[OSM-talk] People's Map

[Jukka Rahkonen]

Peter Miller <peter.miller <at> itoworld.com> writes:

> Looks interesting .... but..... (there is unfortunately often a but)
> 
> A brief review of the license terms. The definition of Derived Work is good,
unless a derived map is a 'Digital Terrain Model' which we would need to check
with them.
> 
> 
> 
> “DERIVATIVE WORKS”: means any derivative product or information developed by
the END-USER from the PRODUCT, 
> 
> which does not contain any imagery data from the PRODUCT and is irreversible
and uncoupled from the source imagery 
> data of the PRODUCT. Notwithstanding the foregoing, by express exception, any
Digital Elevation Model or Digital 
> Terrain Model (in any form whatsoever, i.e. database for instance) derived
from a PRODUCT shall never be considered 
> as DERIVATIVE WORKS.
> 
> 
> This clause is good, except for the bit about Canada which breaks it for use
in OSM! It might be worth probing them on this term to see if they could vary it.
> 

What I remember about using SPOT images, all what we digitized on top of the
imagery was our own data and we could do whatever with it.  However the imagery
itself was protected.  It is easy to understand that for that cheap price SPOT
images must be selled several times.  Therefore it is not sure that it would be
OK to put satellite scenes on a server from where any of the 100000 OSM mappers
could use them because it would be too simple to copy also the imagery.  No
problems if some individual or a small group makes a contract, digitizes all
what they can see from the images in their own closed factory and uploads the
results into OSM database.