Slashdot Mirror
Wolfram|Alpha's Surprising Terms of Service
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."
How is it reasonable to ask for attribution for having a computer perform a calculation on someone else's data? Wolfram Alpha has do nothing except code a turing machine, I do not cite HP when I do a calculation on my calculator and I see no reason why more complex but equally wrote calculations should be. I ask the computer a question and it gives an answer, is the question or code used to find the answer the insightful/citable part of the idea?
I note that Wolfram|Alpha happily deep-links to Google Maps.
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.
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.