3 ms·

Based on previous large company involvement in 'open' projects, yes. It usually starts out fluffy and friendly and just 'wanting to help'. The large company (

by blihp 6y ago

Based on previous large company involvement in 'open' projects, yes. It usually starts out fluffy and friendly and just 'wanting to help'. The large company (or companies) take on an increasingly large role eventually leading to taking on and then over governance... then it's often game over as far as the original intent of the project. By the time they are in the governance roles, the dissenters have typically already been marginalized and/or are gone. This is a very old strategy. Companies (especially the large, name-brand ones) aren't getting involved because they believe in the mission/objectives of OSM but rather that they see a strategic advantage in their involvement. They dip their toes in, get entrenched and then make their move. It's a lot faster and less expensive for them than trying to replicate what the project has produced.

crazygringo 6y ago
I'm very interested. Can you point to specific examples? And did the original contributors fork the project to a new successful initiative? Or if not, why not? I'm also curious why companies feel the need for this -- if the data is all open in the first place, why do the companies even need to bother? Why don't they just use the data directly? Without specific examples it's hard to understand.
- blihp 6y ago
  Specifically related to the story, Apple has a rather troubled history as an Open Source 'contributor'. They tend to not contribute unless they need to and then prefer to run the show. They basically steamrolled KHTML with a fork of their own code a.k.a. WebKit (which they effectively control development of exclusively). Imagine them doing something like that to OSM... which they will if it ever suits their purposes. See most other Open Source projects Apple has been involved in... it's not pretty. So yeah, Apple playing a significant role in OSM should have alarm bells ringing in the heads of other contributors. That's not to say corporate involvement/sponsorship isn't important: it's vital to many important projects. The issue is when companies start trying to influence the projects beyond their technical needs and start trying to wrap their business model around them (a good indicator of that seems to be their involvement in governance) that the trouble starts. I think that's the concern being expressed about OSM.

by blihp 6y ago

crazygringo 6y ago

I'm very interested. Can you point to specific examples? And did the original contributors fork the project to a new successful initiative? Or if not, why not? I'm also curious why companies feel the need for this -- if the data is all open in the first place, why do the companies even need to bother? Why don't they just use the data directly? Without specific examples it's hard to understand.

blihp 6y ago
Specifically related to the story, Apple has a rather troubled history as an Open Source 'contributor'. They tend to not contribute unless they need to and then prefer to run the show. They basically steamrolled KHTML with a fork of their own code a.k.a. WebKit (which they effectively control development of exclusively). Imagine them doing something like that to OSM... which they will if it ever suits their purposes. See most other Open Source projects Apple has been involved in... it's not pretty. So yeah, Apple playing a significant role in OSM should have alarm bells ringing in the heads of other contributors. That's not to say corporate involvement/sponsorship isn't important: it's vital to many important projects. The issue is when companies start trying to influence the projects beyond their technical needs and start trying to wrap their business model around them (a good indicator of that seems to be their involvement in governance) that the trouble starts. I think that's the concern being expressed about OSM.