On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð
Bjarmasonava...@gmail.com wrote:
NASA/METI have updated their distribution terms with a FAQ in response
to my questions:
https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/lpdaac/about/news_archive/friday_july_24_2009
Unfortunately the new terms aren't new at all,
Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
Ævar, thanks for taking point on this... These sort of licensing
issues are an annoying, but necessary part of our work and not
everyone has the stomach for it. I myself have run into the issue
locally... There's nearby county that has very high resolution aerial
images
In such cases, wouldn't be enough to add a source=NASA or source=ASTER tag?
[]
2009/7/2 Tyler tyler.ritc...@gmail.com
Ævar, Thanks for trying to get clarification. Despite my disagreeing that
there is any real restriction on the data that affects its use in OSM,
clarification and explicit
(This thread was accidentally off-list)
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:30 PM, MPsingular...@gmail.com wrote:
As it turns out the first clause is (apparently) to facilitate
tracking of how the data is used and so that they can announce
updates, and the second is to ensure proper attribution. I've
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.comwrote:
For satellite imagery it would be a huge win even if we were allowed
to just use them for tracing on a closed WMS server (as we're doing in
Gaza), even if we ideally would like to be allowed to do more.
NASA = a
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Ian Deesian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
NASA = a US federal government organization. All data originated by US
federal organizations (and especially when funded by tax payer dollars) is
in the public domain. I would imagine that the licensing terms they give are
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Jeffrey Olliej...@ocjtech.us wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Ian Deesian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
NASA = a US federal government organization. All data originated by US
federal organizations (and especially when funded by tax payer dollars) is
in the public
I contacted people at NASA asking whether they were planning on
releasing their ASTER data under a license that would be suitable for
projects like OSM. I quoted them the terms they present upon download
which would be problematic:
# I agree to redistribute the ASTER GDEM only to individuals
As it turns out the first clause is (apparently) to facilitate
tracking of how the data is used and so that they can announce
updates, and the second is to ensure proper attribution. I've asked
them permission to quote their complete reply but that's basically it.
What about derived data?
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmasonava...@gmail.com wrote:
# When presenting or publishing ASTER GDEM data, I agree to include
ASTER GDEM is a product of METI and NASA.
That clause seems very similar to the BSD advertising clause (and is
problematic for the same reasons):
Ævar, Thanks for trying to get clarification. Despite my disagreeing that
there is any real restriction on the data that affects its use in OSM,
clarification and explicit permission is always a good thing.
This should have been cross-posted to legal, probably. And let me preface it
all with
11 matches
Mail list logo
