9 ms·

I don't get why the author claims this is a move towards google being more closed. All they ask is that you share back. According to that argument the GPL is on

by nkassis 16y ago

I don't get why the author claims this is a move towards google being more closed. All they ask is that you share back. According to that argument the GPL is on the path to closed source.

sandipc 16y ago
Agreed. This is a much better argument for Facebook being 'closed.'
jkincaid 16y ago
Perhaps closed was the wrong word — it's certainly more restrictive, is it not? It's my data. If I want to bring it to another service, I should be able to — at least, that's what Google has been saying for a long time now. Even if my data is ultimately going to be locked up in this other site, is that not my decision to make?
- raganwald 16y ago
  Export your data to a file. Import your data into whatever app or service you like. All Google is saying is that if some other service wants to scrape your data automatically and with your permission, then they need to let Google do the same, scrape your data with your permission.
  - jkincaid 16y ago
    Valid point, but the hurdle associated with exporting and re-uploading that data is non-trivial for most people. Is it truly portable if a user can't figure out how to take it with them in the first place? Edit: I should add that I think a fairer exchange of information between Google and Facebook would be a good thing for users. I just think the way Google is doing this conflicts to some degree with their past mission statements regarding users owning their data.
    - russell_h 16y ago
      Is it truly portable if its impossible to take it with you in the first place? Because thats what Google seems to be fighting against here.
      - extension 16y ago
        Do you think that Google thinks that Facebook is going to give in because of this? They're not fighting anything. It's a convenient excuse for getting their users caught in the crossfire. If Google believes that open data is the right thing to do, then they should be doing it unconditionally, not using it as a bargaining chip.
- moxiemk1 16y ago
  If it really is our data, then they should provide some sort of export-to-file that you could conceivably upload somewhere else. Streamlining the process of moving to another site, though, isn't part of being open with data. Its just a courtesy that they are now choosing not to extend. With an export-to-file, you control your data in every meaningful way, Google has complete control over their product in every meaningful way, and Facebook doesn't get to freeload. Plus, if they offered to upload from files, it would open up this process to anyone using non-mainstream services who could conceivably export in the same format.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  The main thing is I don't see Google taking a hit in the press for this, considering that it's clearly fair.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  > It's my data. If I want to bring it to another service, I should be able to Technically, you can. You can already move your data from Facebook to Google, or any place else. You just can't use an API to do it with. Google isn't imposing conditions on data. Instead, they are imposing restrictions on using it's API to access that data. You might consider it splitting hairs, but it's important. As a business, I shouldn't be required to build things into my API I don't want, and I shouldn't be required to give access to anyone that asks my API. I should be allowed to build an API as I deem necessary. While it's beneficial for users to have access to easily transport their data from one service to another, that should be my choice to set up.
jackowayed 16y ago
I would say that the GPL is closer to closed source than MIT/Apache, in that it puts more restrictions on how you use the code.
- rue 16y ago
  That is only possible if you completely subvert the actual meaning of "open source". Feel free to argue that you think MIT/BSD gives more freedom to the downstream developer but please do not play around with words. GPL is open source, and ensures its derivatives stay open source. MIT/BSD do not do the latter, for better or worse.
- metageek 16y ago
  It's the difference between the freedom of a bill of rights and the freedom of anarchy. Both ways make sense, they just don't get along together.

by nkassis 16y ago

I don't get why the author claims this is a move towards google being more closed. All they ask is that you share back. According to that argument the GPL is on the path to closed source.

sandipc 16y ago

Agreed. This is a much better argument for Facebook being 'closed.'

jkincaid 16y ago

Perhaps closed was the wrong word — it's certainly more restrictive, is it not? It's my data. If I want to bring it to another service, I should be able to — at least, that's what Google has been saying for a long time now. Even if my data is ultimately going to be locked up in this other site, is that not my decision to make?

raganwald 16y ago
Export your data to a file. Import your data into whatever app or service you like. All Google is saying is that if some other service wants to scrape your data automatically and with your permission, then they need to let Google do the same, scrape your data with your permission.
- jkincaid 16y ago
  Valid point, but the hurdle associated with exporting and re-uploading that data is non-trivial for most people. Is it truly portable if a user can't figure out how to take it with them in the first place? Edit: I should add that I think a fairer exchange of information between Google and Facebook would be a good thing for users. I just think the way Google is doing this conflicts to some degree with their past mission statements regarding users owning their data.
  - russell_h 16y ago
    Is it truly portable if its impossible to take it with you in the first place? Because thats what Google seems to be fighting against here.
    - extension 16y ago
      Do you think that Google thinks that Facebook is going to give in because of this? They're not fighting anything. It's a convenient excuse for getting their users caught in the crossfire. If Google believes that open data is the right thing to do, then they should be doing it unconditionally, not using it as a bargaining chip.
moxiemk1 16y ago
If it really is our data, then they should provide some sort of export-to-file that you could conceivably upload somewhere else. Streamlining the process of moving to another site, though, isn't part of being open with data. Its just a courtesy that they are now choosing not to extend. With an export-to-file, you control your data in every meaningful way, Google has complete control over their product in every meaningful way, and Facebook doesn't get to freeload. Plus, if they offered to upload from files, it would open up this process to anyone using non-mainstream services who could conceivably export in the same format.
joe_the_user 16y ago
The main thing is I don't see Google taking a hit in the press for this, considering that it's clearly fair.
jasonlotito 16y ago
> It's my data. If I want to bring it to another service, I should be able to Technically, you can. You can already move your data from Facebook to Google, or any place else. You just can't use an API to do it with. Google isn't imposing conditions on data. Instead, they are imposing restrictions on using it's API to access that data. You might consider it splitting hairs, but it's important. As a business, I shouldn't be required to build things into my API I don't want, and I shouldn't be required to give access to anyone that asks my API. I should be allowed to build an API as I deem necessary. While it's beneficial for users to have access to easily transport their data from one service to another, that should be my choice to set up.

jackowayed 16y ago

I would say that the GPL is closer to closed source than MIT/Apache, in that it puts more restrictions on how you use the code.

rue 16y ago
That is only possible if you completely subvert the actual meaning of "open source". Feel free to argue that you think MIT/BSD gives more freedom to the downstream developer but please do not play around with words. GPL is open source, and ensures its derivatives stay open source. MIT/BSD do not do the latter, for better or worse.
metageek 16y ago
It's the difference between the freedom of a bill of rights and the freedom of anarchy. Both ways make sense, they just don't get along together.