Humans have different reactions. The way OSM is reacted is very much how I personally would react. That’s why it doesn’t seem the least bit fake or watered down to me.
I guess if you are angered easily you might not understand how OSM could react that way, but please understand that just because you personally wouldn’t react that way doesn’t make it fake, not human or PR speak.
Humans really react and talk that way. It’s perfectly normal.
I guess if you are angered easily you might not understand how OSM could react that way,
I wasn't responding to the whole of the OSM post, just the two excerpts that sdfjkl quoted. I saw his comment before reading the OSM post and it just didn't sound genuine to me. The amount of times I've heard "we look forward to..." in a grinfucking [1] compared to relatively light use elsewhere has made that phrase trigger my "be exceptionally wary of what comes next" alarm.
Probably I was duped, but I didn't read the OSM statement as watered down PR at all, but rather as a reasonable human reaction to such a high-profile use of their labor of love with an unfortunate caveat - maybe sufficiently advanced PR speak is indistinguishable from genuine human interaction.
Bullshit on implying this is in any way due to ignorance.
Open Street Map is very clear about attribution [http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright], and Apple has decades of experience involving aggressive IP protection.
OK, then how about this: If OSM send in the hounds and start suing & issuing take down notices (which is silly, the OSMF isn't rich), then Apple and others will feel the hostility and have a bad taste.
If, however, Apple realise their mistake in a timely manner and abide by OSM's copyright, then OSM will have another happy user and can continue on with world domination.
"Assuming honest mistake" is good for long term & political goals.
Undoubtedly Apple has many employees in its legal department who would have demanded that the attribution be added if they knew the full story.
But it is easy to imagine that no one in the team of people who carried out the technical work to get OSM data into the product told the legal department where they were getting it from, or took responsibility for making sure it got put in.
The overall result is indefensible, and Apple's senior management should have had processes in place to audit their products to make sure they comply with the legal requirements for all third-party code and data they use. However, not doing it is easily attributed to incompetence and not malice.
A company like Apple does not start using a large set of data without management and legal asking where it came from. It may be that no one completed the circle and added the attribute they were told to by legal or that legal somehow thought attribution was unnecessary, but legal was consulted. That much is almost certain.
Well then they'd be in breech of copyright, OSM data is Creative Commons licenced (CC-BY-SA) (It's due to be relicenced soon). There are well understood, legal, avenues to explore when companies breech copyright. We don't need to resort to name calling.
Wrong discussion. This is the one about the blog, not OSM's response.
Not to belabor the point, but Apple explicitly refused to give credit the moment they published the App.
Despite whatever insinuations you might be making, of course OSM is pursuing their goals - goals which are utterly legitimate, legal, above board, intended to promote the general welfare and not for private profit or stockholder value.
And bullshit on implying this is in any way due to malice.
What exactly is your idea of Apple's grand scheme? That nobody would notice they used data from OSM? That they wouldn't be called up on it?
And what would the exact benefit be of Apple taking credit for the maps? That people would go "OMG, Apple made their own maps, they are so awesome"? Apple gives credit to tons of stuff they use from Open Source projects, and contributes to many projects with people, from LLVM and Clang to MacRuby, to Webkit, to standard user-land stuff.
Here's what happened, from my 10+ year experience with following Apple. Apple used the data and didn't provide any attribution yet, but will do so in the near future, and will collaborate and improve OSM data. The reason they didn't say anything yet, is the standard veil of secrecy they use. They couldn't go ahead and talk with OSM stuff about it, probably they weren't even let to add an attribution to the iOS beta versions, so they just shipped it as it is.
Apple didn't need permission from OSM to use the data. They were not required to tell anyone about their plans to use it.
All that was required was copyright attribution in their published work.
If violating OSM's copyright carried the same financial risks as downloading illegal music, I suspect Apple's cost benefit analysis would have been different.
An army of lawyers, a huge reserve of cash, and a weak opponent unlikely to be able to vigorously pursue legal remedies led Apple to the probably correct assumption that the benefits of violating copyright outweighed the financial risks.
It is not as if the decision to drop Google maps was made by a Coop student or an intern. In a company with the sort of top down management of image that Apple employs, this was discussed at a senior level.
>Apple didn't need permission from OSM to use the data. They were not required to tell anyone about their plans to use it. All that was required was copyright attribution in their published work.
Which requires that the betas or at least the GM version of the OS update (all shipped to members of the developers' program) would contain the copyright attribution. So every competitor, cough Google cough, would get to know about Apple's decision to switch in advance, perhaps months in advance --maybe at the cost of an iOS developer program subscription ($99).
Have you noticed they didn't even use the latest map data, but those from mid-2010; I.e when they started, also in secrecy since no one heard anything of it, working on it?
If violating OSM's copyright carried the same financial risks as downloading illegal music, I suspect Apple's cost benefit analysis would have been different. An army of lawyers, a huge reserve of cash, and a weak opponent unlikely to be able to vigorously pursue legal remedies led Apple to the probably correct assumption that the benefits of violating copyright outweighed the financial risks.
So, spending money from "a huge reserve of cash" on a legal defense with "an army of lawyers" would help Apple avoid financial risks? Isn't spending money the financial risk in itself? How spending on lawyers is different from a fine? Did you imagine some huge fine merely from not adding an attribution as required? Whatever it could be, say 10 million dollars, it would still be pennies to Apple.
But the main problem with your logic is you haven't specified any reason for Apple to purposefully don't give attribution.
The theory of Apple wanting to take credit for the maps for itself, is ridiculous, because:
1) It's not like any consumer cares who made the mapping data.
2) It's not that Apple would have to pay to use the maps otherwise.
3) It's also not like Apple doesn't give attribution to myriads of other OS projects it uses.
4) It's also not like it was impossible that the maps would be recognised instantly by OSM contributors and people on the intertubes.
So, why exactly would Apple don't give attribution in purpose?
Only my theory, i.e secrecy, gives a reason.
[Downvoters have a better theory? Do, enlighten us...]
> Which requires that the betas or at least the GM version of the OS update (all shipped to members of the developers' program) would contain the copyright attribution.
Nope. The OSM maps are in iPhoto for iOS, a completely new app without any outside beta testers (who would tell, anyhow).
"It’s also missing the necessary credit to OpenStreetMap’s
contributors; we look forward to working with Apple to get
that on there."
I guess there is an outside possibility that both teams are using the same Ordinance Survey Data (although this seems unlikely now that the OSM Foundation has chimed in, I suspect they would have checked this before announcing Apple's welcome).
OSM does not use Ordinance Survey Data. (OS has started allowing some tracing). The data matches up all over the world, not just the UK (OS only has detailed maps of UK).
It's OSM data.
As for references of "stealing", remember don't attribute to malice what can easily be explained by incompetance.
Incompetence doesn't change what this is. Simply describes the manner in which it was done. Incompetent "stealing" or malicious "stealing", it's still "stealing."
* Stealing is very much the wrong word here, but I don't know if this falls under copyright infringement or something else.
It's very easy to finde the OSM Licence and even easier to understand that the most important they ask for is to be properly credited. Whoever green lighted this over at Apple is going to have a very bad day.
So I'm trying to understand the British grammar. The blog author's usage is correct ("Apple are thieving bastards") because using a plural verb after a collective noun indicates that it applies to the members (who are multiple bastards). But isn't the HN title incorrect ("Are Apple 'stealing' Open Street Map data?") because the data is/are (unrelated!) being stolen by the company as a whole, requiring a singular noun, and not being stolen by individual members?
British grammar traditionally refers to companies in the plural form (e.g. Apple are releasing the iPad 3 this year), but the American style, where companies are referred to in the singular form (e.g. Apple is releasing the iPad 3 this year) is also acceptable in Britain.
The article you linked to is, I think, a little misguided. If I heard "the government are killing people" I'd assume it meant "the people who make up the government have collectively decided to kill people", which is really no different to "the government is killing people". The collective decision of a group is the individual decision of the entity that group represents.
Thanks. I came here just to bitch about pedantic plural company verb usage on HN. As an American, it's nice to know I can be proud that we've got this usage sounding right.
Do you have a source? Wikipedia seems to agree with mine:
>In [British English], collective nouns can take either singular (formal agreement) or plural (notional agreement) verb forms, according to whether the emphasis is on the body as a whole or on the individual members respectively; compare 'a committee was appointed' with 'the committee were unable to agree'.
Wikipedia is correct, but that doesn't contradict my point. The actions of a company are the actions of its employees. If I say "Apple is stealing", then I mean that there are some people inside Apple who have decided to steal, so it's equally correct to say "Apple are stealing". The plural form emphasises the responsibility of the individuals, but that's not incorrect, as people don't (well, shouldn't) get a free pass just because they're acting on behalf of a corporation.
But do you really think whoever wrote the headline meant to emphasize the responsibility of the individuals? Isn't much more likely that they just used the plural verb after a company name out of habit?
I think it doesn't matter in this context. Apple doing X is the same as the individuals in Apple doing X. Whatever the author meant, it's still grammatically correct.
Perhaps the difference in style is due to the legal status of corporations as persons in the US. In any event, "Apple is a thieving bastard" does not quite work.
Huh? I'm pretty sure that the British corporations work the same way as US, since personhood is pretty much the defining aspect of a corporation. If I want a licence to make ARM processors I would go to some person who "ARM Holdings plc" has authorized to act on said corporation's behalf. Then I would sign a contract with "ARM Holdings plc". And even if the person I signed the contract with left the company, or the president of ARM went to work somewhere else, or even all the employees and all the shareholders were replaced my contract with "ARM Holdings plc" would still be valid. Likewise there's no one person who can just sell off all of ARM's assets if they feel like it.
This is how most of the world does it, as far as I can tell, though in traditional Islamic law you only had business partnerships that dissolved if any of the members left.
There are various arguments against having authority reside in abstract entities rather than real people, but I hope you can see how it can be good in the case of democratic governments at least, like the City of London Corportation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation
EDIT: To be more clear, pretty much all businesses are some sort of corporation, even though most people use "Corporation" to refer to publicly traded joint stock corporations. All non-profit organizations are also corporations. Some (but by no means all) municipalities are also legally corporations, but I'm not sure exactly what the distinction between that and other forms is.
EDIT2: Reading some more in Wikipedia, I might be using the word "corporation" too loosely in the above, and there are also plane companies and partnerships that are incorporated entities but not corporations, and have the same sort of legal person hood that corporations do.
In the US, it means significantly more including First and Fourteenth Amendment rights allowing corporations to legally take a more active role in politics than is common in other countries using the popular vote.
Whilst I'm pleased they're using the data (though attribution would be nice), I'm concerned that they'll start updating the maps themselves and not contribute their work back to the community. Will have to wait and see I suppose - I'm unsure what the license for OSM data is.
The OSM data that Apple are using is from 2 years ago. That would be under CC-BY-SA. Attribution is not 'nice', it is legally required (i.e. copyright infrigment if not attribute).
OSM is changing to ODbL soon (since CC doesn't make a lot of sense for this sort of data)
From the iPhoto 1.0 license agreement, dated 17 Feb 2012:
"Title and intellectual property rights in and to any content displayed by or accessed through the Apple Software belongs to the respective content owner. Such content may be protected by copyright or other intellectual property laws and treaties, and may be subject to terms of use of the third party providing such content. Except as otherwise provided in this License, this License does not grant you any rights to use such content nor does it guarantee that such content will continue to be available to you."
They've always used third party (Google) content for this purpose. that's just a disclaimer that while they have a license to show it to you for the purpose of locating your photo, you don't get a transitive license to re-use the data for other purposes. Basically, the photo is copyright by you, the map is not, nor is it by Apple.
Apple traditionally has an 'about' page where they attribute open-source projects, etc. Doesn't this version of iPhoto have the same? Or perhaps the iPad/iPhone version has no 'about' page? [edit: by 'page', I mean a dialog box or something comparable within the program]
I don't see how Apple could tarnish its brand image by saying they were using OSM. As a matter of fact they could have improved their image regarding open source by supporting OSM directly, thus justifying the use of their maps.
I'm not going to say it was malice, I really think this was discussed during development and most of the people in charge thought it wouldn't matter and nobody would care if they used OSM maps and give no credit to it.
More likely they flagged it as a todo for when the legal team wrote the licenses, and the legal team forgot. I don't think a developer would even be allowed to add an attribution notice without running it by legal.
Looking at iPhoto "Journal", Apple probably decided they couldn't redistribute Google maps so switched to OSM. Just a shame they didn't do it within the parameters of OSM's license.
Hopefully this was a mistake rather than Apple thinking they either didn't need to adhere to a license or that they could just bully their way to what they want.
OpenStreetMap data isn't public domain, it's copyright under a creative commons licence. There are clear rules you must obey to not be in breech of the licence.
Note that I put scare quotes inside of scare quotes, because I really disagree with that name. Irony quotes might be a better name, which would allow it to cover all different and separate forms of irony (sarcasm, tragedy, fate, etc).
But that's neither here nor there. The point is, "steal" is in scare quotes meaning it is using a word to express something other than its literal intention.
I don't think I'd use the word steal in respect of copyright works. But here it is the moral rights which are being denied.
How do you steal something given to you as a gift? Claim it was yours all along and so deny the owner their attribution. Even if the owner of the copyright retains access to the data you can still deny them their lawful attribution - that is what has arguably been stolen here I think.
