Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Can an Open Source Map Project Make Money?

Posted by timothy on from the one-of-the-coolest-projects-ever dept.

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?"

8 of 304 comments (clear)

  1. Freedom by odies · · 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?

    1. Re:Freedom by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Freedom by vadim_t · · 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.

    3. Re:Freedom by evilviper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  2. Clarifications by SWroclawski · · 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

    1. Re:Clarifications by rhendershot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  3. Re:Legally ok... Morally not. by SWroclawski · · 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.

  4. OpenStreetMap has not asked for anything. by firefishy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.