On 14/12/2007, cohesion <cohesion(a)sleepyhead.org> wrote:
It's not free content, so that immediately makes it less useful or
interesting in our terms. Sounds like about.com
or Scholarpedia, which
are also non-free.
(The quote "We do not want to build a walled garden of content; we
want to disseminate it as widely as possible. Google will not ask for
any exclusivity on any of this content and will make that content
available to any other search engine." appears to be trying very hard
not to make it free content. It's not clear what they gain from this.)
Mostly we'd find it useful for references, I expect.