What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
72 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+113"Hello, Google? This is Gaia. We're reverse-engineering one of your big money makers, Google Earth. Yeah, the one you've pumped millions into developing, that's right. We thought we'd take some of the stuff you've paid to develop, add some of our own, and either give it away or bundle it with ads or perhaps sell it. You OK with that, right? Hello?"
- johnsto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35Digested read:
Google pays satellite imaging companies millions to use their satellite data.
Google agrees to keep the data contained within their system.
Google Earth/Maps let people use data for free, but only via Google.
Gaia downloads the data from Google and lets it be used without Google.
Companies get angry their data is now freely available.
Companies get angry anyone can use their data free of charge.
Companies get angry other companies could use their data without paying for it first.
Companies tell Google to stop it or face court action.
Google advises Gaia to stop it.
Gaia stop it.
There you go. - neoknight, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28For the first time I understand googles stand as the data they use comes from a very expensive satellite, $500 million, licensed by whoever. It would suck to have that data that they paid for being openly let loose on the net. It's a viable point and it's even nicer to hear it was from a "human" at google and not just an automated or lawyer C&D letter.
Money makes the world spin on your desktop, literally! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26What's so whiny about the article? It is just stating that the project was shut down, it isn't saying that google is an evil corporation or something.
- LoopyChew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23I didn't see anything particularly whiny about the article, actually. It seemed actually happy that the Google folks were polite and not lawyering to shut things down. The extract from Google's letter can be summed up as, "We know where you're coming from, and we're glad that you're trying to figure out how Google Earth works, but still, we gotta TOS you."
- paulmdx, on 10/12/2007, -17/+34Before you digg down fatdog789 give it some thought.. How about this title:
'Microsoft shuts down open source map efforts with cease and desist.' - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18At least the 'C&D' was polite. You can't ask for much more than that :)
- Jorenko, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Azur2, you couldn't be more wrong. The purpose of the project was to bring Google earth to non-windows platforms and to add new features that make it more useful. It was a GPL project and there were no plans of making money from it as far as I can tell.
Also, Google didn't actually send a C&D, which is a legal document sent by a lawyer. A Google manager sent a personal request, which was not about competition and profits. It was about the terms on which Google has licensed the images that are displayed in Google Earth, which forbid those images from being used by other software. Had Gaia continued, Google may have been denied access to any images in the future. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@Jorenko
Google Earth is available for Windows, Mac and Linux. For free.
@C&D-Letter
Others said it already: There was no cease&desist-letter, at least the homepage doesn't say so explicitly.
@Reverse Engineering
The main point is the illegal use of Google Earth's satellite image-data. The developers already said: We'll try to create the application based on other, free data.
Reverse Engineering could be illegal, some say it is, some say it isn't. There is no clear court decision, there's no clear law.
But again, what's clear: Using Google Earth satellite data IS illegal, and Google could lose the licence for the data, if they did NOT try to shut down Gaia. - Foma, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15"Replace Google with Microsoft, and people would be raving about the evil."
Sure, diggers would react differently to it. That's what a good corporate reputation buys you; people give you the benefit of the doubt. But if Microsoft had sent such an incredibly respectful and personable C+D as the one Google sent, that would be newsworthy in and of itself. - dgh1973, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13What makes up google earth is not just code... it's data. It's one thing to write a samba implementation from the ground up, it's quite another to write a framework to work around technical and licensing issues to get at stuff that isn't free (i.e. the other half of google earth which is image content).
We are not talking about interoperability here, we are talking about improper access to licensed data. Their project was doomed as a failure due to this oversight from the get-go anyway, you can't take non-free stuff and slap a "free" sticker on it and call it a day. - dgh1973, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"You will probably get dugg down by the OSS police here, but your point is valid."
Hey now, I think most reasonable people in the OSS community would understand what's going on here... Like the letter clearly states the data that makes up the google earth project is licensed by google for use in google earth alone - therefor a truly free derivative work would be impossible anyway.
At any rate, the letter was extremely cordial and even applauded their creativity and goes on to explain that they can continue the project using open data like NASA's if they wish.
There's nothing for the OSS community to get offended by here, we may like free software but that doesn't make us a pack of thieves. - cozb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8hmm, NASA's World Wind is at: http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/
the google Earth alternative - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"Well for one, to make it native to non-Windows. Right now the Linux version is just the Windows version bundled with a optimized version of Wine."
No it doesn't, Picasa runs via WINE but Google Earth uses QT and OGL so can run natively on Linux and does so. The hysteria over GE running via WINE was because some blog moron cut a big chunk out of an article talking about Picasa and Google Earth and re-arranged it so it sounded like Chris Dibona was defending the use of WINE with GE when really he was just rightly defending the efforts Google have put into WINE.
Anyway Google Earth runs native. Quite frankly that many 'hardcore' Linux users can't tell the difference between an app running natively and one running via WINE suggests that it makes no difference to them anyway. - evileric, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Honestly, I'm glad to see a politely worded C+D letter. Waaaayyyy back when, I accidentally infringed on someone's trademark and I got a MUCH nastier letter, for nothing enar as bad....
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"You will probably get dugg down by the OSS police here, but your point is valid.
Reverse Engineering is illegal (as per the eula)
Why isn't there a bury marked as "whiny" (for the article, not you)"
Actually reverse engineering is legal and was considered a great thing until IBM made such a fuss about BIOS getting reverse engineered. It's only recently that having an idea has become more important than making a better product out of that idea.
Of course breaking software patents is illegal even if you don't reverse engineer but provided you use a clean room and break no patents its a free for all. The software patent system won't last long in the US anyway, it is already killing innovation there.
License law in the US is slanted in favour of the corporation. Judges tend to make more of an effort to redefine the license when an obviously illegal clause is inserted so companies insert illegal clauses knowing it won't hurt them. In the UK most judges would respond to an illegal license clause by just throwing the whole thing out and essentially declaring a free for all. It's then on the corporation to ensure they aren't selling something they have no business selling. Of course usually this just means they say something like.
"Clause 13: we reserve the right to have sex with your daughter at any point in eternity. This right will be passed on via heredity on both sides of the contract.
Clause 14: no previous clause applies where it affects your statutory rights."
So they still claim a few rights then immediately disclaim then straight afterwards. - justoman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I've gotten a C&D from Microsoft. Apparently I linked to the Microsoft homepage and didnt put the appropriate copyright symbol and trademark symbols next to the word Microsoft. I violated a trademark law by doing so.
- arkmtech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I wish it were possible for users to "attach" similar Diggs on the same subject/news to each other, rather than the same news from 5 different sites hitting the front page several times, only to have users bury it or complain in the comments...
Yes, it's old news - but it's still legit & relevant. IMO, nothing wrong with reading the same news from multiple sources, but it could certainly be made more convenient, and would improve Digg's usability. - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Why do we need an Open Source version... isn't Google Earth free for most uses?
- Markie1006, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5umm no, not at all.
If they paid for their own satellite, or licensed data from someone who does have a satellite, they would be fine.
It's the fact they're using google's data is what's at issue here. - sjalloul, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Unless these engineers are begging Google to hire them?!?
- bmwboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Everyone who doesn't totally get it think of it this way:
1) Google pays $$$$$$$ to get the satillite imagery
2) Google is required per their contract with the company who owns the satillite NOT to allow programs outside of Google to use the imagery
3) If the company were to catch Gaia using Google's images, all users of google earth could effectively be screwed.
At least google was kind enough in the letter.... - jjesusfreak01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There are some good points made here. The most important thing to remember is that it is not up to Google at all. They just created the interface for the maps they licensed to use. You cant just say, "well all they wanted to do was give us free maps", because Google would still be paying for it, and it is probably Google's bandwidth going down the "tube" (forgive me) when they do RE it.
Think about it like this:
You create a game server for you and your friends to play on, but you will let anyone ask to be your friend so they can play with you. You have a passcode, but someone breaks it so they can just use your server whenever they want. Its your bandwidth, your game, you do what you want with it, but you were giving it away free to begin with. - neave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow DaveV, you've done a really good job of totally misunderstanding my comments there...
My point is this. Google Earth is seen by many people (not geeks like us on digg, like your parents, novices etc.) as the only app around that allows you to see your house from space. Google have bought the rights to the imagery, and, kudos to them, have made a great success out of it. The problem is that Google Earth is pretty much a monopoly in the market. Yes, there are plenty of other virtual globes around but the vast majority of the public has only ever heard of Google Earth. This lopsided view *can* be dangerous, as it could lead to a bias in the data provided (companies could have a vested interest in promoting their businesses via Google, or countries such as the US get priority in higher resolution imagery, for example).
I in no way condone Gaia's attempt to reverse-engineer the data because Google have paid millions of dollars for the rights, I appreciate that. My issue is that there should be more competition in the market and an open source "virtual globe" would be a great asset to the community as it would lessen the potential for an improper bias. Hopefully Gaia will continue but using open source NASA imagery in the future. - MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@DaveV
You obviously missed the point of my last post. I DO NOT condone using licensed data in the manner they were using it in. I never said they should use it. They shouldn't.
Due to your thick skull I will be treating you the same way you are treating others, and I will block you. It may not matter to you, and I don't care, but at least I don't have to read your crap anymore.
Thank you and good day. - MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@DaveV
I never said they should steal the data from Google. Go ahead build a clone of Google earth using free data such as that from Nasa. Problem solved.
And no one said Google had to cater to anyone. If they are doing it legitimately then let them, but don't try to stop them. (unfortunately they were not doing it legitimately)
I'm just trying to justify the reason for an open source version, I am not trying to justify the illegal use of licensed data.
@GMorgan
I see. Ok, I stand corrected on that point. - MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Well for one, to make it native to non-Windows. Right now the Linux version is just the Windows version bundled with a optimized version of Wine.
And for the hard core OSS people who refuse to use anything that isn't free (freedom).
Also, competition isn't a bad thing. It is what drives innovation. - mousky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3How is this Microsoft happening a second time around? This was not a cease and desist letter. It was request from the man in charge of Google Earth. He laid it out in plain and polite terms what impact Gaia may have on Google Earth. The person in charge of the Gaia project acknowledged that he was not pressured into his decision and fully understood where Google was coming from and the implications on Google Earth. How many times does that happen with Microsoft?
- woxidu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Sure... but the article made it sound like Gaia was breaking the Google Earth terms of service. So you need to show us how this is fair game by those terms or why those terms themselves are also evil.
- lagrange, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It's a shame so many good open source people resort to stealing when they should be innovating.
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's not the reverse engineering that was the problem. It was accessing data that Google paid for and that Google is bound not to share with 3rd parties.
- olouie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21) Google doenst pay authors to get permission to copy books and digitalizes them. Claims what they are doing is legal.
2) Google will make money off violating said copyrights.
3) Google then claims that people shouldn't use their property rights / images.
Seems funny to me how they want to spread information when it makes them money, but all of the sudden sing a very different tune when they are affected by stealing. Do no evil me ass - hiscity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yikes. Too much misinformation in this thread.
- google maps and google earth use a combination of satellite and aerial photo data
- the good higher resolution stuff is the aerial data, which is expensive
- google earth is free, google earth pro & enterprise versions are yearly subscriptions
- though no one can tell you how much the enterprise version costs (*)
- the reason why the "pay for" versions cost is because you can add maps & data...
- gaia let you add things for free -- definite threat to g.e. group income
- google likely bought out the gaia developers, (only my opinion of course)
- googles api's allow a lot of what was in gaia to be done -- google's way
- google generally wants you to get your own api and not leach on someone else
- no eula, tos, or license applies to getting data from a url
- it's not like gaia downloaded google earth
- if copyright is the issue -- y'all better stop copying google maps and imagery, now!
- unless of course you want to turn gaia source code into a satire app of g.e.
- you know, like adding funny buildings and cartoons the way they do in tourist maps
- google earth did evil by killing "mother earth" (imagine the political cartoon)
- instead of helping the gaia developers do it "right," whatever right is in google eyes
- goo goo googly eyes!
- Hey Barney, why'dja kill mum?
- If yous wanna atone for it, add gaia source code to google code site
- http://code.google.com/ (open source for some, jack boots for others)
- nuff said.
(* - kinda strange, but I reckon if you have to ask, you can't afford it) - shoover, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@sams
You really have no concept of how businesses work, do you? Regardless of whether or not you own a company, it still has to turn a profit, and to do that it has to sell a product. The fact that you have an internal customer is merely convenient, it still costs money to maintain the business model. - sekyuritei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm impressed with how GOOG handled it... at least in this respect, they're keeping up with "Don't be evil"
- craiger316, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4This is the ugly side of Open Source. Companies pay to inovate, users take the idea and open source it. Open source is great, don't get me wrong, I rely on it heavily for my systems, however I feel bad for companies that take the time to innovate a product only to have it undermined by open source developers.
- MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I doubt that this would affect Picasa, or other apps in any way. This is more of unauthorized access to licensed data, which involves nothing in their other apps.
- Avalontor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://news.google.com/news?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&q=virtual+earth
I beg to differ - Markie1006, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2And who now pays for the upkeep of the satellite?
Somehow I don't think these things are fire-and-forget. - Barnonski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, yet more support for the argument that Google really is taking over the world!
- Avalontor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My bad, but some users are misinformed. This is a quote form Neave;
"My point is this. Google Earth is seen by many people (not geeks like us on digg, like your parents, novices etc.) as the only app around that allows you to see your house from space."
That might be right where you live but our company use a Microsoft product that has been doing this for many many years. Can you say TerraServer or Virtual Earth? Google Earth wasn't around when we first needed it.
BTW - http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,20827137%5E15388%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html - Soulhuntre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Isn't that the essence of many Open Source projects? Granted there are many great ones that are breakign new ground but so many are jsut knock offs. Hell, lots of them are knock offs of OTHER Open Source projects.
And then of course there are many projects that aim to steal someone elses work much more directly than that. At least reverse engineering involves some work. - CaughtThinking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Damn Google Storm Troopers.
- BSpolice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Good on both parties, Google especially, for behaving so civilly.
- fr0gger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Google is living Microsoft's dream. Unless you have free search all the free software in the world isn't going to make much difference.
- hiscity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1... leviathan & behemoth ...
...... google & microsoft ....
.......... gog & magog ........ - hiscity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A very astute observation!
- dirkdee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Competition is good when it is fair. I agree that competition leads to innovation and the end user ultimately is better off because of it. However in this case, I think the issue is that they (Gaia developers) are not competing fairly i.e. reverse engineering an application that Google spent millions developing. That does not strike me as fair and it may actually be counterproductive to an extent. Imagine if Google now were to say that because of episodes like these they would stop developing/making available programs such as Earth, Picasa, Sketchup etc. We'd be worse off imho.
BTW GOOG gets a few brownie points for being somewhat nice about the C&D letter. - mgajda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If Firefox (and IExplorer) had X3D support few years ago,
the most of the system would be implemented as open-source (in X3D)... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4If your balls are as big as your brain then they'll not have much to suck on.
-
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is