31–40 of 111 posts
You break the rules, you pay the consequences. Ignorance is NOT an excuse. He's "in his situation" (edit) with Wolfram because he didn't do his due-diligence and contact them first before linking to them in his app. EDIT: He seems to understand this, and admits that he "goofed", yes.
You break the rules, you pay the consequences. Ignorance is NOT an excuse. He's "in his situation" (edit) with Wolfram because he didn't do his due-diligence and contact them first before linking to them in his app. EDIT: He seems to understand this, and admits that he "goofed", yes.
Where does it say he's mad at them? All he's saying is that this policy isn't very web-friendly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but in this case agiletortoise didn't gain any benefit from the website -- he simply wrote a program that directed the user's browser to go there. I don't get that. Doesn't agiletortoise get benefit when their users get benefit?
Yes, I got a benefit. There were users that like the Wolfram links and will be sorry they are gone. As I said in my post, I'm fine with it. I think Wolfram's Terms are OK. I think it's a bit tenuous only in that if they were really serious about it, they could enforce that requirement in their code. They are not doing that, because it's to their benefit to allow some linking -- they are just reserving the right to se…
You break the rules, you pay the consequences. Ignorance is NOT an excuse. He's "in his situation" (edit) with Wolfram because he didn't do his due-diligence and contact them first before linking to them in his app. EDIT: He seems to understand this, and admits that he "goofed", yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know, it's hard to draw a nice objective line in the sand. A general-purpose browser with a new UI, for example, ought to be allowed without requiring permission from anyone. On the other hand, what if I write an iOS app just for getting answers from Wolfram|Alpha that displays the content using Webkit? I could certainly understand Wolfram arguing this kind of thing requires permission. I'm curious about DuckDuckGo…
We have permission. They seem very reasonable once you get in touch with them.
You break the rules, you pay the consequences. Ignorance is NOT an excuse. He's "in his situation" (edit) with Wolfram because he didn't do his due-diligence and contact them first before linking to them in his app. EDIT: He seems to understand this, and admits that he "goofed", yes.
Lots of down-votes, but no replies. I can't figure out if the down votes are proving that I'm right or if I totally missed something.
He says they are "totally within their rights", but he is wrong. He's making links to their web pages. They are not "totally within their rights" to try to forbid that.
As I read this, he's not making links to their web pages. He's deep linking to their content and displaying it within what appears to be a custom browser. While there is plenty of debate about the propriety of deep linking and whether sites have the right to bar deep linking, displaying content within a custom browser is analogous to 'framing' content without permission, and framing content a no-no. Creating deep lin…