top | item 42345316

(no title)

pastk | 1 year ago

Some facts: Alexander Borsuk, Roman Tsisyk and Viktor Havaka are co-founders of Organic Maps which is a fork of Maps.Me. Alexander and Viktor were co-founders of Maps.Me as well. All of them are not working for Maps.Me anymore and Organic Maps (OM) is independent project since its inception.

Now, the current situation: OM's map server (CF worker) albeit under MIT license was de-facto closed source all this time. Roman opened the repo for public access. Alexander revoked Roman's GH permissions and closed the repo again.

(I've been actively contributing to OM for 3 years and I thought that all parts are open source. Until very recently..)

discuss

order

fsckboy|1 year ago

>OM's map server (CF worker) albeit under MIT license was de-facto closed source all this time. Roman opened the repo for public access. Alexander revoked Roman's GH permissions and closed the repo again.

I'm not sure if there is some distinction between software and map-data entailed in the discussion of this "server", "software repo", etc. but assuming it's all one thing:

if the content in question was MIT-licensed as specifed by the license in the repo, any one of the members of the project with access to the material would be within their rights to make copies public. There is no de-facto closed source wrt open licenses.

Brian_K_White|1 year ago

There is de-facto anything wrt anything. All it means is "as good as" or "might as well be" or "no different from" or "in effect" etc.

If no one is publishing a copy of something with an open license, then that is the definition of de-facto closed.

de-facto means what is the reality vs what is the theory.

In theory you can get a copy because it has a license that says so.

In reality you can not get a copy because you are not one of the people with physical access to some existing copy.

It is de-facto closed while that set of facts is true.

zelphirkalt|1 year ago

Another example of a pushover license failing the purpose a developer wants it to serve. Should have used some copyleft license, that mandates sharing of modifications. The one that comes to mind is of course AGPL, which would have avoided the whole scenario of it being closed and hidden in the first place. Maybe someone will learn a lesson now.