Can an Open Source Map Project Make Money? 304
Roblimo writes "Bing and Mapquest both use output from OpenStreetMap.org. Mapquest supports the project with money for equipment and access to the code they've written to integrate OSM's work with their display. Bing? They just take from the project and do nothing for it in return. This may be okay in a legal sense, but it is a seriously nekulturny way to behave. Even so, having Microsoft's Bing as a reference might help the project's founder make money. They've put a lot of work into this project, and it's doing a lot of people a lot of good, so they certainly deserve some sort of payback, either direct or indirect. They have a few ideas about how they might legitimately earn a few bucks from their project while remaining free software purists. Do you have any ideas, yourself, about how they might turn a few bucks from OSM?"
Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Bing? They just take from the project and do nothing for it in return. This may be okay in a legal sense, but it is a seriously nekulturny way to behave.
Free software advocates really need to understand that if you want to have true freedom, you have to let people use the project the way the want to and stop tossing a fit when someone doesn't contribute back to it. If you expect or want to get contributions back, you should choose a license that requires it. Otherwise you're being quite a hypocrite about free software.
Purpose of the BSD license also is to let everyone use code freely the way they want, the only true form of freedom. Once you start demanding something more than attribution you're removing freedom and limiting what people can do, making it no better than just having a commercial license. This is also why I view BSD license as way more free than GPL, which has many, many limitations forced upon you. Not really the definition of freedom, is it?
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its like tipping, nowhere does it say that you -must- tip (unless the tip is included with the bill) but its still common courtesy. A waitress has every right to be mad when someone orders $300 worth of food and doesn't even leave her a single cent.
Legal != Moral. Just because something doesn't
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
You have no legal right for someone to open the door for you, you don't have a piece of paper assuring that you will get the next taxi, you don't have a "Bill of Rights of the Bathroom", and you don't have assurance of your place in most lines.
But that doesn't mean you aren't an asshole if you do these things.
Thats the point that these developers are trying to say, that essentially Microsoft was an asshole. Few people seek for legal action after having these things happen to them, but they still have the right to say the person who did that to them was a jerk.
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
But that doesn't mean you aren't an asshole if you do these things.
The reason someone who does those things is an asshole is because he is violating an implied social contract.
It's effectively impossible to enforce that contract either privately or legislatively, but it's still a contract.
In the case of stuff like software and map information, it is significantly easier to enforce a contract. After all, they already have a contract in place to begin with, it just doesn't contain the terms that (apparently) the developer would like. Since the contract is completely under his control, he should add those terms (and be prepared for any unintended consequences that occur as a result too).
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Informative)
> it just doesn't contain the terms that (apparently) the developer would like
No.... It's a term that the article of this slashdot blurb doesn't like. We in the project (including me, the person who is being paraphrased) have no issue with anyone making money off the project.
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Conversely, you would apparently become apoplectic if you signed a contract to fight in a boxing match and then got punched in the head in round 1.
That is the invitation that this project made. They 'signed a contract' that explicitly said that Bing could do exactly what it is doing. Not quite analogous to getting a door unexpectedly slammed in your face, now is it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which means as long as Microsoft is crediting OpenStreetMap, they're in compliance.
And this, boys and girls, is why you should put the "NonCommerical" part in your CC license - so that Big Company doesn't take your little community project and make all the cash.
Re: (Score:2)
I know a lot of places where tipping is mandatory. They won't serve you unless you agree to tip a certain percentage. It's bullshit if you ask me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its like tipping, nowhere does it say that you -must- tip
And there are places in the world where they pay their waitstaff decent amounts of money so that the customer doesn't have to tip.
You just disproved your own argument
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never understood tipping, really, or rather my understanding is not something that jives with the norm.
My concept of tipping is that is a scam for business owners to minimize tax liability by effectively forcing payroll taxes onto the waitstaff. if not, then why not just build the labour cost into the product price?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Mind you, I've been in places where tips were "pooled". That is, all the tips for the whole day go in one big jar, and everyone (including management-- evil!) gets their share. So, the tip you leave or don't leave may not go to the person that deserved it.
I know plenty of bartenders that can pull in 200-300 bucks a night... but I kn
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
I have this system:
You get a tip for exceptional service.
For normal service you get nothing, but you get a regular customer.
For lousy service, I take note and go to a different bar next time.
I don't particularly care if people smile or not. Fake smiles are creepy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you don't tip, but come back regularly in some places they will become angry with you and spit in your food (or worse)...
Plus your regular custom helps the business owner, not the individual server...
It's also possible to have great food and lousy service, or great service and lousy food... It's quite difficult to tip the chef in most places. I wouldn't necessarily discount a place based on one instance of poor service, if you go again someone else might serve you better.
I fully agree with you about fake
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Skipping your place in the ordered queue of customers by slipping money to the barman?
Maybe bars are different there, but in a busy bar here there is no line/queue. There's a mass of people huddled around the bar trying to get the bartender's attention. They pick random people from the crowd as they grab their attention to service. Good tipping doesn't mean that they're breaking line - because there IS no line - just that when they're scanning the crowd they'll pick you out quickly.
I've always found this commercial to be pretty accurate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpFALUuNWwc [youtube.com]
In really
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well in the US the way the laws goes is there is an absolute minimum rate and if tips to not make the difference between that and the stated minimum wage the employer must make up the difference quoting from the regs
"The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires payment of at least the federal minimum wage to covered, nonexempt employees. An employer of a tipped employee is only required to pay $2.13 an hour in direct wages if that amount plus the tips received equals at least the federal minimum wage, the
Re: (Score:2)
Server being drunk/stoned is certainly something that should result in a poor tip (having to ask more than once for the bill as well), but most of your problems are just excuses for not tipping.
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
If you see that as a problem, change the license.
I've got this personal philosophy: don't offer to give more than you're really willing to part with. It's a general philosophy applying to pretty much everything. For instance, don't offer to do a favour, or pay for something if it'd really get on your nerves to have that offer accepted, then get nothing in return.
If you really want to get something in return, GPL or CC-SA it. If, and only if you're really deep inside willing to give something with no strings attached, and won't mind even if somebody takes that and makes millions on it while not giving you a single cent, only then BSD or public domain it.
You're not doing yourself any favours by pretending to be more altruistic than you really are. If deep down you want something in exchange for your trouble, make sure to get it, or you may regret it.
And forget about this "common courtesy" stuff. Corporations don't have it. Picture working at some huge company. Deadline is looming, project budget is tight. Even if you'd like to give something back to whoever you took something useful from, you will need your boss' authorization, and he'll need his, and perhaps it will go further up. They're almost guaranteed not to bother unless there's some good reason for it, such as the license actually requiring it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you truly don't want to put strings in, then public domain it, and put no other conditions or disclaimers in it at all.
Re: (Score:2)
You make it sound like a point worth making.
So yes a waitress has every right to be mad if you don't tip. But still remember, she is still paid a base salary and the restaurant still charges something for the meal. Imagine the restaurant industry if you really only had to pay what you wanted? It might be a good gimmick at one place, but the industry as a whole would collapse.
Humans have existed for thousands of years. Nowhere in history has a society functioned depending on people just doing the moral t
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
"right" has nothing to do with it. She has every right to provide terrible service and expect a tip as well... She has every right to expect anything she wants, but that doesn't mean it's moral or amoral to not give it to her.
No, but using a license that says free for commercial use, then EXPECTING to get a GIFT in return, and COMPLAINING when you don't, just makes you an idiot.
How would you feel about eating at a restaurant that has a big policy statement on the wall, indicating the tip is included in the bill, then getting shouted at by the waitress because you didn't leave her a tip, or not big enough of a tip? Just because your courtesy expectations don't meet-up with someone else's, doesn't give either any right to yell at them about it.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you feel about eating at a restaurant that has a big policy statement on the wall, indicating the tip is included in the bill, then getting shouted at by the waitress because you didn't leave her a tip, or not big enough of a tip?
Except that is not the case with Open StreetMap, instead they have a nice big "Make a Donation" button right on their front page.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Donation : A voluntary gift (as of money or service or ideas) made to some worthwhile cause.
The operative word is VOLUNTARY.
If they actually meant OBLIGATORY, then they should have bloody written it down.
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
I feel entitled to withhold a tip if I get bad service, but it's actually in my self interest to tip reasonable or good service. This is the way waitresses and waiters are compensated in our culture, and it's actually a reasonably good system for me as a diner. Basically, dealing with the public sucks. The tip system gives servers an incentive to put the schmuck who came in earlier behind them and give me good service.
Now there are people who feel entitled to repay good service with no tip, but the system would not work if everyone did what they did. Waiters and waitresses aren't paid a living wage, and if everyone stiffed the people who waited on them, we'd have to raise the wages of the servers and roll that into the food prices. Then there'd be no incentive except professional pride for a server to make an effort to take care of me after they'd had a crappy experience with the last customer. And we certainly don't want to pay the kind of wages that buy professional pride.
So in a nutshell, people who don't tip are contemptible freeloaders, but there's no way to eliminate the possibility of freeloading without eliminating incentive pay (i.e., "tips"). Stiffing a waiter who has given you acceptable service certainly *is* immoral.
Now as this applies to open source projects, its not exactly the same situation, but the same issue of enlightened self-interest apply. If one benefits from an open source project and are in a position to help that project, it is quite reasonable to do so. It wouldn't kill Microsoft to throw some help the developer's way in this case, as Mapquest has done. It's just common sense.
Where it might get interesting is if Microsoft actually thinks that helping the project is against its own interest. In that case, they're quite entitled to even work against the project while at the same time benefiting from it. But in that case the rest of us who benefit from that project might well question whether we want to encourage Microsoft to act this way.
Let me say for the record I don't think Microsoft is pursuing rational self-interest here. I don't think that giving back, even in rational self-interest, is part of the corporate culture there. It's a company renowned for people undermining each other within the organization itself.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought in the US it is required by law to give a tip of at least 10%?
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
* A 20% gratuity will be added to corporations with a market value of 100 billion dollars or more.
And what corporations will do is the same as companies have been doing for a very long time: find the loophole, exploit it. In this case, they will create a child company or something that is not them that is worth less than that cap so they don't have to pay, or define themselves as not being a corporation.
Or, use creative accounting to massage their books so that their market value is not X amount, but so that all their assets still add up the same.
US != World (Score:5, Interesting)
Its like tipping, nowhere does it say that you -must- tip (unless the tip is included with the bill) but its still common courtesy.
Unless you are in Japan where it is insulting, or Europe where service is included.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite often, it does. Especially when you've sat down and written a detailed agreement that says this:
See Section 8, subsection e [creativecommons.org].
Once you've taken the time to draw up (or adopt) a detailed contract or
Re: (Score:2)
It's a very poor model for anything.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't that the license doesn't allow it, the license does, its just that its common courtesy to contribute back to the project if you are making money or a large enterprise working on it.
Its like tipping....
If you have a huge company using said software to a ridiculous degree, isn't that alone a huge win for Open Source?
I think, given what Open Source stands for, you're just being greedy at that point.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
no she can't. For the last several years that has not been the case. Employies have had little barginening power in relation to working conditions, or pay, simply there is a high enough unemployment rate that there will always be someone willing to work that job for the just barely legal conditions of the employer.
Waiters/waitresses are allowed to be paid below minimum wage in places that allow tips, at least here in Minnesota MN, USA. They even allow that for places that use a tip pool, where all of the ti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only a clueless twat who's never had a job like that would dare be so flippant.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Only a clueless twat who's never had a job like that would dare be so flippant.
Or someone who doesn't live in the USA. Over here, serving staff are not exempted from minimum wage, so they don't rely on tips to survive. Tipping is reserved for people who provide good service, it's not just a hidden fee on top of the meal price.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. I think community projects such as these are justified in expecting contributions from those who benefit from it. Resorting to coercion via license is a poor way of enforcing it, though; licenses can present a big pain in the legal department even for people who are otherwise friendly and willing to give back to the community, and a hostile entity can usually comply with the license while remaining completely unhelpful.
Moreover, whining about "omg, whiners" is kinda tacky too, you know?
Re: (Score:2)
This is somewhat opposite from the usual argument I hear from BSD advocates. They argue that putting it in the license, like the GPL, is unnecessarily legalistic and problematic, and instead the license should be BSD, and encouragement to contribute back should be done via social pressure, PR, etc. Some BSD advocates, at least, argue that this approach overall results in at least as many return contributions, without being legalistic about it.
Re: (Score:2)
With BSD the theory that makes most sense to me is it is easier to push fixes back upstream then maintain them yourselves.
In practice, with BSD smaller patches often are merged and larger changes are sometimes kept private. In that way, BSD and LGPL are probably equivalent in terms of encouraging people to contribute.
In this case, apparently Bing thinks the product they are receiving is good enough, and has no need to contribute to fixing bugs and improving the project. Mapquest thinks contributing to the
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Prats like you cannot determine the difference between a casual user and large enterprise.
No, not "prats like me", but rather the *licence* of the project does not differentiate between "a casual user and large enterprise".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the point is that a large enterprise should be wise enough to know the difference, especially if they are making (or saving) big bucks.
Yes the should be but unless you've been living on another planet for the past decade or so you should realize that "large enterprise" and "wise" go together like "banks" and "sensible lending" or "oil companies" and "taking care of the environment" or "CEOs" and "reasonable pay" or.... The best thing to do would be to ask for a donation to help maintain the project. If they are smart they'll support you, if they are stupid they won't and if they are like the RIAA they'll probably sue you for daring to thr
Re: (Score:2)
or just block requests from MS with no notice or block 1/2 of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Parent deserves to be modded up, not flagged as flamebait.
Re: (Score:2)
You can go to fund raisers with a suggested donation, and not give any money. If their business model for their public mapping division is based around a project which is saving them significant expenditure compared to closed-mapping vendors, it's polite to find ways of helping support them. It helps maintain a healthy software ecosystem. Microsoft is a big company, and Bing is a huge project, which means somehow finding ways of supporting the developers would be polite. Not technically required, but po
3, no, 4, oops, make that 7 ways to make money (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's more than just that. It's absolutely true that the license sets the expectations. There is no legal difference between an open source and a proprietary license--the only differences are philosophical and in the contours of what the developers choose to allow. Everyone has the freedom to make or not make a project, and every creator has the right to determine the terms under which s/he shares that project. If you choose a broadly permissive license that requires nothing in return in terms of money o
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
GPL tries very hard to ensure that downstream users enjoy the same freedom as those who obtain the code dire
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I expect a lot of BSD developers will step in here and call you an idiot for assuming you know what their motives are...
Except EVERYONE can go back to the original (free) code, and do with it whatever they want. You're right that it doesn't push the developer's personal
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
GPL is a way to force your ideology on others - whether it's a "good" ideology or not is open to discussion.
BSD is a way to not force your ideology on others.
Which one allows more freedoms is pretty obvious.
The GPL wants to FORCE you to provide any changes YOU made, to others.
I would argue that it's worse than that, because it's not only changes to the original code. Even if you link your code against a GPLed library you must provide your own code. I fail to see how writing a speech recognition system that uses readline somehow makes the speech engine "changes to re
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well said.
GPL is a way to force your ideology on others - whether it's a "good" ideology or not is open to discussion. BSD is a way to not force your ideology on others.
Which one allows more freedoms is pretty obvious.
That's true. GPL's purpose is to get more code out there, and it doesn't care if you agree or not. While BSD may provide more freedoms for the code provided, GPL provides more free code.
The GPL wants to FORCE you to provide any changes YOU made, to others.
I would argue that it's worse than that, because it's not only changes to the original code. Even if you link your code against a GPLed library you must provide your own code. I fail to see how writing a speech recognition system that uses readline somehow makes the speech engine "changes to readline", but maybe I'm just a
Re: (Score:2)
I expect a lot of BSD developers will step in here and call you an idiot for assuming you know what their motives are...
Regardless of a developers motivation, the only practical effect is accurately characterized.
Except EVERYONE can go back to the original (free) code, and do with it whatever they want. You're right that it doesn't push the developer's personal agenda on everyone who wants to redistribute it, but that's not freedom, it's a different type of proprietary.
yes everyone can go back to the original, and companies, given the choice, will always retain their IP, especially if they do not think other companies will contribute theirs. Game theory tells us that, it is a lot like prisoners dilemma. The GPL makes it economically sane for a private company to contribute because they know any other company using it will have to contribute too. BSD is a recipe for poverty o
Re: (Score:2)
And yet ond BSD disto, FreeBSD, has 5 of the top 10 places on Netcraft including the Top 4 [netcraft.com].
The 4 linux distros in the top 10 are much more fragmented. CentOS, Fedora, a couple that aren't so easily identified ...
When I think BSD, I think of only 3 - FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD. When I think linux, on the other hand ...
Re: (Score:2)
Openbsd proudly lists their commercial spin-offs: http://www.openbsd.org/products.html [openbsd.org], RTMX, syscall, Genua, vantronix, Fox-IT, LegatoCRM, MyRestaurant, are essentially derivative distros of openb
Legally fine, socially deplorable (Score:2)
While I agree with your sentiment about the BSD license, that is completely beside the point.
This is about community, and open source is no different. If one monetizes the work of others, it is only natural to contribute something back. People and companies are free not to, but they certainly deserve shame for acting in such a manner, especially in a case like this.
The very existence of the GPL is a sad reflection upon our society. One shouldn't need the law to force people to act in a responsible and co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Purpose of the BSD license also is to let everyone use code freely the way they want, the only true form of freedom. Once you start demanding something more than attribution you're removing freedom and limiting what people can do, making it no better than just having a commercial license. This is also why I view BSD license as way more free than GPL, which has many, many limitations forced upon you. Not really the definition of freedom, is it?
I wish to heck that people would stop having arguments over the definition of "freedom" as if they were debating something substantial. It's like debating the definition of "art" or the value of the variable x. The meaning depends upon who's using it and in what context. The BSD license is more free in the sense that you're using the word, and less free in the sense that GPL advocates use the word. Neither side is right or wrong, and at least for a concept as vague (in both cases) as "freedom", there is no
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. If you want something in return, ask for it.
Re: (Score:2)
dude, just because it's _legal_ doesn't mean it's _ethical_.
we can and do bitch about unethical atitudes, regardless of legality.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. If Bing is using the project according to the license, they are operating correctly. If you want people to PAY for something, sell it. If you want people to use it freely, let them use it freely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL is focused primarily on freedoms of end users rather than developers. From that perspective, the freedom the BSD license gives to developers to put proprietary licenses on their code isn't very pro-freedom for their users, since their users are now prohibited from modifying it.
Re: (Score:2)
From that perspective, the freedom the BSD license gives to developers to put proprietary licenses on their code isn't very pro-freedom for their users, since their users are now prohibited from modifying the modification.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Well, by "it", I mean "any software they receive". The GNU position is basically that end users should always be able to modify any software they receive.
Re: (Score:2)
The GNU position is basically that end users should always be able to modify any software they receive.
That might be costly. It'd take a fortune to educate some of the users to do that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The GPL doesn't force you to do anything. You're entirely free to not use the code. If you use it, that is your choice, freely made (nobody's going to believe the Underpants Gnomes team up with the GNAA to install firefox on your pc).
As with any software, you're free to either (1) use the code, or (2) not use the code.
If you pick (1), abide by the licensing terms to the extent required by law.
If you pick (2), you need no longer abide by the license.
Note that if you pick (2), you still have to abide
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL doesn't force you to do anything. You're entirely free to not use the code. If you use it, that is your choice, freely made (nobody's going to believe the Underpants Gnomes team up with the GNAA to install firefox on your pc).
That is a ridiculous notion. What you're essentially saying is the GPL does not impose any restrictions on you because you agreed to use the code and therefore accepted the restrictions. See the problem with that statement? The choice not to use the code in the first place does not mean there are no restrictions if you use it. It just means you have to abide by the restrictions when you do.
The GPL restrictive. If I use GPL code then I am forced to share my modifications with the world. I may not want to, bu
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL restrictive. If I use GPL code then I am forced to share my modifications with the world. I may not want to, but I have to.
This is probably the most common misconception about the GPL. You are only forced to share your modifications with the people who use your binaries so if you produce a modified version of some GPL'ed code for Bob, then Bob is the *only* person you're required to give the modified source to.
This might not seem like an important distinction but it is. Suppose Bob is a client who
Re: (Score:2)
No. The original poster said that the gpl forced him to "Hand over the source, plus your patches, to whatever programs you are distributing. That, or lose your inventory in default judgment, a la Westinghouse Digital."
The gpl doesn't force anyone to do that. You're free not to use gpl'd code. The gpl is not some mobster at gunpoint saying "you have to use the gpl and you have to abide by these terms. Or else!" There's no forcing anyone to use gpl code.
Now if gpl code use was mandatory, he would have had
Re: (Score:2)
You don't like the code's licence, you are free to write your own. You are free to look up the code itself so you can come up with a different implementation and license it however you want :)
I don't think you understand why I made that comment. Their statement was illogical. They claimed that the GPL doesn't force you to do anything, and I provided a statement to the contrary. I do not hate the GPL and have contributed to several GPL projects freely.
I think you are getting it wrong. It forces you to share your modifications if you distribute them. You are absolutely free to do whatever you what with that code, for yourself. If you go public, the writers of the parent code chose a license that gives freedom (the four fsf freedoms) to all the users downstream.
Why do you want to private your users/customers/neighbors from that freedom?
Why would you like to infringe upon them (the possibility of) a closed source version of your BSD code?
Why do you think the people that use the GPL shouldn't try to make their own code to remain free?
I'm sorry that I appear to have created some confusion over what I meant by "share it with the world". I'm aware that I don't need to openly distribute it to everyone, merely people I distribute my programs to. That distinction is partially lost how
Re: (Score:2)
you don't want to be bound by the terms of the gpl? fine, then don't use my copyrighted code in your product -- write your own. you want to use my copyrighted code in your project? fine, but here are my terms, in plain english.
if you were dumb enough to distribute my code without reading the short and in plain english license document which came with it, well that's really your own fault. don't get mad at me or my license, it is not like it is subtly designed to trick you into turning over your code, it's
Re: (Score:2)
That's completely beside the point. The discussion was over the fact that the GPL is a restrictive license, not someone being dumb enough to use GPL code without following the license. You're really just reaffirming that point.
So lets say they make some money... (Score:2)
Let's say they figure out how to make money from allegedly doing good things. Are they going to return it to their contributors as well?
Speaking of which, where's my cheque for contributing to Slashdot's value for all these years?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Your contribution is worth effectively zero. Now mine on the other hand, is probably in the millions.
Re:So lets say they make some money... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You get the "no ads" option if you are recognized as a valued member.
It's not worth a whole lot if you already have ad blocking software or are a paying subscriber. (I'm both).
It is a bit of a bonus for when I am on my work pc.
Unfortunately, It is frightfully inadequate when compared to the billions of dollars Mr. Taco swims in everyday... (like Scrooge McDuck in his money vault).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
World peace might be easy, yet peace on an internet forum seems to be beyond you.
My karma is excellent, however your view of it may vary depending on your preferences...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, I've seen a few of those posts (ranting about linux on a place that grew out of a linux fan site) and it's likely you annoyed more than one childish "asswipe" because nobody gets enough points to do that much damage in a couple of weeks.
Go For Donations (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Make that user-facing software - I recall a Slashdot article a while back about how best to ensure that projects like OpenSSL get some of the money that people throw at more visible stuff, like Firefox, that depends upon it.
They already make money out of OSM (Score:3, Interesting)
There are plenty of commercial uses of OSM already, and some are making quite enough money out of it. One that I personally use is offmaps.com, but that's obviously barely the tip of the iceberg.
But the question is whether OSM can make money out of it or not. Considering CloudMade are paying 40 employees [wikipedia.org], I guess they *do* can make money out of it, by "providing APIs for web sites, applications, and devices to use the rendered map data." (source is Wikipedia, probably the CloudMade website would provide more details [cloudmade.com].)
OSM is an example of success: open geospatial data and business profit.
I hope you all remember this... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you all agreed that MS is rat bastards for pulling this kinds of tricks just remember that the next time someone goes on one of their MAFIAA rants. After all, Microsoft just made a copy... and did it all legal like, unlike the pirates who wave their flags high around here.
If it sucks when Microsoft does it, it sucks more when you do it.
No (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OSM started before Google maps was launched, and certainly before Bing.
Clarifications (Score:5, Informative)
I want to make a few clarifications to the article.
1. This was, as Roblimo points out, a Facebook chat. This wasn't an interview and I didn't know it was going to be the subject of an article. I was having a conversation with a friend, but when friends are reporters... well mea culpa.
2. Bing is not doing evil here. They are in full compliance with the license as far as I know. And they have expressed interest in offering the project help in the future. I stated a fact, which is that nothing concrete has some out yet, but that's not quite the same "they don't give back.". It's my hope that they will do something for the project, but they're not required to.
3. Lots of companies use OpenStreetMap to make money. There's nothing wrong with that. And many of the same individuals who make money off OSM are its biggest supporters in terms of spreading the word, in terms of helping support the OpenStreetMap Foundation, and by going out and mapping their neighborhoods. There's no separation in my mind between these people and other contributors.
4. The license is essentially attribution-sharealike. It's like the GPL. If there's modification of our data, they're required to make it available to others under the same terms as they received it. That's the license, and that's what everyone is following.
I want to make sure this confusion is cleared up, and if there are any other impressions that are wrong based on this article, I want to apologize for them.
- Serge
Re:Clarifications (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry you couldn't get that into the OP. I have had my fill of /. sensationalisms.
Re:Clarifications (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it's not your fault - it's the fault of the unethical jackass who took a personal conversation and made a public post of it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> you are doing an AWESOME job.
I don't speak for the project. I'm just a contributor, just like if I were a Wikipedia contributor.
> May be you could suggest the "free-as-in-beer users" of OSM to to add a sponsor link to their search engine.
I don't know what a sponsor link to a search engine is, but the license dictates usage, and everyone is in full compliance with the license.
> For instance, I find fairly difficult to edit maps in open street map, but if there was a good interface to allow the use
OpenStreetMap has not asked for anything. (Score:5, Interesting)
arg! (Score:2)
Maybe I'm missing something, but Bing and their map product is VERY VERY new. Hell, it's been out of 'beta' for what, a year?
How many people are even using their app? How many apps for mobile phones, exist, that use Bing Maps?
It generally takes time to get these sorts of things worked out. Heck, look at Google! I've tried to have multiple issues fixed in my region. Streets labeled wrong, missing streets, extra streets that don't exist.
Do you think they've bothered fixing any of that.. even though I sub
Government subsidies (Score:3, Interesting)
How about some government support ? Governments already have to have accurate maps on hand and should have the data. So pitch it to them as a way to both outsource the hosting of the data and make it freely and easily available for their citizens and businesses. As a plus they could then easily integrate it into their online offerings too, which in my experience often are lacking in the map area. If data doesn't exist yet in digital form (or in an incompatible form) then the openstreetmap community could be leveraged to digitize it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah or sell a service to map commercial developments.
Re:MapQuest is participating in Free Software sens (Score:5, Informative)
Second sentence of the fucking summary. Who is making that accusation?
Re: (Score:3)
> Who is making that accusation?
Probably the same guy whose voting my comment down clarifying things I was quoted on in the original article.
Re:Legally ok... Morally not. (Score:5, Insightful)
> without any acknowledgement or payment to the origin of the product is just immoral,
Acknowledgement is attribution, and attribution is part of the license. And the license is being followed.
As for payment... there is no obligation for that. Would it be nice? Sure. But it's not required.