Hi developers- I've modified the FAQ to address some of the questions in this thread.
See the sensor FAQ: http://code.google.com/apis/maps/faq.html#tos_reporting and the desktop FAQ: http://code.google.com/apis/maps/faq.html#tos_nonweb - pamela On Nov 15, 11:28 am, "Barry Hunter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "Applications that determine the user's location via a sensor must > pass&sensor=true when loading the Maps API JavaScript via either > thehttp://maps.google.com/mapsor with the Common Loader. > ... > <script type="text/javascript" > src="http://maps.google.com/maps?file=api&v=2&key=abcdefg&sensor=true";> > ... > Note that even if your device does not use a sensing device, you must > still pass this parameter, setting its value to false." > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > From > here:http://code.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/index.html#SpecifyingS... > > andhttp://code.google.com/apis/maps/terms.html#section_9_2 > "You must implement those reporting mechanisms that Google has set > forth and may update from time to time in these Terms and in the Maps > APIs Documentation." > > Does that mean that mashups that dont even have &sensor=false are not > complying with the terms? > > http://code.google.com/apis/maps/faq.html#tos_reporting > Suggests that Flash API users are not even able to comply with the > Terms, oh dear! > > How critical is this issue? I guess its not really practical to start > chasing up all infringements... > > Should this also perhaps be mentioned in the API changelog? > > btwhttp://www.google.com/maps/api_signup.... > doesn't seem to make a mention of it, nor do all the demos (some do tho) > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:25 PM, pamela (Google Employee) > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey developers- > > Thanks for the feedback, keep it coming. Just wanted to say that I already > > know from blog posts and such that 11.1 is the most concerning clause, and > > we're already discussing that internally. But, as I mentioned, we won't have > > official clarification until next week. My preference in this thread is to > > find out what else in the Terms of Service is ambiguous, and to not have > > this thread spiral into an 11.1 discussion (if possible). Thanks! > > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:10 AM, maps.huge.info [Maps API Guru] > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> 11.1 is pretty interesting. For my maps in particular, the overlay of > >> zip code tiles is something I hold a copyright to and enforce it > >> strongly. I also limit how that content can be accessed with a fairly > >> robust algorithm which only permits my maps to display it, or those of > >> a subscriber. With 11.1, Googe has the right to take my tiles and use > >> them for other purposes without compensation to me. That certainly > >> doesn't seem right nor fair. > > >> The big question is this a "Big Brother" issue or are they just going > >> to use 11.1 as a way of promoting the use of the maps. For example, > >> taking a screen shot of my zip code application and including it in > >> some sort of ad would require USNaviguide (my company) to approve the > >> use of the images. With 11.1, Google can do as it pleases without even > >> letting me know they are doing so. That would be ok. > > >> Pretty awesome changes here. With Yahoo potentially going belly up and > >> Microsoft already an evil enterprise, the only other alternative is > >> the OSM and OL approach, which isn't that bad either. > > >> -John Coryat > > >>http://maps.huge.info > > >>http://www.usnaviguide.com > > -- > Barry > > -www.nearby.org.uk-www.geograph.org.uk- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Maps API" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Maps-API?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
