I received the following email from Yahoo copyright which I thought I'd reprint here. To me, it's pretty convincing evidence that they have indeed backed down. I reprint this for two reasons: to inform, and as evidence. If Yahoo ever does decide to steal someone's original work, then hopefully the following can be considered as some sort of verbal contract, since they specifically say:
"We intend for these rules to be legally binding on Yahoo!. And, as the lawyers say, to the extent that any of these rules conflict with or modify the Yahoo! Terms of Service, these rules will prevail."
Note that it appears to be a generic reply; I'm not actually a member of GeoCities myself:
--begin--
Yahoo! does not claim ownership of the content on your site. We never have.
One of the terms in the Yahoo! Terms of Service grants us the license (in other words, gives us your consent) to use the content on your GeoCities site. We ask for this license to do the job of serving your pages to the world, but Yahoo! agrees to the following rules with respect to the content on your GeoCities site:
* You license your content to Yahoo! so that we can display the content on your GeoCities site and promote the Yahoo! GeoCities services.
* The license exists for as long as you continue to be a Yahoo! GeoCities homesteader, no longer.
* Yahoo! has the right to reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, and create derivative works of your content only for the purpose of hosting your GeoCities site and providing and promoting the Yahoo! GeoCities service.
Some people have asked if under these rules Yahoo! can do things like publish a book or make a movie using your Yahoo! GeoCities homepage content. We cannot.
We intend for these rules to be legally binding on Yahoo!. And, as the lawyers say, to the extent that any of these rules conflict with or modify the Yahoo! Terms of Service, these rules will prevail.
Folks, please know that we've built our network of services and tools by committing ourselves to our users. Starting in the early days of the Web with the Yahoo! directory, we've always made it our job to respond to your needs. We understand that we owe any success to you. We have no intention of violating the trust that we've built with you over the years.
We're blessed to be working in an industry in which, on a daily basis, we hear the good and the bad directly from people like you. We listen when you talk to us. The recent merger of Yahoo! and GeoCities does not (and will not) change that.
We understand your recent concerns, but there are some very basic and important reasons why an online company such as Yahoo! asks for such a license.
For starters, we use many computers to serve to the world the millions of GeoCities home pages. In order to display your pages quickly and not lose any of your content (say, in a computer crash), we often need to copy your files onto more than one computer. Very simply, the license assures that we can do this.
In addition, if we choose to promote your page on the top of Yahoo! GeoCities, or anywhere else on the Yahoo! network (even, for example, in a marketing promotion of Yahoo!'s many services), we need to reproduce the content. Again, the license assures that we can do this.
There are many times when we use other companies to help us serve web pages on our global network. Sometimes information is changed as it is served to the world. For example, if your page contains images in JPEG format and the other company's service uses GIF format, your images may need to be adapted to fit in.
These are just a few reasons. Also keep in mind that the Yahoo! GeoCities Terms of Service (which have been standard on the Yahoo! network) are very similar to the terms of service of many major Web sites and online services, including other home page providers.
We feel the recent merger of Yahoo! and GeoCities will provide many exciting opportunities for our users, but if you'd rather not keep your home page with us we, obviously, will respect your wishes.
Please visit this URL and we will remove your home page and account as soon as possible. http://add.yahoo.com/fast/help/geo/cgi_remove
If you feel that we may have sent you an inappropriate response to your question or comment, please respond to this e-mail and let us know.
While I don't think it has ever been formally called "open source", there has long been a free exchange of software in the scientific community. In fact, there are quite a few parallels between the Open Source Movement and science:
1) In both, reputation is a valuable currency. In most sciences, your livelihood depends as much on citations as publications. Writing software to perform a valuable task and then distributing it to others means more citations in their papers, increasing the reputation of the software's original designer.
2) In both, individuals are suspicious of anything they can't verify themselves. For this reason the code of scientific software is often made available for users to tinker with as they see fit, and so they can be certain that the program is doing what they think it is doing.
In the free release of scientific software, I also see a few potholes which highlight the potential weaknesses of open source:
1) Even when science software source is freely released, typically much of the development has already been completed. If a scientist were to make a project open-source from the beginning, she sacrifices her most valuable potential gains--the reputation she is accorded when people use her software. No one gets grants for starting open source software movements in science!
2) Science relies on reproducibility, and heavily modifying the source of a popular program hampers this goal. If two scientists use the same software to analyze the same data, they should expect to get the same results. Poorly-organized open source software risks fragmentation into a myriad of different versions, which dilutes the value of the program and raises as many suspicions as open source was designed to allay.
I think the most successful open source software has learned these lessons as well: open source works best when there's a shepherd to guide the flock, and this shepherd (or shepherds) must maintain a strong handle on "official" and "unofficial" versions.
"You license the Content to Yahoo as set forth below for the purpose of displaying and distributing such Content on our network of properties and for the promotion and marketing of our services."
takes care of my main worry--that Yahoo could use an author's writing or photographs in a collection solely for profit without providing royalties to the author. But are there any legalese types who have dealt with these sorts of things before who could tell us whether this actually limits Yahoo or not? In an email conversation I had with Yahoo, they were adamant that, even before the change of the TOS, they could not do so.
> Hahahah yeah right. Show me where one species > has had its DNA changed or altered and remained > viable, and even reproduced.
Most of molecular biology is based on altering DNA. Most molecular studies of proteins involve altering DNA to examine the effects of mutation. I refer you to every study on "knockout mice" (an Altavista search will garner hundreds), which involves knocking out the function of *entire genes* and watching the effects on the mouse, which vary from lethal to no effect at all. Many crops used today have been genetically engineered (their "DNA has been changed or altered") to resist herbicides and fungal diseases. There is a tremendous body of evidence that some mutation in DNA is tolerated and utilized by organisms; I can provide many more examples if you desire.
> We're not talking natural selection... that's > not really evolution.
Yes it is; evolution is all about natural selection. DNA accumulates errors through mutation, and nature selects certain of those mutations. Whether it selects them at random or just selects the most fit is currently a topic of scientific debate, but the fact that it occurs is not.
> Two, why isn't there a progression of steps, > instead of concrete, finite distinctions? For > that matter, how can we classify species under > evolution? There should be sooo many variations > and grades between species that one couldn't say > for sure. According to Evolution, > our classification should be more like: > "This species is 40% this and and 30% that and > 1% this..."
You are correct; there are many variations and grades. "Species" is just a taxonomic term used to help classify the tremendous diversity of organisms. In reality it's a continuum, so it might be best to classify organisms by the amount of variation between their genetic code (DNA). But because we have only begun to examine entire genomes, we still have to rely on the morphological characteristics (beak size, femur length, etc) which have traditionally been used to define a "species". Fortunately, in many cases DNA variation has upheld traditional classifications.
> If you look at *all* the facts, evolution takes > just as much faith as creation.
Science takes a lot of faith. Faith in other scientists' findings, faith that assumptions in mathematical proofs are valid, etc. But this misses the point:
> There is also significant scientific proof for > creation.
No, there is not. There can never be a shred of scientific proof for creation, because you're asking a question science can't answer. Science deals with testable, falsifiable hypotheses, and a "scientific answer" can always lead to more questions. But "The universe was created by a god" (while it may or may not be true) is not a scientific statement. How do we investigate it? Can you think of any test which would falsify such a statement? I can provide a myriad of possibilities for the creation of life, but you can always rejoin with "But God decided to do it that way", and I can't possibly falsify that statement. Anyone who believes that "there is significant scientific proof for creation" (or that there is evidence against it) has been taken in by charlatans who either misunderstand science or, worse, misrepresent it.
Slashdot Mirror
I received the following email from Yahoo copyright which I thought I'd reprint here. To me, it's pretty convincing evidence that they have indeed backed down. I reprint this for two reasons: to inform, and as evidence. If Yahoo ever does decide to steal someone's original work, then hopefully the following can be considered as some sort of verbal contract, since they specifically say:
"We intend for these rules to be legally binding on Yahoo!. And, as the lawyers say, to the extent that any of these rules conflict with or
modify the Yahoo! Terms of Service, these rules will prevail."
Note that it appears to be a generic reply; I'm not actually a member of GeoCities myself:
--begin--
Yahoo! does not claim ownership of the content on your site. We never
have.
One of the terms in the Yahoo! Terms of Service grants us the license
(in other words, gives us your consent) to use the content on your
GeoCities site. We ask for this license to do the job of serving your
pages to the world, but Yahoo! agrees to the following rules with
respect to the content on your GeoCities site:
* You license your content to Yahoo! so that we can display the content
on your GeoCities site and promote the Yahoo! GeoCities services.
* The license exists for as long as you continue to be a Yahoo!
GeoCities homesteader, no longer.
* Yahoo! has the right to reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, and create
derivative works of your content only for the purpose of hosting your
GeoCities site and providing and promoting the Yahoo! GeoCities service.
Some people have asked if under these rules Yahoo! can do things like
publish a book or make a movie using your Yahoo! GeoCities homepage
content. We cannot.
We intend for these rules to be legally binding on Yahoo!. And, as the
lawyers say, to the extent that any of these rules conflict with or
modify the Yahoo! Terms of Service, these rules will prevail.
Folks, please know that we've built our network of services and tools by
committing ourselves to our users. Starting in the early days of the Web
with the Yahoo! directory, we've always made it our job to respond to
your needs. We understand that we owe any success to you. We have no
intention of violating the trust that we've built with you over the
years.
We're blessed to be working in an industry in which, on a daily basis,
we hear the good and the bad directly from people like you. We listen
when you talk to us. The recent merger of Yahoo! and GeoCities does not
(and will not) change that.
We understand your recent concerns, but there are some very basic and
important reasons why an online company such as Yahoo! asks for such a
license.
For starters, we use many computers to serve to the world the millions
of GeoCities home pages. In order to display your pages quickly and not
lose any of your content (say, in a computer crash), we often need to
copy your files onto more than one computer. Very simply, the license
assures that we can do this.
In addition, if we choose to promote your page on the top of Yahoo!
GeoCities, or anywhere else on the Yahoo! network (even, for example, in
a marketing promotion of Yahoo!'s many services), we need to reproduce
the content. Again, the license assures that we can do this.
There are many times when we use other companies to help us serve web
pages on our global network. Sometimes information is changed as it is
served to the world. For example, if your page contains images in JPEG
format and the other company's service uses GIF format, your images may
need to be adapted to fit in.
These are just a few reasons. Also keep in mind that the Yahoo!
GeoCities Terms of Service (which have been standard on the Yahoo!
network) are very similar to the terms of service of many major Web
sites and online services, including other home page providers.
We feel the recent merger of Yahoo! and GeoCities will provide many
exciting opportunities for our users, but if you'd rather not keep your
home page with us we, obviously, will respect your wishes.
Please visit this URL and we will remove your home page and account as
soon as possible.
http://add.yahoo.com/fast/help/geo/cgi_remove
If you feel that we may have sent you an inappropriate response to your
question or comment, please respond to this e-mail and let us know.
Thank you for your time,
The Yahoo! Team
--end--
While I don't think it has ever been formally called "open source", there has long been a free exchange of software in the scientific community. In fact, there are quite a few parallels between the Open Source Movement and science:
1) In both, reputation is a valuable currency. In most sciences, your livelihood depends as much on citations as publications. Writing software to perform a valuable task and then distributing it to others means more citations in their papers, increasing the reputation of the software's original designer.
2) In both, individuals are suspicious of anything they can't verify themselves. For this reason the code of scientific software is often made available for users to tinker with as they see fit, and so they can be certain that the program is doing what they think it is doing.
In the free release of scientific software, I also see a few potholes which highlight the potential weaknesses of open source:
1) Even when science software source is freely released, typically much of the development has already been completed. If a scientist were to make a project open-source from the beginning, she sacrifices her most valuable potential gains--the reputation she is accorded when people use her software. No one gets grants for starting open source software movements in science!
2) Science relies on reproducibility, and heavily modifying the source of a popular program hampers this goal. If two scientists use the same software to analyze the same data, they should expect to get the same results. Poorly-organized open source software risks fragmentation into a myriad of different versions, which dilutes the value of the program and raises as many suspicions as open source was designed to allay.
I think the most successful open source software has learned these lessons as well: open source works best when there's a shepherd to guide the flock, and this shepherd (or shepherds) must maintain a strong handle on "official" and "unofficial" versions.
-=Hastur=-
I personally believe the new sentence added:
"You license the Content to Yahoo as set forth below for the purpose of displaying and distributing such Content on our network of properties and for the promotion and marketing of our services."
takes care of my main worry--that Yahoo could use an author's writing or photographs in a collection solely for profit without providing royalties to the author. But are there any legalese types who have dealt with these sorts of things before who could tell us whether this actually limits Yahoo or not? In an email conversation I had with Yahoo, they were adamant that, even before the change of the TOS, they could not do so.
-=Hastur=-
> Hahahah yeah right. Show me where one species
> has had its DNA changed or altered and remained
> viable, and even reproduced.
Most of molecular biology is based on altering DNA. Most molecular studies of proteins involve altering DNA to examine the effects of mutation. I refer you to every study on "knockout mice" (an Altavista search will garner hundreds), which involves knocking out the function of *entire genes* and watching the effects on the mouse, which vary from lethal to no effect at all. Many crops used today have been genetically engineered (their "DNA has been changed or altered") to resist herbicides and fungal diseases. There is a tremendous body of evidence that some mutation in DNA is tolerated and utilized by organisms; I can provide many more examples if you desire.
> We're not talking natural selection... that's
> not really evolution.
Yes it is; evolution is all about natural selection. DNA accumulates errors through mutation, and nature selects certain of those mutations. Whether it selects them at random or just selects the most fit is currently a topic of scientific debate, but the fact that it occurs is not.
> Two, why isn't there a progression of steps,
> instead of concrete, finite distinctions? For
> that matter, how can we classify species under
> evolution? There should be sooo many variations
> and grades between species that one couldn't say
> for sure. According to Evolution,
> our classification should be more like:
> "This species is 40% this and and 30% that and
> 1% this..."
You are correct; there are many variations and grades. "Species" is just a taxonomic term used to help classify the tremendous diversity of organisms. In reality it's a continuum, so it might be best to classify organisms by the amount of variation between their genetic code (DNA). But because we have only begun to examine entire genomes, we still have to rely on the morphological characteristics (beak size, femur length, etc) which have traditionally been used to define a "species". Fortunately, in many cases DNA variation has upheld traditional classifications.
> If you look at *all* the facts, evolution takes
> just as much faith as creation.
Science takes a lot of faith. Faith in other scientists' findings, faith that assumptions in mathematical proofs are valid, etc. But this misses the point:
> There is also significant scientific proof for
> creation.
No, there is not. There can never be a shred of scientific proof for creation, because you're asking a question science can't answer. Science deals with testable, falsifiable hypotheses, and a "scientific answer" can always lead to more questions. But "The universe was created by a god" (while it may or may not be true) is not a scientific statement. How do we investigate it? Can you think of any test which would falsify such a statement? I can provide a myriad of possibilities for the creation of life, but you can always rejoin with "But God decided to do it that way", and I can't possibly falsify that statement. Anyone who believes that "there is significant scientific proof for creation" (or that there is evidence against it) has been taken in by charlatans who either misunderstand science or, worse, misrepresent it.
-=Hastur=-