alpha. You may not in effect use Wolfram|Alpha through an alternate user interface presented by another website." Clearly they want to not have bots and third parties writing code to hijck the site. Disappointing given the wonderful work they did with Mathworld.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we'll never see anything like this:
http://www.monzy.org/unsafesearch/ [monzy.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Does it cut both ways? (Score:5, Insightful)
If attribution is required because (according to the TOS):
In many cases the data you are shown never existed before in exactly that way until you asked for it, so its provenance traces back both to underlying data sources and to the algorithms and knowledge built into the Wolfram|Alpha computational system. As such, the results you get from Wolfram|Alpha are correctly attributed to Wolfram|Alpha itself.
Does that mean that Wolfram|Alpha can be sued for slander if its algorithm generates a false statement about some individual or corporation by "misunderstanding" the data it is digesting? In other words, if the result is something uniquely generated by Wolfram|Alpha, deserving of attribution in the same way that an author of a book deserves attribution, do they also deserve to be held liable if the content they are generating is incorrect or slanderous?
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:Good Attribution, Useless Result (Score:4, Funny)
Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input.
Related inputs to try:
People: ted
Of course, the correct answer to this question would have been "He who smelt it, dealt it". I remain unimpressed.
Case sensitivity (Score:2)
Did a search for 'hockey' and got some general information (as expected). Tried a new search for 'ice hockey' which attempted to redirected to 'Hockey' which apparently isn't a doesn't exist (the capital 'H' throws it off).
Then it asked for my e-mail address for some reason...
Oops! The Vulcan Academy cheer is now copyrighted (Score:5, Funny)
deep links (Score:5, Interesting)
I note that Wolfram|Alpha happily deep-links to Google Maps.
WolframAlpha says... (Score:2)
So, would that output be literary, musical, or artistic?
Meanwhile, the search term "a document granting exclusive right to publish and sell literary or musical or artistic work" [google.com], produced 523 results on Google.
I wonder if WolframAlpha just forgot to name the source?
Has anyone managed to do anything useful with it? (Score:2)
Beyond their examples and a few symbolic calculus examples I haven't actually got it to return anything other than "I'm not sure what to do with your input"
Copyright (Score:2)
How is a document generated by a computer program in response to an external users query an original work of authorship created by Wolfram? Sure, the computer program itself is, but that's a different issue. If its not, it isn't subject to copyright by Wolfram, and nothing in W|A's terms of service can make it so.
Re:And yet (Score:5, Informative)
They don't? All calculations generate the sources under the "Source information" link on each page.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't identify the sources of particular facts used (for instance, if you ask for the population of a country, you'll get a Wolfram|Alpha "Primary Source" -- and a whole list of other sources that are generically root sources of population data.)
Meanwhile, if I ask Google for the population of a country, I get a numeric answer with a specific website that is the source of the information. (I point to that specific e
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Come on man, you could at least feed it a useless and disgusting expression. That's its purpose ya?
http://www94.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=zeta(sin(atan(x [wolframalpha.com]^i)))
Re:Hah! (Score:5, Funny)
Come on man, you could at least feed it a useless and disgusting expression.
If you feed it "goatse" it says it doesn't know what to do with your input. That's a vast improvement over Google.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Hah! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, after seeing this is I can understand their terms of service. You can't have a linear thought process to understand why they have the terms they do.
They're trying to corner the market on the semantic web. It's not the results that are technically all that interesting, it's how you can use those results that makes it worth money.
Google is for all intents and purposes a catalogue. It doesn't return any data (and as time has gone on returns fewer relevant search results).
W/A is returning data about da
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
do a search for any website (here is slashdot for the click impaired [wolframalpha.com])
Congratulations, but "deep linking", you've violated their terms of service.
Hmm, I guess I did too.
I wonder how they're gonna prosecute us, seeing as neither one of us was presented by so much as a "click-through" agreement.
Maybe someone needs to tell them that just saying something doesn't make it so.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It'll solve differential equations.
Re: (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:Hah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well it claims to make information computable. I accept it's not meant to find results like Google but the issue with it is it doesn't even seem to gather basic data in a computable form.
I mean, you try things like "On what date did the Falklands war commence?", "How many species of Melocactus are there?", "On what date was Adolf Hitler born" and it outright fails.
Okay, so I figured maybe I'm asking questions that are out of the intended realm of knowledge it supports and the assumption is that you'd never want to compute with this information. So I tried something Mathematical - I mean, that is Wolfram's speciality right?
"How many non-isomorphic labelled trees are there with 4 vertices"
Fail.
I've tried a few other relevant, factual questions and it just falls flat over, not even able to try and answer them.
I'm sure it does do a great job of making information computable, the problem is it's unable to gather the information in the first place.
Ironically, Google, that doesn't claim to make information computable manage to provide answers for all these questions within it's first page, often as the first hit. Sure it may not be presented in a standardised format, but data that needs to be parsed is certainly more computable than data that simply can't be provided at all.
I can see what Wolfram was trying to do, but why did he have to couple it with immense hype that it's as important as Google? Why has he been going on and on about it to the media when it struggles to even do what it's supposed to absolutely excel at? I think they could've at least saved face if they'd stopped being so cocky about it and released it with a little less hype and fanfair and let it improve and become more useful and hence more greatly adopted over time. One has to ask when there was so much hype about it and with a ToS like this whether it was all just about Wolfram gathering data for himself or something than providing a tool useful to everyone else. Either that or he simply beleives his own hype and believes the tool is better than it really is. Perhaps in developing and using it himself he was blinded in making and seeing it work well for applications specific to what he wanted without ever truly seeing how well it performs in other problem domains?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Man, you try too hard. I tried the simple "what time is it" and I got:
"Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input.Tips for good results Â"
Tips for good results: cut down the hype.
Re:Hah! (Score:5, Funny)
I've been to <redacted>. Used to be a great town, but now...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For wolfram alpha to be successful they will need to develop their natural language parsing abilities, it's not easy to do, each question may require individual interpretation. At this point using google is better for understanding more abstract concepts.
I've used wolfram alpha to help with my linear algebra homework for the past few days. Good info for checking my work. Matrix example [wolframalpha.com]
The best part is using it on a phone, it's made my G1 a more powerful calculator than my good ol TI-92.
Re:Hah! (Score:5, Funny)
More importantly, it completely fails at this question: http://www26.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=historical+popularity+trends+of+shaved+genitalia+in+pornography [wolframalpha.com]
I was looking forward to the graph too :-\
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It isn't a search engine; it doesn't search. I'm going to rip my face off if I hear another person refer to it as a search engine.
Not a search engine... or yes? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, it does NOT search. But they sold it this way - or at least they played aggressively with the idea.
While creating PR buzz around it, they introduced it like "not a Google killer", when nobody had any idea what the thing was (so they could introduce the concept just the way they wanted to, and they explicitely chose to introduce the Google benchmark, even if to negate it.) And they obviously KNEW where this approach would have led to, in people's mind.
In other words. If I launch a new ecommerce platform
Re: (Score:2)
What original data does it provide?
Quoting books and solving formulas are not examples of original data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A contract requires some specific elements to be enforceable: an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration. You could say putting up the site is an offer to use it, and actually using it is an acceptance of this offer. But there's no consideration being traded. Hence, their TOS is not a contract.
It's more accurate to say the TOS is a license to use their site. But even in that case, what remedy could they pursue if someone used their information without their permission or in a way that contravenes the TOS?
Re: (Score:2)
how is this original data? This is just a public fact.
Re:Wolfram|Alpha just killed their business (Score:5, Insightful)
How are people who show up to use a free service "customers?" Google's customers, for example, are their advertisers, not the people who use the free stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
How are people who show up to use a free service "customers?"
They're the product, not customers.
Re:Wolfram|Alpha just killed their business (Score:5, Insightful)
How are people who show up to use a free service "customers?" Google's customers, for example, are their advertisers, not the people who use the free stuff.
They can both be considered customers. I'm Google's customer because I give them money; not directly, but through their advertising. Of course, that depends on the definition that you use for customer, but I'm giving Google something they want (pageviews and advertisement clicks) in exchange for them giving me something that I want (good search results). If we're not their customer, then we're very close. If I go to another site for my searches, then Google loses money.
Nothing new for Wolfram (Score:5, Informative)
Anybody who has used Wolfram's products, such as Mathematica, for more than a few versions, knows that they don't have, how shall I say this? a very enlightened view of the relationship between the party that sells a product and the party that buys that product.
In fact, their user agreements have always been among the very worst in the software industry, that is, if you happen to believe that the consumer has any rights at all beyond the right to give money to the vendor.
They've always been pretty hostile toward their customers.
Re:Nothing new for Wolfram (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Nothing new for Wolfram (Score:4, Insightful)
You make a good point. If you are doing ground-breaking research that depends on computer calculations, how can you be sure that the results given to you by mathematica are accurate and not a bug? Reworking the calcualtions by hand defeats the purpose of using the software in the first place, if that is even possible (some physics simulations take weeks of _computer_time_ to compute).
At least with open source computer algebra, one can verify the method used to compute the results.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
try clicking the links.
Re:slashdot (Score:4, Funny)
Wolfram Alpha sucks anyways. Try looking for big tits on that site. Goes nowhere but the definition.
Re:slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(sinc+(x)+*+sinc+(y))+ [wolframalpha.com]
I'm sure you could do better if you had more time.