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

[80n]

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Grant Slater
<openstreetmap at firefishy.com>wrote:

> 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.
>

Like I said, what applies for OSM only refers to the use of some
applications.  It make no grant of rights to derive works from their
imagery.  Without an explict override I'd expect Microsoft to have a very
good case if they wanted to.  But as David and I both said, we  believe that
it is their intent to allow.

I've seem some crappy license agreements in my time so nothing unusual about
this one.

80n
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20101219/773d1e4f/attachment.html>