Can an Open Source Map Project Make Money?

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?"

Comments

Freedom

[odies]

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

[Frosty Piss]

Indeed. If you expect people to "give back", put it in the licence, otherwise quit bitching.

Re:Freedom

[mr_matticus]

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 or contribution, the expectation is that people will do things you don't really like. That is the meaning of freedom, and it must be accepted. If it is not acceptable, use a different license.

But to me, there is a bigger problem in that many, but certainly not all and hopefully not even most, open source advocates engage in mental gymnastics around the issue--working themselves into a lather about companies or individuals not giving back or breaking the "spirit" as they view it, stealing from these projects (and note how no one EVER false-pedant "corrects" with the 'it's not stealing' broken argument on a F/OSS story), while actively engaging in infringement of proprietary licenses. The sentiment is clear, but there is no reconciling this position.

The argument that "I wouldn't have bought Photoshop anyway, and they still have all of code and data, so it's no loss" applies equally, then, to Microsoft here--they wouldn't support this project anyway, and they still have all their original code and data, so there's no harm.

Obviously that's a broken argument, but a number of the posters here can't seem to navigate that disconnect.

Re:Freedom

[Frosty Piss]

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:Freedom

[Darkness404]

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, 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 /have/ to be done doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Re:Freedom

[oldhack]

I hate tipping, and I hate this bogus whining. Change the license or shut up.

Re:Freedom

[amolapacificapaloma]

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. They could do a lot of things for the open source effort without expending any money, like raise awareness of the project among end users, suggesting donations... They are just being less polite than the rest of kids in the block. It is also a good time for MS to make a nice PR move to go along with all those "we love open source" statements they are now proclaiming...

Re:Freedom

[Darkness404]

So I take it you aren't mad whenever someone slams a door in your face, after all you didn't sign a contract that he wouldn't. You aren't pissed off when someone takes the next taxi cab in the rain when you are left to stand out without an umbrella? You aren't mad when some guy takes a massive dump in a public toilet and you have to use it? You don't get angry when someone cuts in line?

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

[tomhudson]

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 by copyright, etc., so I'm *not* saying that not using the code gives you an unlimited license to copy and redistribute in the case of proprietary code (only being pedantic in making the distinction because someone else will be a nazi :-)

Re:Freedom

[OzPeter]

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:Freedom

[cynyr]

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 tips everyone on a shift made goes into a pool, and then divided evenly across all of the staff(yes all of the staff, dishwashers too).

Re:Freedom

[catbutt]

I say that's not a tip, then, by definition.

Re:Freedom

[evilviper]

The purpose of BSD is to get code out there and perhaps make a reputation for the developer.

I expect a lot of BSD developers will step in here and call you an idiot for assuming you know what their motives are...

BSD gives others freedom to make code closed and provide no freedom to downstream users. with BSD license, the freedom extends to only a depth of 1.

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.

GPL tries very hard to ensure that downstream users enjoy the same freedom as those who obtain the code directly

Proprietary software does the same thing...

An important effect of this is that anyone who works on GPL code tends to make it available,

Right. You are REQUIRED to contribute your changes to the public. Using your own metric: the freedom extends to only a depth of 0.

and it has the potential to make it back into the mainstream. The mainsteam can therefore integrate and grow stronger, and accumulate improvements, where in BSD the tendency is to fragment forever. There is no incentive to contribute back to the main stream. Hence the diaspora of bsd's in contrast with the relative unity of GPL licensed software.

Now this is just stupid. The BSDs are all open source, under a single license. The fact that they aren't all unified isn't because somebody close-up the source code. It's the LSB that keeps one distro of Linux to another, largely compatible, NOT the GPL.

GPL only limits freedom to the extent necessary to prevent others from removing freedoms for yet other licensees.

No, if it wanted to do that, it would simply require the original source code be provided. The GPL wants to FORCE you to provide any changes YOU made, to others.

More code is made available with more freedoms to more people for more purposes with the GPL.

Are you suggesting it's somehow easier to get the source code for (eg.) GNU tar than it is for BSD tar? I fail to see how that's even possible.

Re:Freedom

[vadim_t]

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:Freedom

[Angst Badger]

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 "true form of freedom". (In your case, public domain is freer than the BSD license.) Both sides are stubbornly arguing over terminology. More disturbingly, an awful lot of people seem to be unable to tell the difference between words/symbols and the things to which they refer.

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.

This much is obvious. If giving things away was a good way to get things in return, it would have supplanted the selling of things thousands of years ago. What free software advocates really need to do is to decide whether they're generously contributing to the common good or running a business. With the exception of full-blown non-profit organizations -- which are not trivial undertakings -- the two goals are mutually exclusive. And yes, expecting for-profit businesses not to take anything cheap or free they can get and turn around and sell it at a premium, value-added or not, is breathtakingly naïve. Speaking of definitions, that's what "business" means.

Re:Freedom

[flimflammer]

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, but I have to. It also dictates what I can and can't include with my code because something I may have a license to use, those who try to use my code may not. That sounds an awful lot like restrictions to me.

As a preference I prefer to release my code under BSD because I support my code being truly free for everyone. I want anyone who wishes to use my code to be allowed to without compromising their own goals, even if that goal is financial in nature.

Re:Freedom

[evilviper]

A waitress has every right to be mad when someone orders $300 worth of food and doesn't even leave her a single cent.

"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.

Legal != Moral. Just because something doesn't /have/ to be done doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

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:Freedom

[OzPeter]

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:Freedom

[houghi]

It is like tipping in the USofA. I live in Leuven, Belgium and tipping is NOT custom here. Service (and TVA) are included in the bill. Service is better then some places in Belgium where tipping IS expected.

And it would be a LOT easier for many Americans if it would be clear to all how much you where to pay for the service you have gotten, regardless if this is the service in a restaurant or the service given by a doctor.

I agree that there is a difference between legal and moral. However different places have different morals or customs and then it is easier to inform the people what the customs are.

I use a LOT of OSS software and I never knew I had to contribute back to each and every piece of software that I used in the company. Firefox is, I think, one of the most used products in companies around the world and I am sure almost none of the companies contribute back to that project.

Re:Freedom

[DeadboltX]

* A 20% gratuity will be added to corporations with a market value of 100 billion dollars or more.

Re:Freedom

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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

[Roger W Moore]

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 threatening their business model.

Re:Freedom

[RobertLTux]

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 employee retains all tips and the employee customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. If an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly wage, the employer must make up the difference. "

Oh and it is custom to tip at least US$ 0.25 to show that the tip was not forgotten (but should only be done if the service was so bad you would be sueing the manager if it was worse (meal late/wrong drinks not refilled as needed server was drunk/stoned napkins not provided and my favorite HAD TO ASK MORE THAN ONCE FOR THE BILL)

Re:Freedom

[martin-boundary]

There's still plenty of strings attached with the BSD license, like a disclaimer on warranty, and it requires people to refrain from suing the authors if their software harms them.

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:Freedom

[DRJlaw]

So I take it you aren't mad whenever someone slams a door in your face, after all you didn't sign a contract that he wouldn't.

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.

Copyright and License
OpenStreetMap is open data, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (CC-BY-SA).

You are free to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt our maps and data, as long as you credit OpenStreetMap and its contributors. If you alter or build upon our maps or data, you may distribute the result only under the same licence. The full legal code explains your rights and responsibilities.

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:Freedom

[hey!]

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:Freedom

[vadim_t]

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:Freedom

[Dr Herbert West]

Unbelievable. Spend less time reading Ayn Rand and try spending some time on the other side of the counter/cash register.

Only a clueless twat who's never had a job like that would dare be so flippant.

Re:Freedom

[Dr Herbert West]

Please mod parent up. In many states in the US it's legal to pay waitstaff less (in some cases, less than a third) of minimum wage. The reason? Tips. Which are taxed as income.

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 know a lot of waitresses that bust their ass for what ends up being about 4 bucks an hour.

So tip the help!

Re:Freedom

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

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 an idiot.

In this case, FSF are idiots. I'm with Larry Rosen...

According to an article in the Linux Journal, Lawrence Rosen (IP law specialist, and OSI general counsel) argues that the method of linking is mostly irrelevant to the question about whether a piece of software is a derivative work; more important is the question about whether the software was intended to interface with client software and/or libraries[41]. He states, "The primary indication of whether a new program is a derivative work is whether the source code of the original program was used [in a copy-paste sense], modified, translated or otherwise changed in any way to create the new program. If not, then I would argue that it is not a derivative work,"[41] and lists numerous other points regarding intent, bundling, and linkage mechanism. He further argues on his firm's website[42] that such "market-based" factors are more important than the linking technique.

the above is from the GPL entry on wikipedia, but he said as much in his Open Source Licensing book.

Re:Freedom

[InfiniteWisdom]

For normal service you get nothing, but you get a regular customer.

Correction, the owner of the establishment gets a regular customer.

Re:Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

You're exactly right. I think the problem is that so many people here are so focused on the profits that come to someone unrelated from this open source project. But that's so not the point of open source. It's about making the best product that we can; it's about making a product that is open for anyone to read the source of; it's about security through many eyes; it's about all of us having the ability to make changes to the code, to customize it. Open source isn't about profits. But, look, as soon as money gets involved, suddenly we want a piece of it, apparently. And we complain about slow adoption of open source software. Maybe it's because it's an enormous bait-and-switch?! We say, 'here, have this free software!' and then we bitterly complain because the people we gave it to aren't showering us with gifts.

But, to return to your point: yes, there is a contract. It's the software license under which the material was released. If there was some expectation of reciprocation, then it should have been written in to the license.

Re:Freedom

[TheRaven64]

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:Freedom

[Bert64]

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 smiles being creepy, i don't want to be served by someone who is forcing themselves to appear cheerful... I understand that they are at work and don't feel particularly cheerful, i just want a polite and efficient service.

I don't like having to fight to get the server's attention...
I don't want to wait ages to get the bill...
If i'm eating alone, i don't want to wait longer than necessary for the food.
If i'm eating lunch, chances are there is a time limit (lunch break) and i need to leave fairly quickly, i can't wait 20 minutes for a starter, another 30 for the main and then another 20 for the bill to arrive and another 15 before they take the payment...
I don't need patronising looks from the server because i order too much... Although moving us to a bigger table might be useful, i like to sample lots of different foods.
I don't want the waiter to come back 2 minutes after bringing the food to ask if everything is ok... it's rude to talk with your mouth full which it invariably will be 2 minutes after receiving food, and if i wasn't satisfied i would have said something myself already.

Also, i found service in germany pretty good, the staff were usually very efficient and helpful, usually didn't exhibit fake cheeriness (they are at work after all), and appreciated when you made an effort to speak german (even tho they would quickly detect your accent and reply in english).

Re:Freedom

[SWroclawski]

> 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

[daveime]

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

[MBGMorden]

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

In really busy bars things move fast. Heck at some if you order the same thing more than a few times you're stuck with that for the rest of the night. For example last big bachelor party I was at I ordered 3 screwdrivers before it got really busy. On my 4th drink I was going to switch off to a Rum and Coke. The bartender saw me incoming with money and (given that I'm a good tipper) had my drink ready in a flash - but she fixed another screwdriver just assuming that that's what I was drinking for the evening. Went ahead and stuck with it.

Re:Freedom

[anyGould]

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:So lets say they make some money...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

[hedwards]

That's my thought on the matter. Cash is usually to cover the cost of a resource and generally not expected if a person is being expected to contribute his or her time and effort. With /. users with sufficient karma are allowed to deactivate ads officially as a reward for contributing in other ways. I'd say in this case, that unless there's value being added which can't otherwise be had that donations or ads, but presumably not both, would be reasonable. But if you go that route all of a sudden that raises the expectations a great deal.

They already make money out of OSM

[Lord Satri]

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, 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.)

OSM is an example of success: open geospatial data and business profit.

I hope you all remember this...

[Anonymous Coward]

They just take from the project and do nothing for it in return.

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.

3, no, 4, oops, make that 7 ways to make money

[tomhudson]

1. embed Google ads in maps served via Bing.
2. threaten to be acquired by OraKILL pr Paul Allen
3. include games in the maps served up - games are big. You can then sell them swords and nukes when they are looking at their neighbors cat
4. offer people an "unlisted address" option - "we'll remove your section of the street if you pay us $5 a month. Works for the phone co "pay more, get less service"
5. road sponsorship - it works for highway trash cleanup "this section of road is loving memory of Snuffles the Dog"
6. bring out their own version of MonopolyCityStreets
7. "Risk, the neighborhood edition"

Really, either hire some coders to produce a game, or come to some sort of partnership/sponsorship agreement for developing a game, where they promote the game (say, on every 100th map served) and handle sales.

Re:MapQuest is participating in Free Software sens

[Sir_Lewk]

The accusation that MapQuest only take from OpenStreetMap is untrue.

Mapquest supports the project with money for equipment and access to the code they've written to integrate OSM's work with their display.

Second sentence of the fucking summary. Who is making that accusation?

Clarifications

[SWroclawski]

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

[rhendershot]

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'm sorry you couldn't get that into the OP. I have had my fill of /. sensationalisms.

Re:Clarifications

[DerekLyons]

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.

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:Clarifications

[SWroclawski]

> 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 user to report back to OSM that an information is wrong with a descriptive text might help mappers that know how to edit the maps to correct them.

This question has multiple answers, so let me try my best to address them:

1) If you're interested in learning more about OSM, I highly recommend joining the newbies list. It's very low traffic and very high quality.

2) Personally, I think most mapping in OSM isn't that hard (sometimes it is but not usually). Maybe if you explained what you found hard, we could work on that?

3) The suggestion for textual feedback back to OSM is already in the works for the new website, which will hopefully be up later this year. I think that's the bridge between mappers and non-mapping contributors you're asking about.

Re:MapQuest is participating in Free Software sens

[SWroclawski]

> 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.

[SWroclawski]

> 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.

US != World

[Roger W Moore]

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.

OpenStreetMap has not asked for anything.

[firefishy]

I'm part of the OpenStreetMap sysadmin team... We think it is great that Bing is using our open map data! Hell them using our data is great promotion for our project. We currently have no need to ask them for anything back and I'm sure if we tapped them, they would be supportive. Our project is about creating great open map data, not about becoming rich. Is Bing working on improve OpenStreetMap's open data further? Quite likely. They win, we win.

Make a Flattr button!

[MaXMC]

Just make a http://flattr.com/ button so people can donate easily.

Government subsidies

[CharlyFoxtrot]

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.