A lot of people in this thread are concerned about the TOS and whether or not it is enforceable. But did anyone notice that he claims wolfram served apple a DCMA notice for the app? That law was supposed to be for copyrighted artwork. Aren't wolfram alpha, and other sort of dynamic procedural output from websites more of a service than an artwork (or a 'work' as it is probably termed in the DMCA? It seems a bit pretentious to refer to the output of something like wolfram, google, etc. as a 'work.' I could see a website in it's entirety as a 'work.' But the output of a service doesn't strike me as a 'work.')
Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"
71–80 of 111 posts
Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Or perhaps your point is couched in a way that antagonizes people for some reason? You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Are there really adults reading hacker news with skins thin enough to be offended by his post? Perhaps e have a lot of web-monkeys who have a business plan to deep-link?
Sheesh.
Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or perhaps your point is couched in a way that antagonizes people for some reason? You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Are there really adults reading hacker news with skins thin enough to be offended by his post? Perhaps e have a lot of web-monkeys who have a business plan to deep-link? Sheesh.
Antagonises means "in opposition to" or more commonly "to incur the dislike of." Offends means something else entirely. Writing can easily incur people's dislike without offending them personally. For example, on most forums, excessive use of all caps will antagonise people even if they agree with what is written.
And with that, I'm done with this thread.
Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"
#74You 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.
I assume it's because other people noticed the part where he said that he missed that part of the ToS, even though he checked for funky terms. It's pretty normal to be able to link to a website and terms forbidding that are abnormal.
So, yeah, he goofed a bit, but they could have been more flexible.
Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever seen The Big Lebowski ? "You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an asshole."
Please don't call people on Hacker News assholes, even by analogy. I think you might be attempting to say something quite relevant without intentionally calling the person an asshole, but if that's the case, you ought to have explained it in your post.
How about: there's a difference between being right and being polite.
Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"
#76These ToS clauses protect their paid iPhone app from being replicated in the browser, which is pretty much exactly what you did. So it is effectively you who didn't get it :)
Which gets to the root of the Wolfram's real issue with it: If you go to wolframalpha.com on an iOS device, you are shown an ad for their $1.99 app (which you can ignore and continue to the mobile version of their site).
If you go straight to a query, it bypasses this.
The O.P.'s app bypasses their ad, and Wolfram doesn't like that.
Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't call people on Hacker News assholes, even by analogy. I think you might be attempting to say something quite relevant without intentionally calling the person an asshole, but if that's the case, you ought to have explained it in your post.
How about: there's a difference between being right and being polite .
How about explaining either way what you don't find polite or right?
Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"
#78These ToS clauses protect their paid iPhone app from being replicated in the browser, which is pretty much exactly what you did. So it is effectively you who didn't get it :)
Which gets to the root of the Wolfram's real issue with it: If you go to wolframalpha.com on an iOS device, you are shown an ad for their $1.99 app (which you can ignore and continue to the mobile version of their site). If you go straight to a query, it bypasses this. The O.P.'s app bypasses their ad, and Wolfram doesn't like that.
The built-in web browser that Apple includes with the iPhone also violates this via its "bookmark" feature.
Re: Wolfram Alpha doesn't "get it"
#79I am sure with infinite money on both sides, if this were litigated, the OP would win. You have the right to write a computer program that sends an HTTP request to a site, even if the site's ToU say that you can't. After all, you can send a request without having ever read or seen the ToU.
The server should simply refuse to reply if the user has not agreed to the terms of use.
Apple will do what Wolfram says, but that's because Apple is acting in its best financial interests (30% of $1.99 for WA's app), not because Apple is legally bound to not distribute an app that links to Wolfram Apple.