3 ms·
> no return at all That's where you got it all wrong; the same common sense argument could be used against using (and contributing to) open source software in
by rakoo 12y ago
> no return at all
That's where you got it all wrong; the same common sense argument could be used against using (and contributing to) open source software in companies, and yet the most successful open source softwares are supported by companies. The thing is, contrary to the common sense argument, there is value in not reinventing what others are already doing. That's also a great way to find technical talents who have first-hand knowledge of the tools you use.
OSM is very similar here: the data is openly reusable by anybody and any change benefits everyone.
There can be a good reason for not contributing and using OSM, and that would be because Maps is such a central product to Google that they don't want anything shared with anybody else (plus they already have a lot of data and are considered as the best in class, rightfully or not)
- ufmace 12y agoThe trouble is that the cost/benefit tradeoff of open source vary massively between types of software and data. A few open source projects have been hugely successful, attracting contributions from many for-profit corporations. Many more are somewhere between useless and abandoned and sorta-kinda useful if you're willing to tolerate various bugs, quirks, and poor UI. The vast majority of all software written will never be open-sourced because of some combination of vertical target markets, the need to be tightly linked to other proprietary things, massive investment needed before it's usable, etc. OSM is an interesting case. I would have thought that the sheer effort required to keep map data up to date across the world would make it severely impractical to have open map data. They seem to be doing a decent job plugging away, but I don't have any data on how good they are at getting really accurate data and keeping up to date with ever-changing road conditions.