On the talk-gb list, there has already been a small discussion, with someone from Itoworld clarifying that there was no problem in the slightest, and as this imagery was bought for this express purpose there is no problem. This is what Firefishy has already put on the wiki. There HAS therefore already been an explicit statement from the purchasers of the imagery.
Oh, and "Blame"? How rude is that? Steve On 17 May 2010 18:11, Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > On 17 May 2010 14:48, James Rutter <[email protected]>wrote: > Do you think an explicit statement is required from the liquidators stating > that it’s fine to derive data from the air survey for the purpose of adding > data to the OSM database. > > I think this would be the ideal(beyond public domain of course), 80n do you > agree? > > ODbL does seem really strange for images. If it was't legally good for > importing, the wiki page should have a clear "don't use yet" message. > Checking what it says... I see "Imagery is provided to OSM expressly for > tracing". > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surrey_Air_Survey > > I blame Firefishy for "clarifying" the license > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Surrey_Air_Survey&diff=465852&oldid=465470 > > I blame myself for the list not seeing this thread, I originally meant to > reply-all. > > -- > Gregory > [email protected] > http://www.livingwithdragons.com > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
