Why is that, that if Apple ignores credit/copyright (on a massive scale), that everybody loves their move.
But if anybody would rip of an Apple product, the descendants of mighty Steve would come raining down with swords, axes and lawyers.
Do you really think they did it, to support OSM. Or should I ask myself: "Where is the money?"
The money, they do not have to pay Google anymore for the use of maps, while not crediting all these people, who supported OSM with their time and data-collecting.
The whole article is sarcasm laid on with a trowel by people who would probably be willing to chase all the media exposure and legal avenues available to them if Apple doesn't play nice from here on in.
I would love to be a fly-on-the wall at the Apple meeting where they are forced to discuss this.
It doesn't matter that Apple are a big company: they're still subject to the same rules as anyone else. This is by far the best way to have this issue resolved. Talking to people usually works a lot better than spamming them with legal documents.
> Do you really think they did it, to support OSM. Or should I ask myself: "Where is the money?"
To this very particular point I want to say, I think that large companies switching over to open technologies (edit: because of a profit motive) is a good thing. There needs to be a critical mass of people who value the openness per se in order for the sea change to happen, but ultimately it has to be because we make it more profitable to do so. I have zero expectations that a bunch of CEOs are going to start caring about any cause. If they switch over, it means we're succeeding in making it profitable, and I take that as a good sign.
Well I was just wondering, how many voices are raised in defending a coop, that is known for its love of details, but forgets to mention these tiny little humans, that gathered the data in the first place. </sarcasm>
It seems to me, that the Apple-Folks in Cupertino knew exactly, what they were doing. Who would sue Apple in a case like this anyway?
Being from Germany, I have no idea, what the US-System would look like, but I believe, that suing Apple would mean, that every one of the contributors to OSM would have to sue on his/her own.
And who would do that?
Apple would calculate this. And even, if some people would walk this way, it might still be cheaper, than paying Google.
It seems to be driven by the sort of cost benefit analysis that one uses in logistics and elsewhere in business.
With an army of IP lawyers at their disposal, a multi-billion dollar war chest, and an opponent running on a shoe-string, they can probably force OSM to go all-in if it comes to a lawsuit.
The cynical part of me sees this as great publicity for iPhoto using the P.T. Barnum principle:
"I don't care what they say about me, just make sure they spell my name right! "
It is also unrealistic to assume the worst. It is more likely that attribution slipped though the cracks then it is that the Apple executives made a conscious decision to not include attribution in violation of the license.
It can also make it expedient and more effective to operate in the real world. You can always say "we tried to approach them and work with them nicely" when you start making noise and going nuclear after they don't respond.
Exactly, it's a very pragmatic move. After all, who has more lawyers? I think that people need to ask the question, "What do I hope to get out of this particular thing I'm about to do or say?" more often, as opposed to, "What am I justified in doing or saying?"
But if anybody would rip of an Apple product, the descendants of mighty Steve would come raining down with swords, axes and lawyers.
Do you really think they did it, to support OSM. Or should I ask myself: "Where is the money?"
The money, they do not have to pay Google anymore for the use of maps, while not crediting all these people, who supported OSM with their time and data-collecting.