Contrasting the licensing strategies between Google and IBM:
Google: Natural Questions Data: Licensed under: Creative Commons Share-Alike 3.0.
Terms (not the entire license):
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Compare:
IBM: Diversity in Faces: Terms include:
…
Licensee grants to IBM a non-exclusive, irrevocable, unrestricted, worldwide and paid-up right, license and sublicense to: a) include in any product or service any idea, know-how, feedback, concept, technique, invention, discovery or improvement, whether or not patentable, that Licensee provides to IBM, b) use, manufacture and market any such product or service, and c) allow others to do any of the foregoing. (emphasis added)
…
I don’t doubt that Google has issues and behaviors we all would like to see changed, but the claw of Mordor licensing terms from IBM take your breath away.
If the question is: IBM?
The answer is: NO!