[OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?

[David Groom]

>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Frederik Ramm" <frederik at remote.org>
> To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." 
> <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 12:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing 
> TermsofUse?
>
>
>
> David (& some others),
>
> David Groom wrote:
>> I've repeatedly asked where is the explicit permission to use Bing 
>> Imagery to create derived works, all the only answer is "we have it".  As 
>> I've said before if its there please show us where it is.
>
> Just out of interest; why are we having this conversation? Is it just to
> determine who is right and who is wrong and who was right in the first
> place and who gets extra points for being super nitpicking (hello 80n,
> have you never written a "final" document and later made a v2 of it?)
> and who gets to sit on the golden seat in lawyer heaven?
>

Why are we having this conversation?  Because every now and then someone 
makes a statement along the lines that "we have a licence which allows us to 
use Bing Imagery for tracing", and as far as I can see that is not backed up 
by any evidence.

When anyone details their concerns about this, the only answers that are 
ever given is "we have permission to do it", or are personal attacks on the 
motives behind those asking the question.

David


> Do you *want* to use Bing imagery but feel you cannot?
>
As I've said in my earlier I post's I am using Bing Imagery

David

> Or do you not want to use Bing imagery and are looking for a reason?
>
> I mean, every now and then I enjoy being a tongue-in-cheek smartass
> myself, but somehow I have the impression that not only has this
> discussion left the ground a while ago, no, meanwhile someone has cut
> the tether as well.
>
> By all means, if that's what floats your boat, continue - but you'll
> excuse if meanwhile I'm a little bit pragmatic and trace some aerial
> imagery. I'm sure it is wrong somehow, but I like the outcome.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
>
>
>
>