[OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Andrew Harvey wrote:
> Where is this direct statement from Microsoft that says derived
> information from aerial imagery delivered through their map api can be
> licensed under a CT compatible license?

Strange wording - we're not looking for data that can be "licensed under 
a CT compatible license", we're looking for data that can be uploaded to 
OSM under the CT which then means that future re-licensing is possible.

It is absoultely clear that the statement we have from Microsoft (or 
Bing) was made in full knowledge of the CT. So even if it does not 
directly spell out how OSM works and how the CT work, it is clear that 
the permission given to us was given in that light. They will not be 
able to come back later and say "wait a minute, when we said you can 
trace we didn't mean you can actually upload to OSM under CT".

You may be right in that in the absence of a very explicit legal 
statement or contract, there is a residual risk of Bing backpedalling. 
This risk is small enough for me to use my spare time to trace houses 
(and some roads in unmapped places) from Bing; if it should indeed turn 
out to be a giant misunderstanding, then that work will have been in 
vain. That's my risk, I have thought about it, and I think it's 
acceptably small. (Personally I think that this risk is smaller than 
others incurred when using aerial imagery, e.g. the risk that the 
imagery used is too old and thus your work is next to worthless in a 
recently re-developed area.)

Now if you judge that risk to be much greater, it might tip the balance 
for you so that you say it's not worth investing any time tracing from 
Bing because it is in fact very likely that it will turn out to be in 
vain. That's not an idea I share but I respect it - I will not demand 
that you spend your time tracing from Bing when you believe it's a waste.

I really don't see where the problem is. We have a strong culture of 
being cautious with licensing etc., i.e. we wouldn't trace from Google 
without Google allowing us to do so even if some scholars say that 
there's no legal basis for that caution. And that's ok, I fully support 
that kind of caution. On the other hand, if we're told that we can use 
certain sources, and we even find that in the official Blog of that 
source, then I think our caution need not stretch so far as to respond 
with "You say we can use your data? I don't believe you."

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"