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.