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. We have permission to derive NEW works from their imagery on condition that the new works go into OSM. Also for fun... openstreetmapS.org _IS_ an OpenStreetMap domain and belongs to the OSM. I spent ages getting it back from domain squatters because it is such a common typo. / Grant > 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 > > _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk