On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Dave Stubbs <osm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Valent Turkovic > <valent.turko...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:29:37 -0500, Ian Dees wrote: >> >>> Although it may/may not be "illegal", it is definitely a breach of >>> contract. >> >> Sorry for misleading title, but I still don't understand how this can be >> permitted. >> > > > It isn't permitted. Don't let the posts here arguing the details of > whether it should be permitted confuse anything. > OSM has one simple rule: if in doubt, don't. > > A lot of people think it's probably OK, but but Google aren't exactly > unambiguous on the issue and there are certainly enough people around > claiming rights that it leaves reasonable doubt unless the provider > tells you explicitly that it's OK. Or in brief: don't use Google for > OSM.
+1 let's keep talking to Google (Ed/Leslie/whoever). but until we get something explicit and public and non-fuzzy (and preferably in writing) then it's still in doubt - please don't use Google for OSM. cheers, matt _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
