I created this issue before learning that there are new TOS for the Maps API as from 
a couple of days ago, and consequently the statement "The universal licence is not 
amended by the Maps API TOS" is wrong. 

However in Section 11.1(a) of the new API TOS, Google is still granted a universal 
licence which is not needed; and indeed the situation is made worse by introducing 
Sections 11.1(b) and (c). Sec 11.1(b) gives Google itself the right to use OS-
derived data; and 11.1(c) allows Google to syndicate it. All this without that data 
ever passing through Google's servers in the provision of the Service.

The current Google Maps API terms could well make all UK uses of the API illegal. 
Google's base mapping in the UK is derived from OS data, and so any data that is 
derived from Google's UK maps is also derived from OS data. Google require that 
anyone using the API gives Google a blanket licence to re-use the data however they 
like, but that breaks the Crown Copyright on data derived from Ordnance Survey 
mapping. So you can display Google Maps in the UK, but anyone using them to add 
information (markers, routes, overlays) is breaking OS Crown Copyright in doing so.

I am also unable to agree that by displaying my data using Google's Maps API I give 
that data to Google to do what it wants with it. If this is, in fact, Google's 
intention then I will no longer be willing to use the API for any of my sites. Of 
course Google isn't able to actually access this data, so the terms seem 
unenforceable on this issue.

According to Ed Parsons' blog, the Terms were re-written to try to appease Ordnance 
Survey. He also reads the new Terms in a different way to me, and I don't think OS 
will be any more confident that their Crown Copyright data won't be given away to 
Google and the rest of the world if displayed in the Maps API.

http://www.edparsons.com/2008/11/who-reads-the-terms-of-service-anyway/

I have been trying to get clarification for the last two weeks about whether the
terms of the enterprise maps API are affected by this same problem. I have heard from
a reliable source that the paper contract received on signing this agreement has a
clause which negates sec 11.1 of the general terms of service, but Google's
Enterprise sales people are not responding to my emails.

It is stupid that Google's TOS grants Google rights that they can't possibly call in
for data that they can't possibly get at because the Google servers never have sight
of the data. As a developer at a local authority with a significant time investment
in an upcoming Google Maps portal site, I am very worried about the implications for
our project. I don't like the position Ordnance Survey have adopted it and I think
they have done it more for strategic reasons than practical ones, but Google's TOS is
definitely unreasonable in this regard and the easiest resolution to the problem
would be a change to Google's TOS.

Incidentally, has anyone looked at the section in Google's legal notices that deals
with Ordnance Survey? I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the very existence of
the Maps API is in stark contradiction to the terms set out by Ordnance Survey and
published on Google's own site: http://maps.google.com/help/legalnotices_maps.html

http://maps.google.com/help/legalnotices_maps.html appears to restrict the free 
distribution of TeleAtlas data "in the form of a publised map book or atlas" only. 
There is no "copyright, trademark or restrictive legend belonging to Ordnance 
Survey" on any of the Google Maps API maps, so unless Google are breaking this very 
rule it looks like the TeleAtlas data does not have the same restrictions on use as 
data derived directly from OS maps.

Ordnance Survey Customer Support told me the same a few years ago: you can share 
points and routes traced from Google/TeleAtlas mapping so long as you conform to 
Google's own licencing rules, and there is no need to have an OS licence to publish 
such data. Whether this was true, or is still true, no-one seems to know...

Can't believe no one has posted this yet:

--------
From: @ordnancesurvey.co.uk] 
Sent: 11 February 2009 09:36
Subject: Microsoft Virtual Earth and Ordnance Survey Data

Dear ALO

I am please to inform you that through discussions between Ordnance Survey and
Microsoft, a position has been reached which allows us to make the following
announcement.

We have been working closely with Microsoft and are pleased to confirm that Microsoft
have now agreed to amend their current API general Terms of Use, Service Agreement
and Service Order in respect of the Virtual Earth Platform to take into account third
party data. 

This means that there is a limited risk of incompatibility with Ordnance Survey
licence terms when using the Virtual Earth platform however you must ensure:

1. that you advise Microsoft that you are or intend to become an Ordnance Survey
customer and 

2. that you check the terms and conditions of any Microsoft agreement you are
required to sign together with your Ordnance Survey licence agreements to ensure that
you are able to comply with the terms of all of the agreements.

Although final terms are not yet in place, the assurances we have received means we
are able to release this positive news.

Please direct ALL enquires to our MSA Helpdesk at msa@ordnancesurvey.co.uk or
telephone them on 02380 7927065.

Regards
--------

We are in the process on converting all our Google API maps over to Virtual Earth,
ready for when this is finalized.

At a meeting with OS Pricing and Licensing Team members last month, they informed me 
that:

OS-Derived data:
1) You are not allowed to publish any OS-derived data on the internet (however this 
might be done, maps or not) without a CWS license from OS, minimum £5,000 per annum.
2) Tracing from TeleAtlas mapping as used by Google in the UK creates OS-derived 
data, because the TeleAtlas mapping is derived from OS data.

These two items make using the Google Maps API for to define and display UK 
locations against Crown Copyright unless you pay thousands for a licence. This is a 
separate issue to the one about Google's Terms of Use.

Google's Terms:
1) You are currently not allowed to display OS-derived data using Google Maps API 
because of the Terms.
2) OS would allow the use of Google Maps API if we bought a commercial license from 
Google and negotiated terms that were acceptable to OS.

The important thing is that, technically, even if Google change their Terms to 
appease OS, you are still not allowed to display OS-derived data on the internet 
without a licence from OS at minimum £5,000 per annum. And if points taken from 
TeleAtlas data is covered by the derived-data rules then you still can't use the 
Google Maps API without spending £££ with OS.

Those that are switching to Microsoft Virtual Earth should be aware that if their 
points and lines are derived from OS data (which they probably are in the UK, unless 
they come from GPS units) then they will still need a CWS license from OS to display 
this OS-derived data online.

I await the Budget statement this month, in which the government promised to 
announce changes to the OS's business model and licensing rules. I suspect that 
they'll have to make changes to stop the whole "OS-derived data" thing getting out 
of control (if it hasn't already). Then Google Maps API will be legal to use for UK 
locations again :)

Ordnance Survey initially raised objections to the Google Maps TOS in a letter to
authority liaison officers (ALOs) but the TOS has been changed twice since then with
no further correspondance from Ordnance Survey. As such we have taken the position
that Ordnance Survey's initial objections have been invalidated by the changes Google
have made to the specific clauses in Google's TOS that they objected to (changes made
purely to appease OS).

I work for London Borough of Waltham Forest and we are launching a major new system
on our website based on the Google Maps API this Monday which includes OS-derived
data. A number of local authorities and the metropolitan police have similar systems
already on their websites, and none of them have been threatened with legal action to
date. I'm inclined to think this is just a lot of sabre rattling by the Ordnance
Survey who are clearly worried about a potential exodus from their proprietary (and
grossly inferior) maps to TeleAtlas-based systems.

@fonant: I say the "OS-derived data" issue is already way out of hand. We are
hopelessly restricted in what we can do with our own data because it was drawn on top
of an Ordnance Survey base map, so Ordnance Survey see that data as somehow part of
their own intellectual property. That's like saying a website built using Dreamweaver
is owned by Adobe or a photo is owned by the camera manufacturer. It's an absurd
interpretation of intellectual property right law. The background map is a tool, not
the basis of derivative work like a music track remix or a new Linux distro. Ordnance
Survey's privatisation has been an unmitigated disaster for the rest of the public
sector and something needs to change - they are one of the biggest impediments to the
kind of joined-up working that the government wants at the moment. Grrr!

I have an update on this. Although the wider issue of using Google Maps with
OS-derived data is still going nowhere fast (I've been in touch with Ed Parsons of
Google and Richard Mortara of OS and neither seem optimistic about any imminent
resolution), I have managed to get written confirmation from both Google and OS that
neither has a problem with the other's terms of service if we use the Google Maps
Premier API (http://www.google.co.uk/enterprise/maps/). I am in the process of
getting agreement to procure the Premier API licence from Google.

I'm still hoping for the issue to be resolved so that we don't have to pay thousands
of £ a year to Google simply to overcome OS's interpretation of Google's ToS, but we
have things we want to do that we simply cannot do whilst we're in such a precarious
legal position on our contract with OS, so this looks like the best way forward for
us, for now at least.

Indeed, if you spend many thousands on both a Google Maps Premier licence (_and_ 
negotiate terms with Google that OS are happy with) and you also pay minimum £5,000 
per annum for a CWS licence from OS, it _is_ then within OS's terms to use the 
Google Maps API for UK locations!  From my point of view I'm not bothering with 
spending more than £10,000 per annum to use Google Maps for UK locations, purely 
because this rule is completely unenforceable and because  many thousands of 
websites are already breaking the rules, including many very high profile ones.

In particular the OS OpenSpace gallery of example applications now includes 
WheresThePath (see http://openspace.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/openspace/gallery.html) 
which quite clearly and blatantly displays OS-derived data using the Google Maps 
API. In fact the gallery description of the site mentions this as the main benefit 
of the site!

While Ordnance Survey are advertising and praising websites that actively encourage 
people to generate OS-derived data and display that data using Google Maps (and even 
make it downloadable as GPX) I'm not going to fork out more than ten thousand per 
annum for licences that seemingly aren't actually needed.

Yep. We've launched our site in defiance of Ordnance Survey
(http://myplace.walthamforest.gov.uk) too, but we're hamstrung by the legal
situation. Although we think Ordnance Survey's position is unenforceable, we don't
dare provoke them by integrating OS base maps like MasterMap into our Google Maps
solution which means we can't ditch our older GIS system, and we can't actively
promote our site on the in local government circles. The minimum cost for the Google
Maps Premier licence is £7,700 annually - a hefty price for sure, but worth it for
us, at least for the time being.

Hi Andrew - What  is the current status of the OS situation? Is this still a request?

As far as I'm aware the OS are reviewing their business model over the next six 
months. They are consulting on their proposed changes, but these don't currently 
include anything about Derived Data. I hope that they can now see the importance of 
this issue for UK location data re-use, based on the comments they've had.

In the meantime it is officially (confirmed to me in person by OS licensing staff) 
against OS Terms to digitise UK-located points from TeleAtlas mapping and display 
them using Google Maps API (and I think also Google Earth). There are two parts to 
this: (1) They still think that clicking on Google's TeleAtlas maps of the UK create 
OS-derived data that is then owned by OS and subject to their licensing terms and 
royalties - not much Google can do about that; (2) They consider Google's Terms 
incompatible with displaying OS-derived data.

In the Real World, people are using Google Maps, and clicking UK locations from the 
TeleAtlas mapping without any knowledge that they're technically breaking OS Terms. 
Without delving into the depths they couldn't be expected to know either, since the 
Terms they agree to are Google's, not OS's.

Is this still a request? Well, I suppose so, but I don't think Google can do much. 
Until the Derived Data issue is sorted we still have the problem that we owe OS 
royalties for every point and line we display online, if it was traced from 
TeleAtlas UK maps. I'm tempted to say that the ball is in OS's court on this: they 
need to change their rules, or come out publicly to tell everyone that most use of 
the Google Maps API to display UK locations is illegal! Those with some spare cash 
can try to work around things by buying commercial licenses from Google and 
negotiating Terms that OS are happy with, but that doesn't help all the thousands of 
small users who don't have £££ to spend on (seemingly-pointless) licenses from 
Google and OS.

Perhaps Google would be willing to support a test case on publishing UK points using 
Google Maps, to get official legal opinion on the situation? ;)

(I'm Anthony, but don't worry about it!)

Others are probably more genned up on this than I am. I note that the Terms were 
updated again on May 27 -- what was changed? [Shouldn't that have appeared on the 
Announce list?]

Section 11.1 still contains this: "By submitting, posting or displaying Your Content 
in the Service, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, 
and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publicly perform, 
publicly display and distribute Your Content through the Service and as search 
results through Google Services."

...and that needs clarification. What forms "the Service" where I display my data? If 
I send no data to Google via GGeoXml, for example, but serve it from my server to a 
client, is that "displaying My Content in the Service"? If it is, that term is 
unacceptable because my data may be OS-derived and I don't have the authority to 
grant Google a right to OS data. 

Even if it only covers services like GGeoXml, the "perpetual, irrevocable" bit is 
going to cause a problem. That allows you to store and serve the data in perpetuity, 
even though it may be transient or I give up my authority to license the data to 
Google.

Other services like GDirections, where OS-derived data may be passed to Google, also 
provide an issue -- although less of an issue than GGeoXml because I can't see how 
end-point data for example would be useful in perpetuity.

Term 11.1 needs to be written by developers, not lawyers. It needs to be absolutely 
clear which parts of the API it applies to, and what that licence actually means in 
practice. Once it is clear, it will then be possible (hopefully!) to work out what if 
anything needs to change to keep Ordnance Survey happy. I don't believe the current 
11.1 will though.

[Note that a gloss in a blog entry saying what the licence means in practice isn't 
enough. It needs to be laid out in absolute terms in the Terms themselves]

Hmm... Anthony and I are coming at this from different directions!

:)  The view of the problem varies depending on whether you _are_ definitely 
displaying OS-derived data (for example, UK postcode locations, or direct tracings 
from 1:50,000 Landranger mapping) or whether you're just using Google Maps API and 
TeleAtlas maps to digitise and display points in the UK.

For example, the CTC's pothole reporting site that I've written (http://
www.fillthathole.org.uk) uses the Google Maps API to allow people to mark points on 
the map, for later display and use. This would seem to be perfectly legitimate use 
of the API, and does not appear to involve OS at all, but in fact they claim that 
points digitised from TeleAtlas mapping in the UK are OS derived data: this means 
although you generated the data yourself, OS own it and require you to pay them 
royalties (min £5,000 per annum) to display those points. The OS licensing team are 
apparently still considering what licenses FillThatHole needs to pay: and if 
FillThatHole needs to pay, then so does every user of Google Maps API for UK 
locations (presumably even on foreign sites!).

Of course both problems are potentially quite large. I don't think Google can help 
FillThatHole (that needs a change in the derived data rules) but they could still 
possibly change their terms to keep OS happy when people want to display data that 
is more clearly OS-derived, which is where Andrew is coming from.

On the other hand, while OS are advertising WheresThePath in their OpenSpace example 
applications gallery perhaps there isn't too much to worry about. They can't blame 
me for using Google Maps API in the UK when they are making a fuss of an application 
that clearly encourages the display of OS-derived data (direct from OS mapping!) on 
Google Maps.

Yes. My point is that I (or rather the Church Commissioners, for whom I coded my 
maps) actually have all the OS licences needed to publish maps on the web or 
otherwise. And we can use postcode data -- although we fudge that and don't geocode 
it accurately. What the Church Commissioners don't have is permission to give OS data 
to Google, which is what Term 11.1 implies.

Apparently Ordnance Survey's licences are going to be reviewed: see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/17/ordnance-survey-maps-online 

But why is this Issue still flagged "NeedsMoreInfo"? Have the arguments been referred
to the lawyers yet? Even if OS data becomes freely available, it's very doubtful that
the click-use licence model will include end-users being allowed to give it to Google.