Some info about license and conditions (restricted access, data storage...)

[thebit]

Hello,
I read the licenses and the terms of Google map API but I still have
some doubts.
I want to know more informations about the following questions:
1) can I realise a web page and to allow users to save their markers
by saving ONLY the requires data (such as markers lat&lng, and a short
title) to semplify the marker loading at each visit?
2) can I make 2 versions of this service? One for free in which each
user can add xxx markers and another version for pay (eg. only 1$)
with the same services, but without limit of markers adding?

Thank you for your support.

[Luke Mahé]

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:51 AM, thebit <the...@email.it> wrote:

Hello,
I read the licenses and the terms of Google map API but I still have
some doubts.
I want to know more informations about the following questions:
1) can I realise a web page and to allow users to save their markers
by saving ONLY the requires data (such as markers lat&lng, and a short
title) to semplify the marker loading at each visit?

Yes as long as any user can add markers for free.

 

2) can I make 2 versions of this service? One for free in which each
user can add xxx markers and another version for pay (eg. only 1$)
with the same services, but without limit of markers adding?

Not without a premier license.

 

Thank you for your support.

No problem :)

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Maps JavaScript API v3" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-map...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-maps-js-a...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-js-api-v3?hl=en.

[Gregory Short]

On Apr 3, 2011, at 8:51 PM, Luke Mahé wrote:

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:51 AM, thebit <the...@email.it> wrote:

Hello,
I read the licenses and the terms of Google map API but I still have
some doubts.
I want to know more informations about the following questions:
1) can I realise a web page and to allow users to save their markers
by saving ONLY the requires data (such as markers lat&lng, and a short
title) to semplify the marker loading at each visit?

Yes as long as any user can add markers for free.

 

2) can I make 2 versions of this service? One for free in which each
user can add xxx markers and another version for pay (eg. only 1$)
with the same services, but without limit of markers adding?

Not without a premier license.

I'm not so sure about that. If the client-side API-using code is identical in both cases, then I'm pretty sure it'd be within the ToS. For instance, the marker-saving functionality could just ping the server and the server would either say, "Yes, okay, saved," or "No, you've reached your quota." In that case, it should be fine, right?

-G

[Luke Mahé]

-- Luke
VP, Keepin' It Real

If my understanding of thebit's use case is correct then he wants to have a website where users can add say 10 markers but if they pay $1 they can add unlimited markers. If this is the case then thebit will need a premier license - see http://code.google.com/apis/maps/terms.html 9.1

 

-G

[Andrew Leach]

On 4 April 2011 04:21, Luke Mahé <lu...@google.com> wrote:
>
> If my understanding of thebit's use case is correct then he wants to have a
> website where users can add say 10 markers but if they pay $1 they can add
> unlimited markers. If this is the case then thebit will need a premier
> license - see http://code.google.com/apis/maps/terms.html 9.1

But that's not what 9.1 says. That term says that an application which
*requires* a paid login must have a Premier licence (my emphasis). An
application which does not *require* a paid login doesn't need a
Premier licence.

So some clarification is needed. Thebit's suggestion is to have two
versions of the page, one which is free and another which is paid-for.
Obviously the paid-for implementation requires a paid login and a
Premier licence.

But there is a method, as described by Gregory, where there is only
one implementation, which is free. All the restrictions are tested
server-side. The implementation of the map is the same whether or not
money is paid, and it makes no difference to what is served to the
browser whether the user has paid money or not if the restriction is
server-side. (Presumably a login of some sort will be required in
order to save markers identifiably, but that can be free as Term 9.1
allows that.)

What is being purchased is more database space, not a different map
implementation. I don't believe Google can mandate the purchase of a
Premier licence because someone wants to sell database space which is
not under Google's control.

It's very similar to this thread, where no-one from Google has
disagreed: http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api/browse_thread/thread/d8204cb6c0ce2677

See also this: http://code.google.com/apis/maps/faq.html#tos_password
-- this use case is an enhancement to the free map, isn't it?

If the intention of the Terms is to enforce a payment to Google for
something which does not affect access to the map and is not in their
control (like database space), then the Terms should make that
explicit. The use of the word "require" would indicate otherwise.

[thebit]

@Gregory Short: yes the code is exactly the same.
I wished to allow for free only 10/20 markers because it's a small
database with little capacity.
In this way (1$ for each user is only "una-tantum" but it will help me
to offer a great service)

@Luke Mahè: I apologize for the insistence, but the 9 point of terms
tells:
"your Maps API Implementation must not:
(a) require a fee-based subscription or other fee-based restricted
access; "

My service not allows fee-based, but fee-extension of the service.
So, such as I said before, it's ony 1$ for each user.
The premium license is 10.000 $ !!!
If existed others types of license I can considerer the possibibility
to buy a license.

Please, I would like to clarify that I did not realize this service in
order to enrich, but ONLY to offer a better and more lasting service.

On 4 Apr, 05:21, Luke Mahé <lu...@google.com> wrote:
> -- Luke
> VP, Keepin' It Real
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Gregory Short <gsho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 2011, at 8:51 PM, Luke Mahé wrote:
>

[thebit]

> What is being purchased is more database space, not a different map
> implementation.

Yes! It's exactly such as you said!

[Luke Mahé]

You can contact the premier sales team and have a discussion with them about what you are doing and they will be able to let you know what direction to take.

As with everything you should probably check with your own lawyer :)

- Luke

[thebit]

No Google Employee reads this discussion?

[geoco...@gmail.com]

On Apr 5, 10:42 am, thebit <the-...@email.it> wrote:
> No Google Employee reads this discussion?

Luke is a google employee (a VP if you read his signature...)

(most of us are not however)

-- Larry

[Andrew Leach]

On 5 April 2011 18:42, thebit <the...@email.it> wrote:
> No Google Employee reads this discussion?

Yes. Googlers can be identified by @google.com email addresses. Luke has one.

[thebit]

Ok.
Thanks for all your support.
So, my doubt and that of others remains :)

On 5 Apr, 20:15, Andrew Leach <andrew.leac...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Andrew Leach]

On 4 April 2011 11:16, Andrew Leach <andrew....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If the intention of the Terms is to enforce a payment to Google for
> something which does not affect access to the map and is not in their
> control (like database space), then the Terms should make that
> explicit. The use of the word "require" would indicate otherwise.

Sorry to drag this thread up again, but it seems Luke's comments may
have been based on the new Terms -- which weren't published on 4
April, but which he would certainly have known were in the pipeline.

The new Term 9.1.1 says "Your Maps API Implementation must be
generally accessible to users without charge and must not require a
fee-based subscription or other fee-based restricted access. This rule
applies to Your Content and any other content in your Maps API
Implementation, whether Your Content or the other content is in
existence now or is added later."

I still maintain that the purchase of database space to allow more
content to be stored doesn't fall into the "Your Content" clause here.
There is no charge to access the map, or My Content in the map
(however much there is of My Content). There is a charge to store
data; once it's stored and *becomes* My Content [that is, "added
later"] then it's freely available to anyone who accesses the map.
That's compatible with the Terms.

As an aside, albeit related, I doubt that a UK court would allow
Google to restrict my trade in My Content anyway, since (a) Term 11.1
cedes all claim to it and (b) it is possible to provide a free
generally-accessible Implementation, while reasonably protecting my
investment in my data. It is likely that, under Term 19.3, the
sentence "This rule applies..." should be struck out in the United
Kingdom.

[Luke Mahé]

Thanks for that Andrew, as I mentioned it is best to check with your own lawyer to see if they think you will be within the Terms in your specific country :)

-- Luke

[Thor Mitchell (Google Employee)]

So just to add some colour, having been intimately involved in the redrafting of that clause, the revised wording is intended to address an ambiguity that we saw being increasingly exploited. Sites would make the base map publicly available, but only display data on the map once a user has logged in through a paywall, and then claim that no Premier license was needed because the map was publicly available for free. It was never our intention to permit this, but it was not previously clear in the old terms that the for-fee restriction relates to the whole application, and not just the map imagery. ie. such a workaround was never in the spirit of the old terms, so we ensured it was not in the letter of the new terms.

As for this specific case it comes down to exactly when you show a map, to who you show that map, and what that map contains. If the only map you show is the map that is freely accessible to the public, and all of the data that any user has added to the map (regardless of whether they paid or not) is freely available to all users on that map, then it's OK. However if any of the data added to the map is only visible to the people who uploaded it or to someone who has paid for the privilege then you need a Premier license. Also if you use a map application as the UI for adding data, and the map application that you present to paying users has more features or more data than the map presented to free users, then you need a Premier license.

Hope that helps,

Thor.

[LPlateAndy]

Hi,

Just questioning another usage following on from Thor's response...

We're looking at an implementation alongside openlayers which has the option for the user to log in. The user can freely access Google Streetview at all levels but the most detailed level of mapping does require the use of a free mapping token and subsequent to that the payment of a viewing fee. Once in the detailed mapping the use of Google Streetview is again equally unrestricted.

Unfortunately, this restriction does have to be applied to cover royalties due for the detailed view.

Is there any way to get some approval as to whether this is permitted? We'd be happy to provide a couple of example screenshots outside of the forum.

Thanks in advance.

Andy