[OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?

[jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com]

Also, it is being hosted on openstreetmap.de,
I am going to start to decompile it and recreate the java code from
the class files. I wonder if they will sue me.
I don't see any license agreement that says I cannot do it.

mike

On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 7:22 AM, jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com
<jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
> just a question, freeware for non commercial usage / non open source
> being promoted on the osm wiki?
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:OSM_Composer
> Is this what we want ? is there any policy on that? I know we have
> strict policies on map data, but what about wikiusage and usage of the
> resources of the osm.
>
> It sends a bad message to have non free software being promoted our wiki.
>
> Someone asked me to help translate this tool, and I was shocked to
> find no source code.
>
> Does OSM have any guidelines about software that is hosted on the
> wiki? Can people just make software under any license and then put it
> on the wiki for free advertising ?
>
> Can I advertise anything I want on the wiki? I know that flossk our
> group in Kosovo has guidelines on non free software and we dont allow
> people to use our conference or donated resources to promote non-free
> software, because our mission is to promote software freedom and data
> freedom, not just data freedom.
>
> Autotranslate from the wikipage :
> <<<
> Why is not Open Source Composer?
> Composer shares code and base libraries with a few other programs I've
> written over time and used by various organizations. First, these
> interfaces must always remain backward compatible, on the other hand,
> these older users' rights and would not part with an opening to the
> code agree.
> Additionally, for me, especially if a program usable for the (hobby)
> is the user. And it takes a lot more with proper documentation, as the
> source code with which you can usually start anyway not in the least.
> <<<
>
> Well, lets see the source code that he parts he can publish and we can
> rewrite the parts that are not available. I think it would make more
> sense to have the app being open and have 1-2 libs that are not and
> should be replaced as closed libs. In any case, we could work on the
> translation.
>
> Also, proper documentation is the source, no? I mean want more proper
> documentation can you get except source code that works? you can debug
> it.
>
> thanks,
> mike
>