So just to add some colour, having been intimately involved in the redrafting of that clause, the revised wording is intended to address an ambiguity that we saw being increasingly exploited. Sites would make the base map publicly available, but only display data on the map once a user has logged in through a paywall, and then claim that no Premier license was needed because the map was publicly available for free. It was never our intention to permit this, but it was not previously clear in the old terms that the for-fee restriction relates to the whole application, and not just the map imagery. ie. such a workaround was never in the spirit of the old terms, so we ensured it was not in the letter of the new terms.
As for this specific case it comes down to exactly when you show a map, to who you show that map, and what that map contains. If the only map you show is the map that is freely accessible to the public, and all of the data that any user has added to the map (regardless of whether they paid or not) is freely available to all users on that map, then it's OK. However if any of the data added to the map is only visible to the people who uploaded it or to someone who has paid for the privilege then you need a Premier license. Also if you use a map application as the UI for adding data, and the map application that you present to paying users has more features or more data than the map presented to free users, then you need a Premier license. Hope that helps, Thor. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Maps JavaScript API v3" 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-js-api-v3?hl=en.
