[OSM-talk] OSM composer not open source?

[Kai Krueger]

On 01/-10/-28163 08:59 PM, 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 ?

Lets make an analogy: Wikipedia is generally seen as a free and open 
project, never the less, it has articles on pretty much any commercial 
product. Even "worse", it has articles on the most atrocious criminals 
and mass murderers. Does that make Wikipedia endorse or promote the mass 
murderers? Does it make wikipedia less free?

The same applies to the OSM-wiki. The wiki does not promote or endorse 
anything. The wiki is a source of information.

OpenStreetMap is a open (share a like) _Data_ Project. It being open 
means it does not make any restrictions on how you use the data. 
Including that you can use the data commercially and that you can use 
the data with any software you like i.e. also with proprietary software.

>
> Can I advertise anything I want on the wiki?

As long as the article is factually correct, written in a neutral way 
and describes a project/product/event that has a significant OSM 
component to it, then imho yes. It is valuable information about OSM and 
thus belongs on the wiki. It also takes up a negligable amount of resources.

Hosting projects on OSMF servers (be it directly part of the osm.org or 
on the devserver) however is imho a different matter. There I too would 
think a general policy of requiring all software run to be under an 
OpenSource license would be appropriate. If nothing else, it is quite 
important from a practical point of view. As with any volunteer driven 
approach, people come and go. And if the source code isn't open, the 
tool becomes unmaintainable as soon as the person who wrote it leaves. 
And that policy appears to have more or less been adhered to so far.

I can't speak about the specific case of OSM composer and how it is 
hosted on openstreetmap.de (Those servers were between sponsored afaik 
by a single commercial company, and not by "the community", not that 
that should matter)

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.

The furthest I would go on rules on the wiki is that one could 
potentially "mandate" that every page describing a piece of software 
needs to make it clear under what license it is and if it is or is not 
opensource. However, given it is a wiki, everyone can add that 
information already and hopefully most pages do have that information 
anyway.

Kai

>
> 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
>
>