YJL

I was looking for an API for data in Public Data Explorer, thinking about presenting the data in different visualizations (BigQuery, probably is the right one, Google stuff is too many and too confusing), then I saw this:


Who would list cURL as programming language? Google really needs someone to proofread. I am sure this mistake was made by a writer who added the entry for that Bash example code which utilizes cURL to retrieve data.

As a developer, you wouldn't make such error, this isn't even a simple typo. It must be written by whom didn't have basic knowledge of development environment. They can either let a developer write the draft, then a writer proofreads, or the other way around. Anyway, I doubt this page is proofread.

Last time, only a few days ago, I mentioned issue in Google Docs Spreadsheet's and Analytics documentations. The underlying problem is the same. There seems no developers involved in writing documentation (outside of code), that sounds ridiculous, but that's what I felt after I read their documentation.

And there is a more important issue about the code and other on Google Developer, see the following screenshot:


There is no notes about the license of the code, except the copyright statement in the comment block. If I read this kind of code block anywhere, I would not even try to read it.

The question to be asked is: may you use this example code freely? May you even select the whole code and press Ctrl+C to reproduce?

I don't understand why Google neglects or forgets such important thing: noting copyright and license in every page. (They have legal department, don't they?) To see the permission and license, the fastest way is to click on Terms of Service Site Policies. That's two clicks and only if you know where to read, and I really need to quote:

You will find the following notice at the bottom of many pages on the Google Developers website:

Except as otherwise noted, the content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

[snip]

You may also find the following notice on the bottom of some pages:

Except as otherwise noted, the content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, and code samples are licensed under the Apache 2.0 License.

Okay, which one? Wait a minute, I see neither. WTF.

I stumbled across a project and saw this Unlicense:

This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain.

Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or
distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled
binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any
means.

In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors
of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the
software to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit
of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and
successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of
relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights to this
software under copyright law.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

For more information, please refer to <http://unlicense.org/>

It has the same purpose as WTFPL does.

There is a long post from the creator of this license, it's too long and I didn't read it all. The website Unlicense.org isn't accessible as of writing, but I found the source code of the website. There is also a Google Group for discussions.

I don't know if this Unlicense is dying since it didn't get approved by OSI or FSF. But I prefer WTFPL over Unlicense, although "Unlicense" sounds cool, but "WTF" is more awesome.

I don't care much about licensing (and I know pretty much nothing about it) when I intentionally place my work into Public Domain. Just let everyone do WTF they want to my stuff. Unfortunately, Public Domain isn't covered by law in everywhere, therefore you need to license your work in order to make sure you can have same effect as if you put works into Public Domain.