Google Maps ToS can be summarised as: Don't use it(twitter.com) |
Google Maps ToS can be summarised as: Don't use it(twitter.com) |
- The caching policy is defined per-API [0]. The generic TOS just says that the default state if the per-API TOS says nothing is "no caching". Most of them allow caching for 30 days.
- The "no derivative works" clause that the author thinks would be illegal explicitly says that it's forbidden to the extent that the law allows it to be forbidden, just like all TOS do. (It's also talking just about the source code, which I certainly wasn't expecting from the tweet.)
- The "don't use in a non-Google app" bit appears to be a complete fabrication. There is nothing like it in the TOS. The only thing even remotely close to it is that it's saying you must use the APIs, not scrape data from a Google app to use outside of the app.
- Benchmarking isn't forbbiden. What's forbidden is public disclosure of the benchmark results, unless there is enough information for somebody to replicate the tests.
[0] https://cloud.google.com/maps-platform/terms/maps-service-te...
All good then. You're totally allowed to taste the food I cooked to see if it's poisoned. You're just forbidden to tell anyone or show symptoms.
What the actual fuck is wrong with people actively defending these blatantly anti-user behaviours? Google won't pay you for it, you don't need to shine their boots.
If the author would just have told the truth, there would have been nothing to reply to. Unfortunately telling the truth would have generated a lot less outrage, and thus a lot less engagament for tweets and the HN submission, since the reality was so much more reasonable than what they claimed. For example for the case of benchmarking, what's in this TOS is actually a lot more permissive than e.g. the benchmarking clause of the AWS TOS which nobody has problems with. It's just a blatant lie to equate that to "no benchmarking".
This shit took space on the HN frontpage that could have gone to something cool instead. It also has zero chance of affecting any change because it was all untrue. Like, the entire reason to complain about things like this is to use the court of public opinion to get it fixed. But in this case there is no fix to be applied, because the terms are substantially different from what the author described.
https://tosdr.org for example
That being said i noticed recently what i would consider unethical behavior in the app and a major breach in the public trust.
When you ask for routing options in public transport it gives you the option in-app to add a scheduled pickup by 99 Taxis or Uber to the final leg of your journey. No problem there.
The problem is for those who prefer walkinag that last leg. the public transport options suggested to us cheapskates can be as much as 40 minutes longer than those with in-app purchases bundled. I could not find a way to select the better option in the app.
>(e) No Use With Non-Google Maps.
I remember trying to find some sort of point of interest API and having to quickly rule out Google after reading their terms. Stuff like “no caching” is somewhat painful.
Other platforms allow caching from a few weeks to a few months, they don’t have the reach of Google but at least have fairer terms (I’m not trying to build a competing Maps product here!).
Naturally I closed the tab, and now have even less of a reason to go to Twitter, but wth.
Well, I guess Twitter people are about to start growing in their own bubble.
>To avoid quality issues and/or brand confusion, Customer will not use the Google Maps Core Services with or near a non-Google Map in a Customer Application. For example, Customer will not (i) display or use Places content on a non-Google map, (ii) display Street View imagery and non-Google maps on the same screen, or (iii) link a Google Map to non-Google Maps content or a non-Google map.