4 ms·

OK so lets shut down Wikipedia next.

by Tichy 15y ago

freehunter 15y ago
As soon as they start charging for access. See, this is the problem with deceptive headlines, they make people argue points that don't exist.
- Tichy 15y ago
  So what if I have a company that sells information and Wikipedia ruins my business by offering information for free? Edit: even if Wikipedia is non-profit, what if their secret main sponsor is some news outlet, for example?
  - freehunter 15y ago
    That doesn't matter. There is no law nor any court ruling even in France against providing free services. Here is the entire key to the issue: >Bottin Cartographes argued that Google was only planning to give away the service for free until all the competitors had been driven out of business and then they would start charging. It's not about free services, it's about willfully plotting to gain marketshare via free services with specific intent on charging for the service once the competitors have been driven out. While I believe the French ruling is faulty (where is the proof?), this isn't an issue of free vs paid. The analogy only works if Wikipedia has specific intent to begin charging for access once your business is gone.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      How did they prove that Google was plotting that scheme?
      - freehunter 15y ago
        I have no idea. Like I mentioned, I'd like to see the proof before I believe Google was planning this. Obviously it was enough to convince the courts, but I know courts can be deceived and biased (especially when it's local companies vs foreign companies).
      - potatolicious 15y ago
        I don't know the specifics of this case, but Google did start charging for Maps last year for commercial users, at least in the US. That may be enough to prove intent?
        Tichy 15y ago
        But they were sued for not charging. So if they are actually charging... It just doesn't seem to make any sense at all.
uniclaude 15y ago
Well, either you did not understand the comment you are replying to, or you believe that Wikipedia will charge for its access. What does make you think such a thing ?
- Tichy 15y ago
  So Google is only made to pay because they have a paid version of Maps? If Maps were completely free, they would be good? Who guarantees that Wikipedia never starts charging, as soon as all other information services have been pushed out of the market? Sorry but yes maybe I missed some tidbit in the article?
  - cooldeal 15y ago
    I think the big difference is that Google is using the money from it's monopoly search to artificially subsidize maps below cost. OSM and Wikipedia etc. are doing no such thing.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Who guarantees that Wikipedia never starts charging, as soon as all other information services have been pushed out of the market? The fact that anyone can make an exact Wikipedia clone thanks to the free licensing of their software and content?
    - zmmmmm 15y ago
      > The fact that anyone can make an exact Wikipedia clone thanks to the free licensing of their software and content? Wikipedia could change that at any time. Old versions of Wikipedia could be distributed but they wouldn't be up to date any more.
      - nitrogen 15y ago
        Actually, Wikipedia can't change the license on existing articles to a more restrictive one, as copyright in the articles remains with the mass of editors that wrote them. In fact, they had to get FSF to add a special exemption just for them to an updated version of the GNU FDL so they could add the less-restrictive CC to their set of licenses.
vlasta2 15y ago
There is a difference. Wikipedia and many open source projects cannot forcibly switch to paid model, because they are currently giving their content away under CC-BY or GPL and you can keep a copy of it. If they started charging, you can fork the project and continue charge-free. Google maps API is a service controlled by Google. You cannot replicate it and keep using it if Google changes its mind about the licensing.
- nknight 15y ago
  What makes you think a irrationally protectionist French court isn't going to issue an order changing the licensing terms of Wikipedia's content?

OK so lets shut down Wikipedia next.

by Tichy 15y ago

OK so lets shut down Wikipedia next.

As soon as they start charging for access. See, this is the problem with deceptive headlines, they make people argue points that don't exist.

Tichy 15y ago
So what if I have a company that sells information and Wikipedia ruins my business by offering information for free? Edit: even if Wikipedia is non-profit, what if their secret main sponsor is some news outlet, for example?
- freehunter 15y ago
  That doesn't matter. There is no law nor any court ruling even in France against providing free services. Here is the entire key to the issue: >Bottin Cartographes argued that Google was only planning to give away the service for free until all the competitors had been driven out of business and then they would start charging. It's not about free services, it's about willfully plotting to gain marketshare via free services with specific intent on charging for the service once the competitors have been driven out. While I believe the French ruling is faulty (where is the proof?), this isn't an issue of free vs paid. The analogy only works if Wikipedia has specific intent to begin charging for access once your business is gone.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    How did they prove that Google was plotting that scheme?
    - freehunter 15y ago
      I have no idea. Like I mentioned, I'd like to see the proof before I believe Google was planning this. Obviously it was enough to convince the courts, but I know courts can be deceived and biased (especially when it's local companies vs foreign companies).
    - potatolicious 15y ago
      I don't know the specifics of this case, but Google did start charging for Maps last year for commercial users, at least in the US. That may be enough to prove intent?
      - Tichy 15y ago
        But they were sued for not charging. So if they are actually charging... It just doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

uniclaude 15y ago

Well, either you did not understand the comment you are replying to, or you believe that Wikipedia will charge for its access. What does make you think such a thing ?

Tichy 15y ago
So Google is only made to pay because they have a paid version of Maps? If Maps were completely free, they would be good? Who guarantees that Wikipedia never starts charging, as soon as all other information services have been pushed out of the market? Sorry but yes maybe I missed some tidbit in the article?
- cooldeal 15y ago
  I think the big difference is that Google is using the money from it's monopoly search to artificially subsidize maps below cost. OSM and Wikipedia etc. are doing no such thing.
- icebraining 15y ago
  Who guarantees that Wikipedia never starts charging, as soon as all other information services have been pushed out of the market? The fact that anyone can make an exact Wikipedia clone thanks to the free licensing of their software and content?
  - zmmmmm 15y ago
    > The fact that anyone can make an exact Wikipedia clone thanks to the free licensing of their software and content? Wikipedia could change that at any time. Old versions of Wikipedia could be distributed but they wouldn't be up to date any more.
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      Actually, Wikipedia can't change the license on existing articles to a more restrictive one, as copyright in the articles remains with the mass of editors that wrote them. In fact, they had to get FSF to add a special exemption just for them to an updated version of the GNU FDL so they could add the less-restrictive CC to their set of licenses.

vlasta2 15y ago

There is a difference. Wikipedia and many open source projects cannot forcibly switch to paid model, because they are currently giving their content away under CC-BY or GPL and you can keep a copy of it. If they started charging, you can fork the project and continue charge-free. Google maps API is a service controlled by Google. You cannot replicate it and keep using it if Google changes its mind about the licensing.

nknight 15y ago
What makes you think a irrationally protectionist French court isn't going to issue an order changing the licensing terms of Wikipedia's content?