Big Data, IT Technology. and their. Impact on EO in Europe

Transcription

1 "Big data" e nuove tecnologie IT Impatto sul mondo dell'osservazione della Terra Big Data, IT Technology and their Impact on EO in Europe ASI 26 Nov 2013,

2 Layout of the Presentation The background discussion in ESA so far Current GS and Operations Architecture GS & Operations Evolutions Projects The Ground Segment Strategy Evolution Project Introduction to the discussion (after lunch)

3 Big Data & Collaborative Environments Collaborative Environments , instant messaging, Videoconferencing Application Sharing via Market Place Managers (google, Apple, Amazon) e.g. - google earth engine - AppStore (Standards)

4 Google, Amazon & other global players in IT and the cloud Additional Opportunities, New Service Providers, Threats

5 1-IT & EOP views EOP VIEW IT VIEW ESA S goal & role Make EO data available easily and broadly Develop & maintain a competitiv e European industry Maintain the appeal of EO progs. to MS Develop new data flow concept Prepare evolution of PAC contracts Develop new national partners New opportuniti es for MS Rely on existing IT tools & Infrastruct ure Coordinate evolution of Nat. centres to new scenario Seek innovative European IT schemes Coordinated Approach Don t Care, no issue Establish a public control of this key technology Establish sufficient independ. competitio n to avoid monopolies Potential Goals Mitigatio n Impact on daily life of every individual & policy, economy, industry & knowledge Leadership/D ominance of US Companies in IT technology for access to & management of data and information Keep up with evolving user behaviour Quality definition process Social networks Bring users to the data

6 Context and objective Objective of this presentation is to stimulate a reflection on a possible adoption of Google-type cloud services for the implementation of the ESA EO Ground Segment and to identify risks and opportunities. This is done against the following backdrop: 1. The development of commercial cloud services has made significant progress. US companies lead the competition: and they offer very sophisticated and integrated services including user management and communication, but also intend to develop a business based on information extraction from merged datasets (EO data with other data). 2. While Microsoft is mainly demonstrating cooperation with the European research community, Google is aggressively approaching EO data holders at all levels to offer its services 3. ESA is under pressure to reduce the cost of its EO Ground Segment 4. EU looks at the implementation of a free and open data policy for the Sentinel data

7 What s on offer potential added value of Google-type cloud services 1. Global presence and related, huge outreach potential 2. Carries other data and offers potential for big data applications 3. Probable reduction of the PDGS costs for infrastructure 4. Comes with an immensely powerful toolkit for user management, access, use statistics and reporting 5. Eases entrance for new users a. Low barriers for entry level users such as students b. Can provide facilities to test new ideas, attracts new users 6. Potential improvements for existing users in the following domains a. Global Reach and chance of one-shop-stop for different kinds of data, including non-space b. setup of large data processing bringing the processor to the data of different kinds

8 Why not without Google? 1. There is currently no European Service provider that can offer the level of services the big players, all of them are US companies, can. 2. Not taking up such an offer as a service provider will prevent the community from having access to some advantages in the short and medium term. 3. Going with a nascent European provider would, in the medium term, combine operational duties of ESA with a development process for an IT project. This risks to put strain on our ability to deliver at a time where our role is most under scrutiny. 4. ESA may (will) not have the means to nurture a nascent European service provider towards commercial viability. 5. Any amount of funds to be dedicated to such a venture would not be available to support added value activities in the R&D and application domains. 6. Under a free and open data policy, Google and the likes will sooner or later carry much of the EO data and threaten to move the activities away from Europe.

9 How to help European players? 1. In the IT domain significant initiatives are undertaken under the lead of the EC/DG-Connect (e.g. Helix Nebula).. ESA and partners could position themselves as a strongly coherent community with clearly documented requirements in this context 2. A parallel operational experience with a Google type service provider would help further develop the requirement definition across the community. 3. Development and promotion of open standards that enhance functionalities and enable Cloud Portability should accompany this under both ESA and EU lead and funding. This should allow developing the user community and prepare the playing field for the entry of European Companies. 4. Cloud services should improve data access and provide Market place functionalities for European Players to generate benefits both scientific and economic.

10 Resulting Trends & Statements so far Cloud- and Google-like Services are influencing EO-, data, collaboration and communication management already and will do even more in the future Europe a. has leadership in certain IT-, EO- and Application domains b. has no large enough end-to-end IT provider with and offering in the domain that would be competitive to US Industry From the meetings with GS-Operators,PBEOs and GSCB the following trends emerged: Requesting ESA to lead a a Federation of European Infrastructure for EO data, relying on European Strength both in EO and IT, providing access to the combined resources of all players. To consult with EU Collect more information and carefully test cooperation models

11 Ground Segment Technology and Evolution Projects (Jordi Farres) Some examples: 1. Outsourced services for data hosting 2. User Exploitation Platforms 3. CryoSat IOS application 4. Experience with Cloud Service Projects

12 Agenda 1. Motivation & Objectives 2. ESA Experiences 1. Outsourced services for data hosting 2. Experience with Cloud Service Projects 3. EO Re-processing on Amazon 4. Dissemination and Processing on Hetzner 5. SuperSites Exploitation platform with Helix Nebula 6. User Exploitation Platforms 7. A sandbox service for Science 8. CryoSat IOS application 3. Summary of lessons learnt

13 Objectives (1) 1- ICT Costs savings 2- Dissemination peaks 3- Processing bursting 4- Collaboration platform IaaS PaaS SaaS CDN Hosting (VPS, Rental) Cloud Computing 5- Lead effective use of modern computing infrastructures by European industry A model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction [NIST]

14 Agenda 1. Motivation & Objectives 2. ESA Experiences 1. Outsourced services for data hosting 2. EO Re-processing on Amazon 3. Dissemination and Processing on Hetzner 4. SuperSites Exploitation platform with Helix Nebula 5. User Exploitation Platforms 6. A sandbox service for Science 7. CryoSat IOS application 3. Summary of lessons learnt

15 Case 1 - Outsourced services for data hosting GOCE Virtual Online Archive (Content Delivery Network) GOCE geoid: 1 file (several GBytes) provided after each reprocessing downloaded by many users during few days/ weeks after its release Initially implemented with SAR data as part of GeoHazard Supersites Service (Content Delivery Network) was provided by several companies Simple purchase order Easy & fast to implement; service monitoring and user stats provided

16 Case 1: EO Dissemination on Level 3 (2) Pros 1. Excellent dissemination performance 2. from US and Europe 3. good monitoring and reporting 1. High Price Cons 2. Price based on bytes stored and bytes downloaded, hence penalizes large EO products 4. allowing to detect and stop abuse ESA UNCLASSIFIED - For Official Use

17 Case 1 bis - Outsourced services for data hosting & data cataloguing Dissharm project Access to CryoSat and Landsat data (soon), later in 2013 to Envisat MERIS/ATSR (based on MERCI interface) Benefit to users: faster access constant performances Benefit to ESA: no development, managed services: Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), data access application (e.g. MERCI) can be managed by 3 rd party (e.g. PAC)

19 Case 2: Mass processing on Amazon(1) Purpose 1.Fast re-processing of large EO products collections for CalVal purposes. Project / Service 1.Timeframe: 2009 and Provider: Amazon, EC2, S3 3.Data: ERS SAR Wave, MIPAS (30,000 products) 4.System: 200 Virtual Servers configured as Working Nodes to an ESA grid. 1.Usage: 11 CPU years of processing in 5 weeks

20

21 Case 2: Mass processing on Amazon(2) Pros 1. Excellent processing scalability 2. Efficient bulk-in/out data service (via HD) 3. The faster the cheaper as it reduces storing costs 4. Good application portability for gridified applications Cons 1. Complex and changing pricing, e.g. periods with cheaper hosts and free data upload. 2. In-bound / Out-bound costs 3. Ad-hoc scripts to command provisioning 4. AMI format portability

23 Case 3: Dissemination and Processing on Hetzner (1) Purpose 1.Couple large processing and dissemination capabilities for low cost. Project / Service 1.Timeframe: Provider: Hetzner 3.Data: 60TB 4.System: 1 Head: Catalogue, Processor Register n Nodes: Data Dissemination, Hadoop Processing Cluster Packaged as a back-end for web portal services 1.Usage: GeoHazards SuperSites (38,000 SAR images and 3,000 users)

24 InSAR Processing CNR ~150 Satellite images: 1.5TB Time Processing: 150h

25 Case 3: Dissemination and Processing on Hetzner (2) Pros 1. Good archive scalability (chunks of 8TB) Cons 1. System scales storage, dissemination and processing capabilities simultaneously. 2. Synergy of processing - dissemination: processing peaks followed by dissemination peaks 3. Much cheaper than Amazon services. No in-boud/out-boud costs 4. Physical dedicated servers enabled easier security 2. Lower service levels than Level 3 or Amazon 3. Virtualization layer had to be deployed (KVM and ONE)

27 Case 4: Exploitation platform with Helix Nebula (1) Purpose 1.Pilot a collaborative platform for EO exploitation using multisourced cloud provisioning. Project / Service 1.Timeframe: Providers: 3.Cloud Brokers: 4.Data: 5.Processors: 6.System: ATOS, CloudSigma, Interoute, T-Systems, EGI SlipStream, Entratius GeoHazards data (ESA, JAXA, ) ESA, CNR, Gamma, 15 TB of raw data, 4 processing services, dedicated VM for selected users, >200 users

28 Case 4 - User exploitation platforms Legacy Model: Move the data to users computers EO software Computing resources EO data In-situ data Legacy model: data and software distributed to users. Transferred many times; replicated in many places; loose user network.

29 Case 4 - User exploitation platforms New model: Move the users computers to the data Exploitation Platforms enable data access & exploitation EO software Exploitation platforms ICT resources EO data In-situ data Legacy model: data and software distributed to users. Transferred many times; replicated in many places; loose user network. New paradigm: users access a platform work environment containing the data and resources required, as opposed to downloading and replicating the data at home. A scenario for data intensive scientific exploration (but not only) - complementing but not replacing the traditional model. Exploitation Platform = Virtual Environment bringing together Data Center + Computing Resources + Third Party Tools + Workflows + Integrated User Interface + Documentation + Collaborative Tools + Help desk (social network)

30 Case 4 - User exploitation platforms Current pilot project Super Sites Exploitation Platform (SSEP) Visualization Seismic Tools InSAR/PSI code Free: CNR SBAS ESA NEST GMSTAR National / institutional infrastructures Commercial ICT providers: T-Systems, CloudSigma, ATOS, Interoute SSEP Exploitation platform EO software ICT resources EO data In-situ data Supersites ESA EO data: ERS/Envisat SAR later Sentinel-1 Potential 3 rd Party EO data: TerraSAR-X (DLR / Astrium) SPOT (CNES / Astrium) Cosmo-Skymed (ASI/e-geos) Commercial: Gamma SARMAP TRE, NPA MATLAB In-situ data: GPS (EPOS, UNAVCO) Seismic data Wide geohazard community: earthquake, volcano, subsidence, land motion

31 Case 4 - User exploitation platforms Benefits for actors 1. Benefits for users: Data, services, platform capabilities, forum, and the required infrastructure available to users at thematic User Exploitation Platforms; equal opportunity access to data and resources; economy of scale; 2. Benefits for industrial partners: New opportunities for infrastructure providers, commercial data providers, commercial software providers, and value added service providers 3. Benefits for member states: Coherent framework for the scientific exploitation of EO data leveraging national capabilities; considering the thematic interests of user communities; opportunities for national industry 4. Benefits for ESA: New operations concept adapted to innovation and science; participation in the new eco-system with a refined role leveraging available assets and capabilities; concept extensible to address needs coming from scenarios of the GMES collaborative ground segment; alignment with MSs strategic objectives and programmatic geo-return targets 5. Benefits for EC: possibility of strong synergy on the concept between ESA funding (R&D) and EC H2020S funding (operations)

32 Case 4 - User exploitation platforms Different types of User Exploitation Platforms A mission user exploitation platform: Access to mission data Access to data from mission similar to ESA mission Access to relevant in-situ data Processing capability triggered by users, using ESA processing algorithms or non-esa processing algorithms Access to documentation and to forum / social networks user exploitation platform user exploitation platform An Earth Science thematic exploitation platform: Access to data from relevant EO missions (free and nonfree), and in-situ Processing capability triggered by users, using ESA processing algorithms or non-esa processing algorithms (free and non-free) Access to documentation and to forum/social networks Access to scalable IaaS infrastructure Fit with Sentinel collaborative G/S concept Pilot project SSEP (SuperSites Exploitation Platform) ESA Call for Ideas in 2013 Q4 funded by EOEP-4 GSD

33 SSEP SuperSites Exploitation Platform

34

35 Case 4: Exploitation platform with Helix Nebula (2) Pros 1. High performance storage and dissemination from cloud 2. Scalable processing colocated with data (same VDC) 3. Multi-sourced via cloud brokering services 4. Direct provision to virtual hosts to users in the cloud, via ESA 5. Easy application deployment via grid controller Cons 1. Frequent platform upgrades 2. Need to distribute processing resources near distributed data 3. No Cloud federation. Limitations of brokers 4. COTS licensing 5. Grid on Cloud approach. Workaround to high effort in application cloudification

37 Case 5: A sandbox service for Science (1) Purpose 1. Provide researchers and service providers a development environment for cloudifying and exploiting their algorithms/services. Project / Service 1.Timeframe: Providers: 3.Data: 4.Processors: Private cloud + Helix Nebula Multiple reference data sets from ESA archives Those developed by the users

38 Model EO Data Software Exploitation Platform Science ICT Services Services ESA UNCLASSIFIED For Internal Use Version 2013/04/29

39 Case 5: A sandbox service for Science (3) Pros 1. Hybrid cloud model in support of development (private) -> deployment (public) 2. Deployment model via PaaS and SaaS 3. Simplified cloudification via Cloudera + supporting tools (for SPMD paradigm) Cons 1. Need for new CSP drivers for Helix Nebula: T-Systems (Zimory), Interoute (Jclouds) 2. Limited CSP support to PaaS and SaaS services. 3. Slow adoption of cloudreduce paradigm among application developers in Remote Sensing

41 Case 6 - CryoSat IOS app Version 1 available since 2012 in Apple App Store

42 Case 6 - CryoSat IOS app Version 1 CryoSat App s main menu provides access to four sections: mission description images, videos, news 3D model of the satellite zoom on all satellite elements satellite position tracking current position, visibility over selected ground stations data visualization not only does the app give access to all of CryoSat s measurements, it can help visualising the ice sheets by providing a vertical profile over the area. All geophysical parameters stored in the CryoSat products can be easily displayed at the touch of your fingertips as soon as they are generated on the ground. Users can select the day and orbit from which they want to extract the data, and view Earth s ice profile from that orbit.

43 Case 6 - CryoSat IOS app Version 2 What's New in Version 2.0 The most important component of version 2.0 is the ability to access and download CryoSat full resolution products using cloud technology. It: - Allows access and download of full-resolution CryoSat L2 products directly to a PC or to DropBox cloud, ordered from iphone and ipad devices - Preserves DropBox user cloud privacy and ESA data policy with robust authentication - Allows synchronisation of multiple platforms (source/ destination), Windows, Linux, Android, OSX, iox - Allows advanced connection and data request management - Increases the number of L2 parameters visible in Data section

45 Lessons Learnt: ICT provisioning 1. As soon as ICT needs can be predicted and planned, IaaS is more expensive than other hosting solutions like (rental, dedicated hosting). 2. Flexibility of Public IaaS is less appealing when internal resources are pooled, virtualized and managed as an internal cloud. 3. On the other hand, IaaS services allow to size down internal ICT resources to the fixed need and ensure their maximum utilization; e.g. using external provisioning for the variable need. Hybrid ICT provisioning

46 Lessons Learnt: Service Levels 1. Terms & Conditions in Public Clouds express surprising low commitment. 2. Cloud opportunities can become risks when applied to critical systems. Develop multi-sourcing Plan contingency scenarios for services hosted in Public Clouds

47 Lessons Learnt: Application Areas 1. Dissemination and on-demand processing a. because are very variable (depending on user demand) 2. Secondary archive and re-processing a. because are limited in time 3. Temporary resources for integration, testing and demonstration a. because are limited in time 4. System sizing a. because needs are unknown Important areas when remote sensing services can gain from Cloud Computing

48 Lessons learnt: User expectations 1. Open Data a. All data are discoverable, accessible online and free b. Data is arranged on long time series of coherent data from different providers. 2. Open Computing a. Users are able to perform processing directly on the cloud using virtual servers. b. Users can choose their preferred cloud provider 3. Open Source Software a. All basic/platform software is open and freely available b. Applications can be easily ported across clouds 4. Open Collaboration a. Data and applications can be easily shared with other users Be up to the users expectations

49 Evolution of the European Earth Observation Ground Segment Strategy A consultative project - why, when, how & objectives

50 Current situation 1. A well established and balanced ESA Earth Observation Ground Segment Architecture based on the complementarity of: a. National and ESA assets, infrastructure and developments. b. National and ESA missions wrt. interfaces, tools and operation procedures. 2. Effective and efficient ESA procurement approach characterised by: a. Cost efficient procurement for ESA and Member State programmes alike. b. Long term continuity and visibility for European Industry, unlocking private investment capabilities. This approach of cooperation and procurement management has contributed to the world-leading role of European Earth Observation. The resulting synergistic cost benefits for Member States and ESA as well as the industrial evolution in the Earth Observation Ground Segment development and operations are setting an example for other ESA programmes.

51 Evolution a next step 1. Constant evolution of this concept is needed and driven by the changing environment surrounding the Earth Observation Programmes, notably: a. The call for even stronger contributions to Europe s Economy, b. The opportunities of Big Data, c. Growing maturity of industry, d. The emergence of Copernicus e. The strong interest from large US based IT companies 2. To succeed the preparation of the next evolutionary step must be overseen by the Ground Segment Coordination Body, the DOSTAG, PB-EO and IPC. 3. The organisation of this evolutionary step is composed of a number of individual elements.

52 Approach and content 1. Consult 2. Explore a. Close dialogue with GSCB partners and the European Union bodies to determine the degree of alignment with projects run nationally or by the European Union and potential synergy or support that may be drawn from these. b. User consultation at all levels to determine the scope of user expectations/requirements. c. Industry consultation to see how the proposed approach would align with their strategies and expectations for the commercialisation of Earth Observation data. a. A number of small pilot projects engaging with large IT providers such as Google to validate the technical and legal modalities and assess possible benefits offered.

53 Approach and content 3. Demonstrate 4. Analyse 5. Coordinate a. Technical feasibility and benefits of a federated European Earth Observation Ground Infrastructure that enhances the traditional Earth Observation Ground Segment. b. Innovative processes that are made possible using additional infrastructure functionalities e.g. by means of an Application Challenge event. a. A comprehensive inventory of technologies developed or tested and that may be used to support the implementation steps. a. With Copernicus and on-going technology activities.

54 Approach and content 6. Elaborate 7. Propose a. A concept of a federated European Earth Observation Ground Infrastructure for EU, ESA and national missions. b. A rationale describing the benefits of this federated European Earth Observation Ground Infrastructure for EU, ESA and all ESA Member states as well as their Industries. a. To EU and ESA Member States A process to bring the benefits of this new concept to the Copernicus Programme and to national missions b. To ESA Member States An evolution process for the European Earth Observation Ground Segment including the associated procurement approach.

55 Anticipated outcome & next steps 1. Anticipated outcome: 2. Next steps: The definition of a possible architecture for a new element in the European Earth Observation Ground segment that would form the basis for a significant increase in the uptake of Earth Observation Data in the application field and therewith underpin the economical case for investing in Earth Observation Satellites and infrastructure. Agreement with a number of partners who believe that this approach is worth pursuing and would volunteer to support the demonstration project. Implementation of the overall work plan in Report to ESA PB-EO in September 2014 to obtain green light for the elaboration of detailed implementation proposals for EOEP 5.

56 Introduction to Discussion

57 Ground Segment Operator Plans Given - the reduced ESA operations budget - the availability of new technology - How do you see your business evolving? - Which opportunities decrease? - Which new opportunities come up? - Which technology evolution do you plan for your facilities? - Which messages do you pass to your national authorities? - Which messages do you expect ESA to pass to member states and/or EC?

58 Questions to be addressed today What are your thoughts and plans in using US IT technology opportunities (commercial cloud providers, google earth engine or similar, interfaces, outreach, mail, social networks ) What are our suggestions for ESA, the EC, ground segment and mission operators on how to deal with Google-type Cloud operators? Which changes do we expect in the cooperation ESA, industry and national institutions, EC? Which messages should be brought to the attention of ESA member states at PB-EO or to EC?

59 Discussion Items (examples Google Interface) The value of data and information including ---- ownership, data policy, IPRs and access control of the data ---- ownership, data policy, IPRs and access control of the algorithms, processors and the derived information - dependency of a single Cloud Service provider from outside ESA member states - management (or not) of scientific and technical expertise and competitiveness - the management of quality - European autonomy - ambiguity in the internet and cloud of being a public good or a "commercial service" - the easiness and outreach of a google interface - the standardization and link into other information offered by google - the possibilities for innovation and growth offered by a google approach (to which industries) - the visibility of ESA, its industries, member states and national facilities - the direct management/reporting approach approach of Earth science (via PIs and Projects) versus the fully open social network collaboration among scientists - the motivation of ESA member states to subscribe to ESA's optional programmes including the balancing of industrial return across member states - the complementarity and collaboration with national facilities

60 Backup Slides

61 Main Comments from Participants during previous meetings Wrt US industries and markets: - Europe has technical excellence in IT/Networks in Point to point Services (less in information management) - Europe has a competency in EO tools and application development however rather scattered Current Processing and Archiving Operators - all think about and plan for limited and private cloud services (different approaches and stages) but are today not planning to rely on google-like data access and information management. - Recognize both the advantages for users of goggle-type simplicity & standards as well as the risks in security and industrial policy - Suggest - A federation of above European industrial and national assets and plans through ESA (starting from a Federation of national collaborative GSC ground segment activities) - A vertical federation starting from key universities and students (education level) up to large cloud data services, value adding services and apps developments - see IT management for sentinel data more as a high industrial priority more than the consolidation of historical data sets

62 Overview Google Earth Engine platform is a system designed to enable petabyte-scale, scientific analysis & visualisation of geospatial datasets. >> Slides presented by Google at ESA Big Data Workshop

63 Google EE Interface Home Data Catalog Workspace >> Introduction >> Featured Sites: Landsat Annual Timelapse Explore different views into this global timelapse built from global, annual composites of Landsat satellite images. Watch change across the planet's surface beginning as early as Amazon Deforestation, Brazil // Dubai Coastal Expansion // Growth of Las Vegas, Nevada // Drying of Lake Urmia, Iran >> Featured: Precomputed datasets A number of interesting datasets have been precomputed using the Earth Engine platform Global Roadless Areas: 1 km buffer // Water Mask of Central Africa // Mexico percent tree cover

64 Data Catalogue Home Data Catalogue Workspace Imagery Data >> Daily global satellite data (current missions) >> Landsat and MODIS satellite data (40 years of historical data) >> Elevation data- Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) >> No evidence of DigitalGlobe or RapidEye data Geometrically & Atmospherically Corrected Imagery Data >> TOA Data, Orthorectified Data, Surface Reflectance Data Indices >> Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, Enhanced Vegetation Index, Burn Area Index, Normalized Difference Snow Index, Normalized Burn Ratio Thermal, etc.

65 Data Catalogue Data available for a common user

66 Common User Options Home Data Catalog Workspace >> Visualisation: Band combinations, Data Layers Combinations, Visualization Parameters (Range, Opacity, Gamma, Palette)

67 Trusted Tester Options FUTURE It is expected to be more broadly available as a not-for-profit service More advanced features (as written on the Google EE website): >> classifying land cover >> downloading & uploading datasets >> building your own data analysis algorithms

68 Legal documents Only view information on technical opportunities and legal conditions is available, as Google offers the earth engine service as a pilot version to a small group of test users. Legal frame for access to data and software is provided by: >> Google Earth Engine Terms of Service & the more general Google Terms of Service >> Eventually licence conditions for third party data and software apply

69 User Rights According to the Google Earth Engine Terms of Service there is a very restricted access for users (further authorisation may be given to trusted users): >> Access and view the provided data >> No data distribution! No information about the usage rights of derivative works >> (Who holds IP? Can the user download, copy, distribute, publish it?)

70 Threats for users Upload of own or third party data and software: Google Terms of Service p.3: When you upload content to our Services, you give Google a worldwide licence to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works, communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content User will for most data and processing software legally not be able to grant such a licence. If they do, they loose control of their own IP. Durability of the service: Google Terms of Service p.4: We are constantly changing and improving our Services. We may add or remove functionalities or features, and we may suspend or stop a Service altogether.