4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Database_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Database_License Because they would be legally obligated to when using O

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Database_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Database_License Because they would be legally obligated to when using OSM as a base for anything. Also, because it would benefit society.

lukifer 7y ago
There's a myth that the market offers rewards proportional to value provided. In reality, the market offers rewards proportional to value that can be withheld, as leverage for price negotiation. It would be a big deal to create an economic system that reliably measures and rewards benefit to society. I haven't the faintest idea how.
wmeredith 7y ago
Why don’t you work for free? That would also benefit society. Be the change you want to see in the world.
georgebarnett 7y ago
If Apple was legally obligated to contribute back, they would do so. They have a good history of community contribution (eg. Darwin, WebKit) so I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, instead of some random anonymous internet commenter angst.
- AWildC182 7y ago
  ....no they don't. They actively avoid the GPL versions of various things they use so they don't have to give back even though it hurts their users.
  - Someone 7y ago
    I’ve never heard that argument as to why Apple avoids the GPL. I also don’t see how it is consistent with their behavior. For example, Apple wouldn’t need to change anything to bash to make its latest version run on MacOS. Yet, they don’t ship it. On the other hand, the argument that they don’t avoid the GPL in general, but specifically GPLv3 because of legal concerns is consistent with their behavior. They shipped the latest GPLv2 licensed bash for years, but avoid any GPLv3 licensed version.
    - commoner 7y ago
      Apple made the MIT-licensed zsh the default shell in macOS over the GPL-licensed bash precisely to avoid the GPL. https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT208050 https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT208050 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20090193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20090193 Apple has historically been hostile to the GPL. Remember when Apple removed the GPLv2-licensed VLC from the App Store in 2011? https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/01/vlc-for-ios-vanishes-2-months-after-eruption-of-gpl-dispute/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/01/vlc-for-ios-vanishes... VLC didn't return to the App Store until the iOS version was dual-licensed under the MPL 30 months later. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/07/vlc-media-player-returns-to-the-ios-app-store-after-30-month-hiatus/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/07/vlc-media-player-ret...
      - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
        I don't think what you're posting is inconsistent with the observation the person you're replying to made -- Apple is hostile more specifically to GPL 3, which a lot of companies seem to be (rightly or wrongly). IIRC, a lot of GPL-licensed stuff that came with OS X, like bash, just stopped being updated by Apple when it moved from GPL 2 to 3; moving to zsh lets them keep their default shell up to date while also keeping whichever execs/lawyers have decreed "Thou Shalt Not GPL 3" happy. Also, IIRC, Apple doesn't have a policy of prohibiting GPL-licensed software from being in the App Store, but rather, the FSF's own interpretation of the GPL is that its terms are incompatible with the App Store's terms.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - kstrauser 7y ago
    That's absurd. From Licensing WebKit (https://webkit.org/licensing-webkit/ https://webkit.org/licensing-webkit/): > WebKit is open source software with portions licensed under the LGPL and BSD licenses available here. Even though those licenses don't require it, Apple still actively develops and publishes enormous FOSS projects. Here's a page that lists more of them: https://developer.apple.com/opensource/ https://developer.apple.com/opensource/ Apple gives back way more than they're legally required to. They don't like the GPLv3 specifically, but's worlds apart from saying they avoid the GPL or that they don't want to give back.
Someone 7y ago
It’s not that simple. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Common_licence_interpretations#Derived_works https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Common_licence_interpret...: ”I created a layer on top of an OSM map. What do I have to put under your license? You have to determine whether what you have created is a Collective Work or a Derivative work, under the terms of the OSM licence. If what you create is based on OSM data (for example if you create a new layer by looking at the OSM data and refering to locations on it) then it is likely you have created a derivative work. If you generate a merged work with OSM data and other data (such as a printed map or pdf map) where the non-OSM data can no longer be considered to be separate and independent from the OSM data, is is likely you have created a derivative work. If you overlay OSM data with your own data created from other sources (for example you going out there with a GPS receiver) and the layers are kept separate and independent, and the OSM layer is unchanged, then you may have created a collective work. If you have created a derivative work, the work as a whole must be subject to the OSM licence. If you have created a collective work, then only the OSM component of the work must be subject to the OSM licence.” IANAL, but I think anybody can overlay OSM data with traffic info, satellite photography, layers with names of shops, etc., without creating a derivative work.

lukifer 7y ago

There's a myth that the market offers rewards proportional to value provided. In reality, the market offers rewards proportional to value that can be withheld, as leverage for price negotiation. It would be a big deal to create an economic system that reliably measures and rewards benefit to society. I haven't the faintest idea how.

wmeredith 7y ago

Why don’t you work for free? That would also benefit society. Be the change you want to see in the world.

georgebarnett 7y ago

If Apple was legally obligated to contribute back, they would do so. They have a good history of community contribution (eg. Darwin, WebKit) so I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, instead of some random anonymous internet commenter angst.

AWildC182 7y ago
....no they don't. They actively avoid the GPL versions of various things they use so they don't have to give back even though it hurts their users.
- Someone 7y ago
  I’ve never heard that argument as to why Apple avoids the GPL. I also don’t see how it is consistent with their behavior. For example, Apple wouldn’t need to change anything to bash to make its latest version run on MacOS. Yet, they don’t ship it. On the other hand, the argument that they don’t avoid the GPL in general, but specifically GPLv3 because of legal concerns is consistent with their behavior. They shipped the latest GPLv2 licensed bash for years, but avoid any GPLv3 licensed version.
  - commoner 7y ago
    Apple made the MIT-licensed zsh the default shell in macOS over the GPL-licensed bash precisely to avoid the GPL. https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT208050 https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT208050 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20090193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20090193 Apple has historically been hostile to the GPL. Remember when Apple removed the GPLv2-licensed VLC from the App Store in 2011? https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/01/vlc-for-ios-vanishes-2-months-after-eruption-of-gpl-dispute/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/01/vlc-for-ios-vanishes... VLC didn't return to the App Store until the iOS version was dual-licensed under the MPL 30 months later. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/07/vlc-media-player-returns-to-the-ios-app-store-after-30-month-hiatus/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/07/vlc-media-player-ret...
    - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
      I don't think what you're posting is inconsistent with the observation the person you're replying to made -- Apple is hostile more specifically to GPL 3, which a lot of companies seem to be (rightly or wrongly). IIRC, a lot of GPL-licensed stuff that came with OS X, like bash, just stopped being updated by Apple when it moved from GPL 2 to 3; moving to zsh lets them keep their default shell up to date while also keeping whichever execs/lawyers have decreed "Thou Shalt Not GPL 3" happy. Also, IIRC, Apple doesn't have a policy of prohibiting GPL-licensed software from being in the App Store, but rather, the FSF's own interpretation of the GPL is that its terms are incompatible with the App Store's terms.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- kstrauser 7y ago
  That's absurd. From Licensing WebKit (https://webkit.org/licensing-webkit/ https://webkit.org/licensing-webkit/): > WebKit is open source software with portions licensed under the LGPL and BSD licenses available here. Even though those licenses don't require it, Apple still actively develops and publishes enormous FOSS projects. Here's a page that lists more of them: https://developer.apple.com/opensource/ https://developer.apple.com/opensource/ Apple gives back way more than they're legally required to. They don't like the GPLv3 specifically, but's worlds apart from saying they avoid the GPL or that they don't want to give back.

Someone 7y ago

It’s not that simple. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Common_licence_interpretations#Derived_works https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Common_licence_interpret...: ”I created a layer on top of an OSM map. What do I have to put under your license? You have to determine whether what you have created is a Collective Work or a Derivative work, under the terms of the OSM licence. If what you create is based on OSM data (for example if you create a new layer by looking at the OSM data and refering to locations on it) then it is likely you have created a derivative work. If you generate a merged work with OSM data and other data (such as a printed map or pdf map) where the non-OSM data can no longer be considered to be separate and independent from the OSM data, is is likely you have created a derivative work. If you overlay OSM data with your own data created from other sources (for example you going out there with a GPS receiver) and the layers are kept separate and independent, and the OSM layer is unchanged, then you may have created a collective work. If you have created a derivative work, the work as a whole must be subject to the OSM licence. If you have created a collective work, then only the OSM component of the work must be subject to the OSM licence.” IANAL, but I think anybody can overlay OSM data with traffic info, satellite photography, layers with names of shops, etc., without creating a derivative work.