From the article:

"I know for a fact that Wikipedia operates under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license, which explicitly states that if you’re going to use the data, you must give attribution. As far as search engines go, they can get away with it because linking back to a Wikipedia article on the same page as the search results is considered attribution.

But in the case of Brave, not only are they disregarding the license - they’re also charging money for the data and then giving third parties “rights” to that data."

  • Leraje@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    3·
    1 year ago

    I guess I am asking morally. I expect this sort of thing from Bing and Google but it surprised me to see a company that is privacy focused basically trampling over someone elses IP to the point they feel they can offer rights to someone elses content and make money from it.

    Obviously, this was before I learned what sort of person Eich is. Now I’m not surprised. I guess we all have to decide if something goes against our own principles enough to use/not use something.

    • federal_explorer@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      It’s nothing privacy invasive. It’s a way to improve their search engine, these hit pieces against brave always get over amplified for no reason.

      • Leraje@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        Privacy invasive or not, it’s not right what they’re doing and, in my opinion, speaks to their ethics as a company. That in turn leads me to mistrust choices they might make in the future, including regarding privacy.