Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to accept newly traced data after the license change. I certainly didn't read it that way. The Bing license says you must contribute traced data to openstreetmaps.org, but it doesn't say you can't also contribute traced data to a fork. After it has been contributed to openstreetmap.org, one can get it from openstreetmap.org(dump maybe) under it's then license. (is my interpretation) -- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
I certainly didn't read it that way. The Bing license says you must contribute traced data to openstreetmaps.org, but it doesn't say you can't also contribute traced data to a fork. After it has been contributed to openstreetmap.org, one can get it from openstreetmap.org(dump maybe) under it's then license. (is my interpretation) So I need permission from OSM to redistribute my own contributions? This interpretation (or at least, the acceptance of it as something OSM would want to do) is truly evil. I only wonder how widespread it is among OSM contributors. I hope in good faith that it is held by very few. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On 23 December 2010 00:42, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: This interpretation (or at least, the acceptance of it as something OSM would want to do) is truly evil. I only wonder how widespread it is among OSM contributors. I hope in good faith that it is held by very few. After turning the vote of OSM-F members from being one of agreeing to a process to making it look like one of agreeing to change the option of doing evil seems to be the status quo these days... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On 22 December 2010 15:18, Niklas Cholmkvist towards...@gmail.com wrote: Anthony wrote: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: This rule means that everything that is traced from Bing before OSM stops publishing under CC-BY-SA will be available to the world, forever, under CC-BY-SA. But a hypothetical CC-BY-SA fork would not be allowed to accept newly traced data after the license change. I certainly didn't read it that way. The Bing license says you must contribute traced data to openstreetmaps.org, but it doesn't say you can't also contribute traced data to a fork. After it has been contributed to openstreetmap.org, one can get it from openstreetmap.org(dump maybe) under it's then license. (is my interpretation) -- Well, sure, but the more interesting question is can it be distributed under other licenses outside of OSM, provided that it is contributed to OSM as well. By my reading of the license, yes, it can, and it's cool of Microsoft to decide it this way. But I may be misinterpreting the license (or the license is vague) as this has happened to me before. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
Dave, Dave F. wrote: I'm just catching up with this thread can't believe what I've just read. You bleat whinge ... thanks ... about people talking legal in other threads yet here, in legal, you admit that your advice to others that's it's OK to trace Bing (under any license) has no foundation other than a guess a feeling. We have a direct statement from Microsoft saying it's ok to trace. If that's no foundation other tahn a guess a feeling for you then you're free to refrain from using Bing imagery - however I think that's bad judgement on your part. I'm looking for concrete evidence it would be better if you kept quiet until you had some Absolutely not. I have written that what we have is enough FOR ME to start tracing, and that's what it is (in fact, I have already traced a number of buildings and roads and am continuing to do so). If it's not enough FOR YOU, then you're free to do other things. However, as others have pointed out, what we have from Bing now is already *much* more that we ever had from Yahoo in terms of written permission - and I cannot remember you being equally over-cautious about Yahoo. Why? 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 19/12/10 10:30, 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? Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM. The licence PDF states: Any updates you make to the OpenStreetMap map via the Application (even if not published to third parties) must be contributed back to openstreetmaps.org. openstreetmaps.org [sic] It's absolutely clear that if they don't even know the proper domain name for OpenStreetMap and didn't even spell check the document (Imagerty) that they have taken little care over this. I've not seen this license published on a Microsoft/Bing owned web-site so any cautious person would be prudent to doubt even the authenticity of this text. Personally I'm sure it's a genuine attempt by Bing to license something to OSM. I think they are trying to license the right for some applications to access their imagery api, with the additional constraints that any resulting edits are contributed to OSM. The agreement makes no observation or comment about the licenses involved (CC, ODbL, CT, DbCL) and would have to be considered a separate matter. In other words, this license makes no grants of rights to publish derived works under any particular license, over and above what was already there. If we couldn't do it before, we can't do it now, but that also implies that if we can do it now we were also allowed to do it before, although we may not have had the right to use their API and/or an application to do that. Agreeing to the CTs is a condition of doing so. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
For the record 1) I accept that the Microsoft Licence[1] to use Bing imagery is an early version, and we have been told it will be revised 2) I suspect that Microsoft do intend that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM However: - Original Message - From: Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use? On 19/12/10 10:30, 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? Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM. The licence PDF states: Any updates you make to the OpenStreetMap map via the Application (even if not published to third parties) must be contributed back to openstreetmaps.org. Which is NOT the same as stating Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM. Indeed, had Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM, then I suspect you would have pointed to a paragraph which backed up that assertion. As I've written before[2] the only direct mention Microsoft have made of derived data made from tracing Bing Imagery is their statement that it isn't allowed [3]. However, as I stated at the state of this message I suspect that Microsoft intend that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM, I also suspect that they intended the wording of the licence [1] to make it clear. On that (admittedly probably unsound from a legal point of view), basis I have been tracing from Bing. David Agreeing to the CTs is a condition of doing so. - Rob. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/d/d8/Bing_license.pdf [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-December/005305.html [3] http://www.microsoft.com/maps/assets/docs/terms.aspx ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: On 19 December 2010 14:40, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: The licence PDF states: Any updates you make to the OpenStreetMap map via the Application (even if not published to third parties) must be contributed back to openstreetmaps.org. Which is NOT the same as stating Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM. Indeed, had Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM, then I suspect you would have pointed to a paragraph which backed up that assertion. As I've written before[2] the only direct mention Microsoft have made of derived data made from tracing Bing Imagery is their statement that it isn't allowed [3]. Have you read? Microsoft mention a whole lot more than what link to http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx Try the google cache version: http://bit.ly/eUjkKS What you link to in [3] is Bing's standard terms for everyone else... Not what applies for OSM. Like I said, what applies for OSM only refers to the use of some applications. It make no grant of rights to derive works from their imagery. Without an explict override I'd expect Microsoft to have a very good case if they wanted to. But as David and I both said, we believe that it is their intent to allow. I've seem some crappy license agreements in my time so nothing unusual about this one. 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: In other words, this license makes no grants of rights to publish derived works under any particular license, over and above what was already there. That's probably a combination of the fact that Microsoft doesn't own that right in the first place and the fact that tracing a map doesn't create a derived work. If we couldn't do it before, we can't do it now, but that also implies that if we can do it now we were also allowed to do it before, although we may not have had the right to use their API and/or an application to do that. Not quite true. Before it may have been a violation of the TOS. Now it quite clearly isn't. Nothing to do with copyright law, but as was said, better than what OSM has with Yahoo, which is basically the same thing without any of it being in writing. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
- Original Message - From: Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 4:34 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use? On 12/19/2010 02:40 PM, David Groom wrote: For the record 1) I accept that the Microsoft Licence[1] to use Bing imagery is an early version, and we have been told it will be revised 2) I suspect that Microsoft do intend that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM Sure. And I accept that it would be bad if the wording of anything interfered with that intent. However: - Original Message - From: Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org Any updates you make to the OpenStreetMap map via the Application (even if not published to third parties) must be contributed back to openstreetmaps.org. Which is NOT the same as stating Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM. [Nicking Grant's link] http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx Microsoft is pleased to announce the royalty-free use of the Bing Maps Imagery Editor API, allowing the Open Street Map community to use Bing Maps imagery via the API as a backdrop to your OSM map editors. The OSM community can use Bing maps imagery in OSM map editors, and that data must be contributed back to OSM. I agree that Microsoft have not made a statement using the form of words that you are seeking. If this is causing uncertainty that is bad, and my experience is that redundant statements in licences can save a lot of argument. What I am saying is that their various press releases and blogs made by their employees show an intent that tracing from imagery should be allowed, but that this is not yet backed up by the wording of the first draft of the licence. As I'm not a lawyer I don't know what legal standing press releases and blogs have. David But also I agree with Frederik that the current statements are good enough to be going on with. They contain permission to use the imagery, and *require* that the results be contributed to OSM. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
Dave F. writes: On 06/12/2010 09:55, Frederik Ramm wrote: The situation is sufficient for me to use Bing imagery for tracing. I'm not looking at the legal side of it, I'm just looking at the size of the PR disaster should Microsoft attempt to backtrack in any way. PR is more important than legal. I'm just catching up with this thread can't believe what I've just read. You bleat whinge about people talking legal in other threads yet here, in legal, you admit that your advice to others that's it's OK to trace Bing (under any license) has no foundation other than a guess a feeling. I'm looking for concrete evidence it would be better if you kept quiet until you had some The USA has a legal principle that says If Alice says ``Y'all have permission to do this'', Bill goes ahead and does it, then Alice has no recourse other than to withdraw permission. Specifically for licenses, it's called Reliance. And if Alice has said Y'all can do this forever, guess what? She has given up her ability to withdraw permission. So, by Reliance, Microsoft *could* tell us to stop, but they can't retroactively withdraw the permission they gave us in the past. Since Microsoft is a United States company, they need to abide by U.S. law. The real question here is: whether Microsoft believes that a posting on the official Bing blog is usable in court. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On 06/12/2010 09:55, Frederik Ramm wrote: The situation is sufficient for me to use Bing imagery for tracing. I'm not looking at the legal side of it, I'm just looking at the size of the PR disaster should Microsoft attempt to backtrack in any way. PR is more important than legal. I'm just catching up with this thread can't believe what I've just read. You bleat whinge about people talking legal in other threads yet here, in legal, you admit that your advice to others that's it's OK to trace Bing (under any license) has no foundation other than a guess a feeling. I'm looking for concrete evidence it would be better if you kept quiet until you had some Seriously, the more you post, the more I distrust you. Frederick: OSM making it up as you go along is that way Dave F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
I feel that it is not safe at this point. I have raised my concerns in this thread http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-December/005299.html On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Manuel Reimer manuel.s...@nurfuerspam.de wrote: Hello, is it secure to use Bing? Any license risks? Could Microsoft, at some day, just force us to remove everything with source=Bing on it? Am I forced to have this source tag there? Should stuff, taken from Bing, be verified via GPS track at some time to get the data secure? One risk, which definetly exists, is that Microsoft rejects their offer at some time, so if there is no risk in using the data, I would start to use it to complete several things in my area (buildings, landuse, ) as long as the data is still available for OSM. Yours Manuel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
Andrew, Manuel - On 12/06/2010 10:28 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote: I feel that it is not safe at this point. I have raised my concerns in this thread http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-December/005299.html The situation is sufficient for me to use Bing imagery for tracing. I'm not looking at the legal side of it, I'm just looking at the size of the PR disaster should Microsoft attempt to backtrack in any way. PR is more important than legal. As most people on this list know, with CC-BY-SA being next to invalid for Geodata in the US, any of the big US players could long have taken our data an run. Why haven't they? Because they fear a PR disaster. But luckily this is something that everyone can decide for themselves - if you're happy with the situation, start tracing; if you're not, then don't. There's enough mapping to be done without reliance to Bing images. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On 12/06/2010 10:18 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote: I suppose I don't mind if a license is technically invalid because of some obscure legal reason, I just think that the intent needs to be there, publicly, officially, and clearly stated on what they are okay with and what they aren't. I don't think the Bing people have clearly stated what they consider acceptable and what they don't. You can use the Bing map tiles in OSM editors and contribute the results to OSM: Microsoft is pleased to announce the royalty-free use of the Bing Maps Imagery Editor API, allowing the Open Street Map community to use Bing Maps imagery via the API as a backdrop to your OSM map editors. Another potential problem I see with Bing is, as far as I could tell, this grant is only for OpenStreetMap. Does their permission extend to other people who then use the OSM database? I feel this needs to be made clear. Once it's in the OSM DB, it's under OSM's control thanks to the CTs, so there are no downstream issues caused by the data coming from Bing. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: The situation is sufficient for me to use Bing imagery for tracing. I'm not looking at the legal side of it, I'm just looking at the size of the PR disaster should Microsoft attempt to backtrack in any way. PR is more important than legal. As most people on this list know, with CC-BY-SA being next to invalid for Geodata in the US, any of the big US players could long have taken our data an run. Why haven't they? Because they fear a PR disaster. I suppose I don't mind if a license is technically invalid because of some obscure legal reason, I just think that the intent needs to be there, publicly, officially, and clearly stated on what they are okay with and what they aren't. I don't think the Bing people have clearly stated what they consider acceptable and what they don't. Another potential problem I see with Bing is, as far as I could tell, this grant is only for OpenStreetMap. Does their permission extend to other people who then use the OSM database? I feel this needs to be made clear. But luckily this is something that everyone can decide for themselves - if you're happy with the situation, start tracing; if you're not, then don't. There's enough mapping to be done without reliance to Bing images. Yes, though its a little more complicated than that. What if there is data from GPS, data from NearMap and data from Bing. There is enough diversity to find people who think one data source is superior with the other and shouldn't be replace with the other. How do we decide who's data is the best? I face this every day when I have to decide whether to replace someones GPS survey data with NearMap derived information. On one hand NearMap is a perfectly legitimate data source and is in most cases probably more accurate that a consumer GPS. On the other hand someone who likes the contributor terms may think that their GPS data is superior and shouldn't be replaced with more accurate NearMap derived information because the NearMap information is incompatible with the contributors terms. If we go along with everyone make up their own mind, clashes will erupt. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: with and what they aren't. I don't think the Bing people have clearly stated what they consider acceptable and what they don't. It would be a very strange world if Steve Coast announced that OSM could use Bing maps, and he meant something other than trace streets and other objects from them, and license that data as CC-BY-SA. Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: with and what they aren't. I don't think the Bing people have clearly stated what they consider acceptable and what they don't. It would be a very strange world if Steve Coast announced that OSM could use Bing maps, and he meant something other than trace streets and other objects from them, and license that data as CC-BY-SA. ... and CT/ODbL in future Fixed that for you. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: PR is more important than legal. As most people on this list know, with CC-BY-SA being next to invalid for Geodata in the US, any of the big US players could long have taken our data an run. Why haven't they? Because they also distribute the data outside the US? Because next to invalid isn't the same as invalid? Because if a license is invalid, then everything falls back to all rights reserved? Because they'd have to simultaneously take the position that their data is protected but ours isn't? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
Le dimanche 05 décembre 2010 à 11:16, Manuel Reimer a écrit : is it secure to use Bing? Any license risks? Could Microsoft, at some day, just force us to remove everything with source=Bing on it? Am I forced to have this source tag there? Should stuff, taken from Bing, be verified via GPS track at some time to get the data secure? I also would like to know if this is fine, and I add another question: Is it OK to use bing imagery when you have accepted the contributors term, as I have explicitly accepted them (version 1.0), and every mapper who registered after March 2010 (correct?) are also contributing under CT 1.0? -- Renaud Michel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Renaud MICHEL r.h.michel+...@gmail.com wrote: Is it OK to use bing imagery when you have accepted the contributors term, How are they connected? please explain. thanks, mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
Renaud MICHEL wrote: Is it OK to use bing imagery when you have accepted the contributors term, as I have explicitly accepted them (version 1.0), and every mapper who registered after March 2010 (correct?) are also contributing under CT 1.0? I also did so and I *want* my contributions to get ODbL licensed, as I think it's the better license! Yours Manuel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
Le dimanche 05 décembre 2010 à 11:49, Mike Dupont a écrit : On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Renaud MICHEL r.h.michel+...@gmail.com wrote: Is it OK to use bing imagery when you have accepted the contributors term, How are they connected? please explain. Because of the terms of the CT, I don't know if tracing from bing allows me to to give to the OSMF all the rights that are required by CT. And from all the discussions/trolls/rants there have been on this list and on talk on this subject I am even more confused. -- Renaud Michel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Renaud MICHEL r.h.michel+...@gmail.com wrote: Le dimanche 05 décembre 2010 à 11:49, Mike Dupont a écrit : On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Renaud MICHEL r.h.michel+...@gmail.com wrote: Is it OK to use bing imagery when you have accepted the contributors term, How are they connected? please explain. Because of the terms of the CT, I don't know if tracing from bing allows me to to give to the OSMF all the rights that are required by CT. And from all the discussions/trolls/rants there have been on this list and on talk on this subject I am even more confused. Ahh, good points, thanks for un-confusing me. :D mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
