Please read through the terms when you have the chance, as there are
quite a few clarifications/additions/changes. I understand that there
may also be sections that appear more restrictive than before, and you
may have concerns about those.
Please post your questions and concerns here, and please know that we
will be reading through this thread in determining what needs
clarifying in the FAQ or even in the Terms. But also keep in mind that
it is the weekend (atleast in our timezone :) and that Terms
clarifications generally require legal consult, so we will likely not
have official responses for a few days.
On Nov 14, 7:05 am, "pamela (Google Employee)" <pamela....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Please post your questions and concerns here, and please know that we
> will be reading through this thread in determining what needs
> clarifying in the FAQ or even in the Terms. But also keep in mind that
> it is the weekend (atleast in our timezone :) and that Terms
> clarifications generally require legal consult, so we will likely not
> have official responses for a few days.
Pamela,
Thanks for the new Terms and FAQ. It's great to see. One immediate
question regarding the new non-web permissions (though the OS issues should
be far higher on everyone's list of topics to deal with than my trifling).
Just to clarify, we're allowed desktop applications now, as per (7.1.c).
However, those desktop applications must still be "generally accessible to
users without charge" (9.1), and must not require themselves to be behind a
firewall or on a local network (9.1.b). If they run from an installed
location, not requiring a firewall, or an internal network, this would be
seem to satisfy (b). Does public accessibility require that we make the
program freely downloadable on some website somewhere, or does it simply
mean that we may not charge for the application?
...
(c) "*Maps API Implementation*" means a software application or website that
uses the Maps APIs to obtain and display Content in conjunction with Your
Content, according to these Terms.
...
9.1 *Free, Public Accessibility to Your Maps API Implementation*. Your Maps
API Implementation must be generally accessible to users without charge. You
may require users to log in to your Maps API Implementation if you do not
require users to pay a fee. Unless you have entered into a separate written
agreement with Google or obtained Google's written
permission<http://www.google.com/enterprise/maps/>,
your Maps API Implementation must not:
(a) require a fee-based subscription or other fee-based restricted access;
or
(b) operate only behind a firewall or only on an internal network (except
during the development and testing phase).
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:05 AM, pamela (Google Employee) <
> Please read through the terms when you have the chance, as there are
> quite a few clarifications/additions/changes. I understand that there
> may also be sections that appear more restrictive than before, and you
> may have concerns about those.
> Please post your questions and concerns here, and please know that we
> will be reading through this thread in determining what needs
> clarifying in the FAQ or even in the Terms. But also keep in mind that
> it is the weekend (atleast in our timezone :) and that Terms
> clarifications generally require legal consult, so we will likely not
> have official responses for a few days.
Re: "2.1 Clicking to Accept or Using the Maps APIs. (b) using the Maps APIs. ... Google will treat your use of the Maps APIs as acceptance of the Terms"
Does that apply to visitors too? I've always understood its the developer that is agreeing to the API Terms. A site visitor is just aggreing to the Maps terms (as that is where the map link goes). But this seems to suggest the site visitor is browser wrapped to agree to the API terms? If so should the Terms link in the map goto the API terms?
This appears to not be the case with after reading 9.3. But that introduces another issue, do we NEED a Terms of Use for our own website? PITA if so...
Won't even mention 9.4! ;p
Have to say 10.3 is a welcome *clarification*, not nice, but at least know where 'offically' stand.
10.5 is one for Mike ;)
And section 11 I think is being discussed in the other threads pointed to by Andrew, for the moment.
There is still great ambiguity regarding logins to sites using the
maps API.
The terms themselves now allow logins, as the FAQ has always allowed.
But according to the title of that section, the login is supposed to
be for "Free, Public Accessibility to Your Maps API Implementation."
And it still states, "Your Maps API Implementation must be generally
accessible to users without charge."
What is the scope of "Public Accessibility" and "generally accessible
to users?" Must it truly be open to all comers, or can access be
restricted to certain affinity groups, organizations, etc.?
If I set up a site restricted to members of my church congregation at
no charge, for example, can I restrict access to members of that
congregation? Or must I allow anyone in the "public" to log in?
Of if I allow multiple congregations from a certain church to set up
separate, private databases and associated maps, protected by login,
must I allow any congregations from other churches (or biker gangs,
etc.) to set up such private maps. If I allow a Boy Scout troop to
register and set up a private map, must I also allow a gay social
club? Or vice versa?
On Nov 14, 1:05 am, "pamela (Google Employee)" <pamela....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Please read through the terms when you have the chance, as there are
> quite a few clarifications/additions/changes. I understand that there
> may also be sections that appear more restrictive than before, and you
> may have concerns about those.
> Please post your questions and concerns here, and please know that we
> will be reading through this thread in determining what needs
> clarifying in the FAQ or even in the Terms. But also keep in mind that
> it is the weekend (atleast in our timezone :) and that Terms
> clarifications generally require legal consult, so we will likely not
> have official responses for a few days.
It looks like the terms for the geocoder has changed. There used to be
a restriction that said something like the geocoder results could only
be used to place points on the map, now there is just some language
about providing bulk geocoding services to others.
If this is the case, can I re-establish the program:
What is the status about storing geocoded points? At one point it was
encouraged, then the restriction about using coordinates only for
"points on the map" which seemed to preclude storage. Is there any
more information on that?
Maps or Maps+Data to be generally accessible without charge?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Section 9.1 says: "Your Maps API Implementation must be generally
accessible to users without charge".
Section 7.1c says "Maps API Implementation" means a software
application or website that uses the Maps APIs to obtain and display
Content in conjunction with Your Content, according to these Terms.
Which, although IANAL, suggests that it's the maps widget that has to
be generally accessible, and that the data displayed on those maps can
be changed depending on whether someone is logged in or not, perhaps
as a member of an organisation or the site admin team.
Rights to Data
~~~~~~~~~~~
Section 11.1 is a complete nightmare!
1) It makes it impossible to display a great deal of otherwise useful
data. I would like to be able to display other data that is owned by
myself and by organisations that most certainly do not wish to donate
that data to Google so they can make use of it as they wish.
2) It gives Google rights to everything "that you provide in your Maps
API Implementation, including data, images, video, or software". So
Google requires rights to the custom javascript code I've written, and
perhaps even my custom server-side code, database contents, etc.
HELP!!!
3) "Maps API Implementation" means a software application or website
that uses the Maps APIs to obtain and display Content in conjunction
with Your Content, according to these Terms. So Google is claiming
rights to the entire contents, including the software, of any website
that uses the Maps API?????? Surely not???
Summary
~~~~~~~
Looks like the end of a useful free mapping API from Google is coming.
They obviously want more and more sites to pay $10,000+ per year to
avoid these terms of use. Sadly, while trying to grab cash from
businesses, with these terms they will prevent many low-budget
organisations from using the Maps API. Unless we just ignore them...
It is great that desktop applications are now allowed.
But section 9.1(b) says : "your Maps API Implementation must not:
...
(b) operate only behind a firewall or only on an internal network
(except during the development and testing phase)."
What the heck does that mean? Who doesn't have a firewall of some
kind, either at home or in their workplace?
Is a user of such a desktop app required to open his desktop PC to
the Internet without protection?
On Nov 14, 1:05 am, "pamela (Google Employee)" <pamela....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Please read through the terms when you have the chance, as there are
> quite a few clarifications/additions/changes. I understand that there
> may also be sections that appear more restrictive than before, and you
> may have concerns about those.
> Please post your questions and concerns here, and please know that we
> will be reading through this thread in determining what needs
> clarifying in the FAQ or even in the Terms. But also keep in mind that
> it is the weekend (atleast in our timezone :) and that Terms
> clarifications generally require legal consult, so we will likely not
> have official responses for a few days.
> There is still great ambiguity regarding logins to sites using the
> maps API.
They must, I hope, allow some things to change when people log in. For
example, you will probably want to only allow people to edit their own
data, like Google's My Maps does. You might also want to allow people
to keep some data private, such as incompleted and unpublished routes,
etc. And the Estate Agent example suggests that you can restrict some
features of your API application, such as editing points, to logged-in
people who aren't general public.
The other issue is of whether the rules govern the API (the slippy
maps and controls) or the API plus all data displayed using it. I have
a site where the general public can see the maps for free, along with
some useful additional data. Members of an organisation can log in and
see more detail about the same data. I consider that to be fair, as
the Maps API, and the basic data, is "generally accessible to users
without charge". There is additional data displayed for some users,
who belong to the organisation, but they haven't paid anything to
access the additional data, seeing it is a very minor additional
benefit of their organisational membership.
> It looks like the terms for the geocoder has changed. There used to be
> a restriction that said something like the geocoder results could only
> be used to place points on the map, now there is just some language
> about providing bulk geocoding services to others.
> If this is the case, can I re-establish the program:
> What is the status about storing geocoded points? At one point it was
> encouraged, then the restriction about using coordinates only for
> "points on the map" which seemed to preclude storage. Is there any
> more information on that?
I think that 9.1(b) is to exclude apps that can *only* operate behind
said firewall, or in a private network.
You can't create a app that you don't (or can't) distribute.
Downloading (to the end user) an using a freely available app and
using it on your own desktop is no different to using a website from
your browser (which is behind the firewall)
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:18 PM, boomerbubba <rossev...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> It is great that desktop applications are now allowed.
> But section 9.1(b) says : "your Maps API Implementation must not:
> ...
> (b) operate only behind a firewall or only on an internal network
> (except during the development and testing phase)."
> What the heck does that mean? Who doesn't have a firewall of some
> kind, either at home or in their workplace?
> Is a user of such a desktop app required to open his desktop PC to
> the Internet without protection?
> On Nov 14, 1:05 am, "pamela (Google Employee)" <pamela....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi developers-
>> Please read through the terms when you have the chance, as there are
>> quite a few clarifications/additions/changes. I understand that there
>> may also be sections that appear more restrictive than before, and you
>> may have concerns about those.
>> Please post your questions and concerns here, and please know that we
>> will be reading through this thread in determining what needs
>> clarifying in the FAQ or even in the Terms. But also keep in mind that
>> it is the weekend (atleast in our timezone :) and that Terms
>> clarifications generally require legal consult, so we will likely not
>> have official responses for a few days.
Ok, I understand the caching issue, that hasn't really changed but it
is allowed now explicitly or so it seems.
Pam had me disable the Google geocoder in the http://maps.huge.info/pinpointaddress.htm page because it didn't do anything except locate an address. The page
creates a link (showaddress.htm) that can be embedded to precisely
show where an address is after correcting.
I guess I'll leave it using only my internal geocoder for now until I
get permission to change it back.
On Nov 14, 4:21 pm, "Barry Hunter" <barrybhun...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> But there are many general points it could fall foul of (including
> 10.2, 7.3(b) and can *you* enforce 3.2?)
It's not a question of enforcing it. I can say that I don't permit
anyone to break the privacy policy or to make a derivative work. I
don't permit it; but I can't prevent it, just as I don't can't prevent
you breaking the speed limit. Actually that's quite a good analogy:
the restriction on your speed is imposed by a third party, and if you
borrow my car I haven't given you permission to drive too fast. You're
liable for your speeding ticket, not me, even if I get the initial
letter from the police.
As far as an online geocoder is concerned, 7.3(b) might be a problem.
Anthony's exposition on -- or exposure of -- Section 11.1 is spot-on.
In fact the more I think about it the more I am inclined to pull the
maps I've published. I *hope* that it's simply bad drafting and there
isn't enough distinction between the Service, the Content and content
supplied by third parties (i.e. me or others). If Google excluded all
rights to third-party content, even Ordnance Survey might be happy.
11.1 is pretty interesting. For my maps in particular, the overlay of
zip code tiles is something I hold a copyright to and enforce it
strongly. I also limit how that content can be accessed with a fairly
robust algorithm which only permits my maps to display it, or those of
a subscriber. With 11.1, Googe has the right to take my tiles and use
them for other purposes without compensation to me. That certainly
doesn't seem right nor fair.
The big question is this a "Big Brother" issue or are they just going
to use 11.1 as a way of promoting the use of the maps. For example,
taking a screen shot of my zip code application and including it in
some sort of ad would require USNaviguide (my company) to approve the
use of the images. With 11.1, Google can do as it pleases without even
letting me know they are doing so. That would be ok.
Pretty awesome changes here. With Yahoo potentially going belly up and
Microsoft already an evil enterprise, the only other alternative is
the OSM and OL approach, which isn't that bad either.
Hey developers-
Thanks for the feedback, keep it coming. Just wanted to say that I already
know from blog posts and such that 11.1 is the most concerning clause, and
we're already discussing that internally. But, as I mentioned, we won't have
official clarification until next week. My preference in this thread is to
find out what else in the Terms of Service is ambiguous, and to not have
this thread spiral into an 11.1 discussion (if possible). Thanks!
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:10 AM, maps.huge.info [Maps API Guru] <
> 11.1 is pretty interesting. For my maps in particular, the overlay of
> zip code tiles is something I hold a copyright to and enforce it
> strongly. I also limit how that content can be accessed with a fairly
> robust algorithm which only permits my maps to display it, or those of
> a subscriber. With 11.1, Googe has the right to take my tiles and use
> them for other purposes without compensation to me. That certainly
> doesn't seem right nor fair.
> The big question is this a "Big Brother" issue or are they just going
> to use 11.1 as a way of promoting the use of the maps. For example,
> taking a screen shot of my zip code application and including it in
> some sort of ad would require USNaviguide (my company) to approve the
> use of the images. With 11.1, Google can do as it pleases without even
> letting me know they are doing so. That would be ok.
> Pretty awesome changes here. With Yahoo potentially going belly up and
> Microsoft already an evil enterprise, the only other alternative is
> the OSM and OL approach, which isn't that bad either.
<pamela...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey developers-
> Thanks for the feedback, keep it coming. Just wanted to say that I already
> know from blog posts and such that 11.1 is the most concerning clause, and
> we're already discussing that internally. But, as I mentioned, we won't have
> official clarification until next week. My preference in this thread is to
> find out what else in the Terms of Service is ambiguous, and to not have
> this thread spiral into an 11.1 discussion (if possible). Thanks!
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:10 AM, maps.huge.info [Maps API Guru]
> <cor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 11.1 is pretty interesting. For my maps in particular, the overlay of
>> zip code tiles is something I hold a copyright to and enforce it
>> strongly. I also limit how that content can be accessed with a fairly
>> robust algorithm which only permits my maps to display it, or those of
>> a subscriber. With 11.1, Googe has the right to take my tiles and use
>> them for other purposes without compensation to me. That certainly
>> doesn't seem right nor fair.
>> The big question is this a "Big Brother" issue or are they just going
>> to use 11.1 as a way of promoting the use of the maps. For example,
>> taking a screen shot of my zip code application and including it in
>> some sort of ad would require USNaviguide (my company) to approve the
>> use of the images. With 11.1, Google can do as it pleases without even
>> letting me know they are doing so. That would be ok.
>> Pretty awesome changes here. With Yahoo potentially going belly up and
>> Microsoft already an evil enterprise, the only other alternative is
>> the OSM and OL approach, which isn't that bad either.
I believe another important issue is missing here – TOS for developers
who are doing mashups development. Those guys are not data owners but
they usually register an API key in order to run maps on their
development servers. I think either a special ‘developers’ TOS might
be a good solution for this problem. What do you think?
On Nov 14, 1:25 pm, "pamela (Google Employee)" <pamela...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hey developers-
> Thanks for the feedback, keep it coming. Just wanted to say that I already
> know from blog posts and such that 11.1 is the most concerning clause, and
> we're already discussing that internally. But, as I mentioned, we won't have
> official clarification until next week. My preference in this thread is to
> find out what else in the Terms of Service is ambiguous, and to not have
> this thread spiral into an 11.1 discussion (if possible). Thanks!
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:10 AM, maps.huge.info [Maps API Guru] <
> > 11.1 is pretty interesting. For my maps in particular, the overlay of
> > zip code tiles is something I hold a copyright to and enforce it
> > strongly. I also limit how that content can be accessed with a fairly
> > robust algorithm which only permits my maps to display it, or those of
> > a subscriber. With 11.1, Googe has the right to take my tiles and use
> > them for other purposes without compensation to me. That certainly
> > doesn't seem right nor fair.
> > The big question is this a "Big Brother" issue or are they just going
> > to use 11.1 as a way of promoting the use of the maps. For example,
> > taking a screen shot of my zip code application and including it in
> > some sort of ad would require USNaviguide (my company) to approve the
> > use of the images. With 11.1, Google can do as it pleases without even
> > letting me know they are doing so. That would be ok.
> > Pretty awesome changes here. With Yahoo potentially going belly up and
> > Microsoft already an evil enterprise, the only other alternative is
> > the OSM and OL approach, which isn't that bad either.
1) Is calling google.loader.ClientLocation therefore something that
".....enables a device to detect its own location through use of a
sensor (.....WiFi or similar functionality) to display the location of
the device on a map....."
2) Firefox 3.1 will have the ability for websites to call
navigator.geolocation.getCurrentPosition to get the visitors location.
The user could update their Firefox location manually, by a GPS
device, Skyhook WIFI locating, or many unknown ways. What are we to do
in this case, "sensor=sometimes true: depends on whether they use
Firefox 3.1, clicked the button to allow sharing of their location,
and how they update their location in Firefox in the first place"
On Nov 15, 12:28 am, "Barry Hunter" <barrybhun...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> andhttp://code.google.com/apis/maps/terms.html#section_9_2 > "You must implement those reporting mechanisms that Google has set
> forth and may update from time to time in these Terms and in the Maps
> APIs Documentation."
> Does that mean that mashups that dont even have &sensor=false are not
> complying with the terms?
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:25 PM, pamela (Google Employee)
> <pamela...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey developers-
> > Thanks for the feedback, keep it coming. Just wanted to say that I already
> > know from blog posts and such that 11.1 is the most concerning clause, and
> > we're already discussing that internally. But, as I mentioned, we won't have
> > official clarification until next week. My preference in this thread is to
> > find out what else in the Terms of Service is ambiguous, and to not have
> > this thread spiral into an 11.1 discussion (if possible). Thanks!
> > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:10 AM, maps.huge.info [Maps API Guru]
> > <cor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 11.1 is pretty interesting. For my maps in particular, the overlay of
> >> zip code tiles is something I hold a copyright to and enforce it
> >> strongly. I also limit how that content can be accessed with a fairly
> >> robust algorithm which only permits my maps to display it, or those of
> >> a subscriber. With 11.1, Googe has the right to take my tiles and use
> >> them for other purposes without compensation to me. That certainly
> >> doesn't seem right nor fair.
> >> The big question is this a "Big Brother" issue or are they just going
> >> to use 11.1 as a way of promoting the use of the maps. For example,
> >> taking a screen shot of my zip code application and including it in
> >> some sort of ad would require USNaviguide (my company) to approve the
> >> use of the images. With 11.1, Google can do as it pleases without even
> >> letting me know they are doing so. That would be ok.
> >> Pretty awesome changes here. With Yahoo potentially going belly up and
> >> Microsoft already an evil enterprise, the only other alternative is
> >> the OSM and OL approach, which isn't that bad either.
> Note that even if your device does not use a sensing device, you must
> still pass this parameter, setting its value to false."
How daft is that? It means that every existing instance of the Google
Maps API is now acting against this requirement. Why not just treat
sensor=false as the default?
Google don't seem to be requiring this argument in GET requests yet,
but if they do it'll break almost all the Google Maps API maps in the
world... :(
Yet another example of real-world technology moving too fast for the
lawyers to keep up :)
Should I report sensor as true or false while a map is created to show
the track of asset?
As the web client's positions is not detected with any means such as
"navigator.geolocation.getCurrentPosition", but the showed positon on
map is detected by cerain sensor.
On Nov 16, 10:27 pm, "ajcartm...@fonant.com" <ajcartm...@fonant.com>
wrote:
> > Note that even if your device does not use a sensing device, you must
> > still pass this parameter, setting its value to false."
> How daft is that? It means that every existing instance of the Google
> Maps API is now acting against this requirement. Why not just treat
> sensor=false as the default?
> Google don't seem to be requiring this argument in GET requests yet,
> but if they do it'll break almost all the Google Maps API maps in the
> world... :(
> Yet another example of real-world technology moving too fast for the
> lawyers to keep up :)
I agree 11.1 is one of the major problems - the example Ed Parsons
gives of interpretation on his blog is better (but still not
acceptable to the OS I suspect) - but if Eds interpretation is right
surely 11.1 could be re-worded to sound a bit less all encompassing.
11.3 is also problematic - as already mentioned - most just don't have
these rights.
The unfortunate situation in the UK - is that anyone wanting to use
the map API is caught between the OS and Google TOS (almost
regardless of the data they are wanting to display as in the vast
majority of cases you could not be SURE that there was no element of
derivation in the data). I can understand Google not being keen to be
seen to bend to accommodate the OS and their wholly unreasonable
interpretation of derived data, however it may be a case of finding an
agreement that the OS can live with - or see people switch en mass
from the mapping API in the UK - which would be a real shame.
I would also stress the need for a very rapid resolution of this issue
- I know people are currently feeling they have no option but to take
their maps off line as they can't abide by the TOS and the fact that
they inevitably have OS derived data. There have been several people
saying will have to switch OpenLayers. We are in exactly the same
position, about to embark on a development that was to be done using
the Google mapping API - but now looks as if it will have to be in
OpenLayers as we can't comply with the TOS because of OS derived data.
If the API is to be used in the UK - the terms MUST be usable with the
OS interpretation of derived data and copyright. I know which party
I'd most like to see changed (preferably forcably!) - but equally I'm
hoping that Google can be pragmatic here so as the ground gained with
people using the API in the UK is not lost. If the point of the
mapping API is not a data farming excercise as Ed Parsons stresses
(and I don't really believe) then would it really hurt Google to drop
the controversial terms?
Pamela, 11.3 is a problem. It says that we confirm we have the rights
to grant the above licenses to Google, but in reality very few
individuals and organisations do have the rights that Google asks for.
For example, if you're creating a mashup you will be using data from
other sources - roadworks, properties for sale, crime locations,
whatever. While the developer creating the mashup may have the
licenses and the rights to present this data to the public on their
website they do NOT have the right to extend any rights or licenses of
that data to Google.
If the developer does not own the IPR (intellectual property rights)
of the data they're putting through the maps API then they are almost
certainly breaking the ToS because they do not have the rights to
extend any rights on to a 3rd party (i.e. Google). Sorry if I've
repeated myself but this is a major flaw in the ToS which breaks the
license for almost everyone.
IMHO the whole ToS needs expanding upon with examples. As someone else
said, we're developers not lawyers. And a lot of it is open to
interpretation. I don't want my lawyer to tell me what he thinks
Google's lawyers meant by 11.1 or 11.3 when Google should really make
an effort to spell it out more clearly since it's in everyone's
interest to know where we stand and for Google to be as transparent as
possible.
One issue I'm foxed by, regarding 11.1, if I'm using the API to plot
markers on maps on my website, how can Google claim any license to
reproduce, adapt, etc, if the data that creates the markers aren't
being sent to Google? The data goes straight from my server via the
Internet to my visitor's browser whereby Javascript (run locally)
turns the data into a marker. Or are the ToS implying that even this
data is sent to Google via the API? Google must declare this if it's
true.
What if a website plots private data that's unique to the current user
(on a free public website which they're logged into)? Are Google
saying they can technically capture and store this data and if so are
they requesting a license to publicly display this data elsewhere? Why
would they want to do that and is the message I'm hearing right in
that if we use the API to plot our own home address then Google have
the rights to display that to anyone anywhere?
Thanks for listening and I look forward to some answers.
Gary.
|
