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

[David Groom]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Myers" <rob at robmyers.org>
To: <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms 
of Use?


>
> On 12/19/2010 02:40 PM, David Groom wrote:
>> For the record
>>
>> 1) I accept that the Microsoft Licence[1] to use Bing imagery is an
>> early version, and we have been told it will be revised
>> 2) I suspect that Microsoft do intend that Bing imagery may be used to
>> update OSM
>
> Sure.
>
> And I accept that it would be bad if the wording of anything interfered 
> with that intent.
>
>> However:
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Myers" <rob at robmyers.org>
>>>
>>> "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".
>
> [Nicking Grant's link]
>
> http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx
>
> "Microsoft is pleased to announce the royalty-free use of the Bing Maps 
> Imagery Editor API, allowing the Open Street Map community to use Bing 
> Maps imagery via the API as a backdrop to your OSM map editors."
>
> The "OSM community" can use Bing maps imagery in OSM map editors, and that 
> data "must be contributed back to" OSM.
>
> I agree that Microsoft have not made a statement using the form of words 
> that you are seeking. If this is causing uncertainty that is bad, and my 
> experience is that redundant statements in licences can save a lot of 
> argument.
>

What I am saying is that their various press releases and blogs made by 
their employees show an intent that tracing from imagery should be allowed, 
but that this is not yet backed up by the wording of the first draft of the 
licence.

As I'm not a lawyer I don't know what legal standing press releases and 
blogs have.

David

> But also I agree with Frederik that the current statements are good enough 
> to be going on with. They contain permission to use the imagery, and 
> *require* that the results be contributed to OSM.
>
> - Rob.
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>