3 ms·
> Shall not be used for any scientific or academic research, in commerce, for analytical purposes, for or any mailout or information distribution purposes, as w
by klohto 6y ago
> Shall not be used for any scientific or academic research, in commerce, for analytical purposes, for or any mailout or information distribution purposes, as well as for any illegal purpose
Well that's a bummer
- icedchai 6y agoNot to worry. It says "shall not" instead of "must not."
- oefrha 6y agoRFC 2119: > MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119
- icedchai 6y agoRFC's aren't legal documents. See https://feltg.com/shall-will-may-or-must/ https://feltg.com/shall-will-may-or-must/ "The only word of obligation from the list above is must – and therefore, the only term connoting strict prohibition is must not. The interpretation of everything else is up for debate."
- qchris 6y agoYeah, this is a hard no from me. It also provides me with little confidence that the data itself is particularly useful, since the terms basically prevent anyone from publicly doing any kind of cross-validation. Scientific peer review didn't appear as some sort of bureaucratic oversight, it appeared because people value information that other experts have reviewed and said "Yeah, that checks out." By even trying to prevent people from doing that, I think the value of this data set is drastically reduced.
- scherbak 6y agoThanks for pointing this out. We've actually meant that any use for personal purposes is allowed. Not as strict as it sounds in the ToS.