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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Gracenote licensing controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} 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 {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.