In this case thay can just made link to official website of a hotel.
Even google which we call “evil corp” doesn’t have this kind of ads.
Anyways, i am mad on them for BANNING (!) people who voted against! And censoring comments, where people asked to explain why.
OrganicMaps always was a COMPANY, not a foundation. They hid their expenses, used donations for personal purposes, while lying that they need them for servers and development (this can be read in open letter):
Project’s finances and use of donations
As it was revealed by Roman @rtsisyk it wasn’t unusual for the Shareholders to use project’s donations as their own money e.g. Alexander @biodranik paid for his personal holiday trip expenses this way.
At the same time all other contributors were consistently denied any access to any financial information (even to the totals of money donated/spent).
(It’s fine for developers to be reimbursed for their hard work, but it should be done in a fair, transparent and accountable way.)
I donated for project, not for fancy trips, when they claimed that they have no money to add satelite imagery feature.
This is a bit of a contradiction. We can either debate politics such as non-profit vs for-profit or permissive vs copyleft, or we can stick to debating the merits of which apps best fulfill Privacy Guides’ criteria and offers the best UX.
To address the AGPL criticism, it partly comes down to personal preference. Those who want to protect freedom generally prefer copyleft and those who are open to proprietary software generally prefer permissive licenses. I don’t think we should turn this into a political debate as it’d be unproductive and strays off the main topic.
From a strictly criteria-focused perspective, I’d argue copyleft licenses are better aligned with Privacy Guides’ criteria as it clearly prefers the software/information to be free/open. This is also reflected in Privacy Guides’ choice to use a copyleft license for its content. (I’m not saying copyleft should be added to the criteria, just arguing that it certainly shouldn’t be a reason to not recommend something and if anything it should be preferred by PG.)
Unless contributors sign a CLA to a specific person/entity, re-licensing shouldn’t be so simple for CoMaps as a whole. They’d need to reach consensus among all contributors or rewrite the code of contributors who disagree to re-license. There are pros and cons to this. On one hand it’s more democratic and ensures contributors have a say, but on the other it can create barriers if there is lasting irreconcilable disagreement.
A third option is to use a weak copyleft license such as the MPL (which gets you the best of both worlds IMO) but many projects will still have good reasons for preferring a strong copyleft license.
Respectfully, you’re the one that’s misinformed. There are many businesses using strong copyleft licenses. One of the main barriers to strong copyleft licenses in business is its rejection by many other businesses (nearly all of whom promote proprietary software) which is a self-fulfilling prophecy largely perpetuated by the permissive/proprietary camp.
Again I’m massively oversimplifying. There are many issues with copyleft that I think can be fixed but I won’t get into that discussion here.
I don’t think this is a good representation of permissive licenses. I absolutely want to protect freedom. I very strongly prefer open source software. I use permissive licenses because I write code with the intention of that code doing good in the world and being useful to someone. Copyleft doesn’t necessarily prevent that, but because of the restrictions such licenses place on those who want to use the code, it reduces the number of people who can benefit from the code I write. Permissive licenses maximize the potential number of people who will be able to make use of my code.
Another issue is enforcement. Either way, I don’t have the money to take anyone to court for violating my license terms. I probably wouldn’t know they were to begin with. Permissive licenses are easier to comply with, and to that end, I reason that it’s easier for companies to just stick a tiny notice somewhere in their program than to take on legal risk.
Unless they have AI rewrite the whole thing, apparently (No right to relicense this project · Issue #327 · chardet/chardet · GitHub). If I thought the GPL would actually protect my code from being AI training data I’d use it everywhere (or better yet, “MIT but don’t train AI on my code”); that is the main drawback of a permissive license to me, that my code can be more easily used for good and for evil. But at the end of the day, we know evil doesn’t respect licenses. Only good people do. The only way to get evil to respect licenses is with a big stick. I don’t have a big stick, and unless there’s litigation in relation to the chardet fiasco, the GPL may very well be dead. Which, for the record, I do not want. I prefer permissive licenses, I do not think that copyleft licenses should be so blatantly disrespected.
I know this thread kind of turned into a licensing, open vs. proprietary, and governance debate, but as pieces of software I’ve been using both for a bit and CoMaps is just nicer to use in several ways, with a bit more polish and several useful features. It’s like if Organic Maps was a year ahead in development.
With that said, is there anything preventing the listing of CoMaps on its own merits as of now? I’m satisfied using it as my main navigation app and I would love to see it as a recommendation, especially since I feel it’s currently more usable than Organic Maps. I’m not currently suggesting it replace Organic Maps, I just don’t see why it can’t be listed alongside it since the team behind it has shown their willingness to follow through on maintaining the fork and developing it further in my opinion.
Not that I can find. There are 39 votes in favor of adding CoMaps. It better fulfills Privacy Guides’ open source criteria and has superior UI/UX according to most people in this thread. The only legitimate issue was the lack of reputation at the time, but CoMaps has been around for over a year now so I don’t think that concern applies much today IMO.
Many of the other criticisms against CoMaps or support for Organic Maps consisted of trolling or off-topic discussions about Accrescent and licensing. I found it very strange how hard certain people have gone to bat for Organic Maps with a very aggressive or accusatory tone directed towards me and others. I don’t even use CoMaps but I guess whoever is left of the Organic Maps fan base must feel very strongly about their preferred maps app?
It made sense to wait before adding it, but I think it has established enough of a track record now. There’s no compelling reason why it shouldn’t be listed.
There would be a total of 3 recommendations in the Maps category, I don’t see how it would be confusing. Descriptions would probably need to be reorganized a bit since both have similar features, but that’s it.
Sure, but this isn’t a random one-person fork no one uses. Both CoMaps and Organic Maps are very popular, active projects that both meet the criteria and are here to stay. It seems arbitrary for CoMaps to be gatekept from the recommendations.
This is now the tool suggestion thread with the most votes, does the team have any opinion on this?
I’m no different from other people who prefer Organic Maps to Comaps, and that doesn’t make us ‘trolls’ – this pro-Comaps, anti-Organic Maps propaganda is becoming unbearable.Especially given the hypocrisy behind the Comaps project – it’s enough to make you sick.
I use CoMaps these days (just for some features), but I agree that the tribalism has gotten strange between the two user bases.
Even though it’s FOSS, I do think more competition is generally a net-gain for uses. But it does mean more drama and infighting, I guess.
I’m not stanning for CoMaps or anything, but I’m curious what you mean by hypocrisy. I vaguely remember Organic Maps had some shareholder stuff that people didn’t like, but I’m not aware of the issues with the fork (couldn’t find much online).
CoMaps is marketed as a community project where anyone can have their say and get involved, but in reality it’s quite different
Completely arbitrarily, the developers have removed speed camera warnings in several countries to ‘comply with the law’, whilst Organic Maps, Osmand and Magic Earth offer this feature without any issues. In short, it’s a project full of hypocrites.
In any case, Comaps doesn’t offer much more than Organic Maps; there’s no point in replacing one similar project with another – Organic Maps is perfectly fine.
I use comaps. Works pretty well and quite stable. Very easy and simple to use. More useful for viewing but driving navigation does feel very basic and not quite accurate for routing from a to b and will often navigate a longer route.
CoMaps has light-mode maps under dark interface, and can hide the buttons asking for donations.
They are doing under-the-hook changes to make the app more seamless and sustainable in the long run. Now they update their maps without updating the app through App Store which reduces the time for review. Time will tell if this creates the foundation for more features.
Yes, Organic Maps has something CoMaps doesn’t have, like the bus routes information.
Every app is not perfect, and we fall into the trap of criticising other competitors especially when they are on the same boat (privacy-oriented). But what Organic Maps did is real, and more track record is needed for CoMaps.
Privacy Guides is just a guide. You may not agree with their lists of recommendations (so do I), but I found their guidelines are clear and make senses. The team is always explaining well in discussions, and both members and teams provide insights. Not becoming something like “I am in the Brave camp” attacking people who support Firefox. And they repeatedly said apps not recommended are not opposed to. You can still enjoy the apps you love.
Privacy is complicated and there are no straightforward answers, and that’s why I enjoy reading the discussions here to help think and improve my privacy settings.
Speeding kills many people so I’m personally opposed to tools which can help speeders evade accountability, but setting that aside I wanted to look into this a bit.
It seems there are legitimate concerns over legality, but yes it’s true that other apps aren’t as strict in preventing the illegal use of their apps.
A ticket discussing how the speed camera warnings could return to block countries is still open. I assume this isn’t a settled matter and a compromise could be reached, otherwise shouldn’t this have been closed as “not planned”?
Unless I’m missing something, your issue with CoMaps is they have been slow to implement an ideal solution to address a concerning feature? To me this pales in comparison to the far more numerous and impactful issues with Organic Maps. It’s fine if you want to bring this up as a downside to CoMaps but…
this pro-Comaps, anti-Organic Maps propaganda is becoming unbearable.Especially given the hypocrisy behind the Comaps project – it’s enough to make you sick.
The original request to prevent speed cameras for displaying where drivers could be harassed by police for having an app which contains speed cameras was itself a community member’s request/issue. Ideal workarounds were proposed, but as a temporary measure it was easiest to just remove them from specific countries since researching viable workarounds and implementing them takes time and developer volunteers.
You can argue with the decision from many angles like popularity etc, but arguing that we’re not community-driven is the exact wrong take for this particular issue. We’re responsive to the community, just not in the way you prefer.