And using contacts or glasses is a derived work too... the vendor could have twisted the photons to inject 'lye' street into your vision.
a On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Matthias Julius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Stephen Gower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 10:36:14AM +0200, Erik Johansson wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Stefan Holst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 11:58 +1000, Joseph Gentle wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Good for filling in all the missing street names. > >> > Interesting question. Are we allowed to use street view images [...] > >> [...] > >> And since they are facts and not *indexed* in a database so it should be > ok. > > > > That argument surely applies to aerial images also, and yet consensus is > > that getting facts from them would create a derived work incompatible > with > > our licence. > > Well, if reading a road sign from a picture is creating a derived work > of that picture than looking up a word in a dictionary also creates a > derived work of that dictionary. > > Matthias > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- anselm 415 215 4856 http://hook.org http://makerlab.com http://meedan.net
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
