Peter Miller <peter.miller <at> itoworld.com> writes: > Looks interesting .... but..... (there is unfortunately often a but) > > A brief review of the license terms. The definition of Derived Work is good, unless a derived map is a 'Digital Terrain Model' which we would need to check with them. > > > > “DERIVATIVE WORKS”: means any derivative product or information developed by the END-USER from the PRODUCT, > > which does not contain any imagery data from the PRODUCT and is irreversible and uncoupled from the source imagery > data of the PRODUCT. Notwithstanding the foregoing, by express exception, any Digital Elevation Model or Digital > Terrain Model (in any form whatsoever, i.e. database for instance) derived from a PRODUCT shall never be considered > as DERIVATIVE WORKS. > > > This clause is good, except for the bit about Canada which breaks it for use in OSM! It might be worth probing them on this term to see if they could vary it. >
What I remember about using SPOT images, all what we digitized on top of the imagery was our own data and we could do whatever with it. However the imagery itself was protected. It is easy to understand that for that cheap price SPOT images must be selled several times. Therefore it is not sure that it would be OK to put satellite scenes on a server from where any of the 100000 OSM mappers could use them because it would be too simple to copy also the imagery. No problems if some individual or a small group makes a contract, digitizes all what they can see from the images in their own closed factory and uploads the results into OSM database. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
