Hi, Andrew Harvey wrote:
Where is this direct statement from Microsoft that says derived information from aerial imagery delivered through their map api can be licensed under a CT compatible license?
Strange wording - we're not looking for data that can be "licensed under a CT compatible license", we're looking for data that can be uploaded to OSM under the CT which then means that future re-licensing is possible.
It is absoultely clear that the statement we have from Microsoft (or Bing) was made in full knowledge of the CT. So even if it does not directly spell out how OSM works and how the CT work, it is clear that the permission given to us was given in that light. They will not be able to come back later and say "wait a minute, when we said you can trace we didn't mean you can actually upload to OSM under CT".
You may be right in that in the absence of a very explicit legal statement or contract, there is a residual risk of Bing backpedalling. This risk is small enough for me to use my spare time to trace houses (and some roads in unmapped places) from Bing; if it should indeed turn out to be a giant misunderstanding, then that work will have been in vain. That's my risk, I have thought about it, and I think it's acceptably small. (Personally I think that this risk is smaller than others incurred when using aerial imagery, e.g. the risk that the imagery used is too old and thus your work is next to worthless in a recently re-developed area.)
Now if you judge that risk to be much greater, it might tip the balance for you so that you say it's not worth investing any time tracing from Bing because it is in fact very likely that it will turn out to be in vain. That's not an idea I share but I respect it - I will not demand that you spend your time tracing from Bing when you believe it's a waste.
I really don't see where the problem is. We have a strong culture of being cautious with licensing etc., i.e. we wouldn't trace from Google without Google allowing us to do so even if some scholars say that there's no legal basis for that caution. And that's ok, I fully support that kind of caution. On the other hand, if we're told that we can use certain sources, and we even find that in the official Blog of that source, then I think our caution need not stretch so far as to respond with "You say we can use your data? I don't believe you."
Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
