[OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license

[Richard Fairhurst]

Andrew Harvey wrote:
> Thanks Richard. I see that that PDF doesn't match
> http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html

Yes, that's because they're special terms for this OSM release. If you look
at the PDF metadata and then Google (sorry, Bing) the author you'll see he's
a senior attorney with Microsoft. And so on.

As has already been explained several times these are a first release of the
terms and if it's necessary to firm up particular points, that'll happen in
due course. FWIW just before release I noted two ambiguities with the
licence and communicated them to Microsoft.

As ever: caveat emptor. If you're not happy with the terms yet, don't trace.
Personally I'm delighted that Bing is happy to work with us, and I think
their attitude to permitting tracing without claiming a share in any
(allegedly) resulting IP reflects very well on them when compared to Google
and to some imagery providers.

Richard


-- 
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-some-interesting-points-from-the-bing-license-tp5790772p5799393.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.