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?
