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

[Grant Slater]

On 19 December 2010 14:40, David Groom <reviews at pacific-rim.net> wrote:
>>
>> The licence PDF states:
>>
>> "Any updates you make to the OpenStreetMap map via the
>> Application (even if not published to third parties) must be contributed
>> back to openstreetmaps.org."
>>
>
> Which is NOT the same as stating "Microsoft have directly stated that Bing
> imagery may be used to update OSM".
>
> Indeed, had Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to
> update OSM, then I suspect you would have pointed to a paragraph which
> backed up that assertion.
>
> As I've written before[2] the only direct mention Microsoft have made of
> derived data made from tracing Bing Imagery is their statement that it isn't
> allowed [3].
>

Have you read? Microsoft mention a whole lot more than what link to....
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx
Try the google cache version: http://bit.ly/eUjkKS

What you link to in [3] is Bing's standard terms for everyone else...
Not what applies for OSM.

We have permission to derive NEW works from their imagery on condition
that the new works go into OSM.

Also for fun... openstreetmapS.org _IS_ an OpenStreetMap domain and
belongs to the OSM. I spent ages getting it back from domain squatters
because it is such a common typo.

/ Grant

> However, as I stated at  the state of this message I suspect that Microsoft
> intend that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM, I also suspect that they
> intended the wording of the licence [1] to make it clear. On that
> (admittedly probably unsound from a legal point of view), basis I have been
> tracing from Bing.
>
> David
>
>