Talk:Gracenote licensing controversy

Cleanup issues
I am somewhat puzzled by the CN in the "Initial Lawsuit" quote. This is in the quote as correctly cited at the end of the block, so is the CN still valid? TezzaC73 (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Gracenote licensing controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for //www2.cddb.com/press/2000072400.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for //www5.cddb.com/software.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for //www5.cddb.com/news.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.cddb.com/info/info.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Gracenote licensing controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010621/sfth020.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, this is some real business BS
Not exactly traditional talk section content, but: I had to say somewhere that this company is full of bullshit. They built themselves on the back of open-source and user submitted data (like mine), then after using this to grow rapidly, decided to claim that they were actually never really open source, and the GPL license touted in the official documentation was simply an "error." They then used their newfound claim of "closed source" to sue others. I wish litigation would have put them in their place. Truly an asshole company.

Unverified claims
In the article's last sentence before the Table of Content, it says «CDDB claims that license grant was an error», and it has a reference. The referenced archived URL does not give any hint of any kind that CDDB ever claimed this was an error.