Switch source code license to GPL

[pastk]

Currently Organic Maps sources are under "permissive" Apache 2.0 license.

Let's discuss pros and cons of switching to GPL or some other "copyleft" license.

The main idea is to guarantee that the project will stay open source.
(e.g. OM's parent Maps.Me was open source, but now is closed/proprietary).

[RedAuburn]

I firmly agree with this 👍

i don't see a downside for OM, copyleft will prevent fragmentation, and ensure the project will last well into the future (hopefully indefinitely)

[pastk]

Another advantage is that under GPL it will be legally impossible to make a derived product based on OM and keep it closed (e.g commercial). The one who did it will be legally obliged to open source the changes to the code, so that OM and a wider community will be able to use enhancements as well.

[pastk]

Possible disadvantages/restrictions:

• it'll be impossible (or very hard at least) to change the license again;
• it'll be impossible to dual-license, so less monetization possibilities.

[muralito]

I fully support GPL license, but it seems some of your ideas are somehow contradictory.

At first lance your goal is "guarantee that the project will stay open source" but you bring as a con that it could be impossible to dual -license it. This is exactly what happened with Maps.me, they have the rights of their code and stop releasing it as open source, and continued developing it under a proprietary license.

It's near impossible if the rights are fragmented between multiple authors, but it's still possible to dual license in GPL and to any other of license if OM have the rights. Every author has to transfer the IP rights of their contributions to the OM organization. Do that and then, OM could convert in the "new Maps.me", stop releasing OrganicMaps as opensource, and release only under a proprietary license.

What are the risks for OrganicMaps? What do you don't want that third parties can do with your code? What do you want to allow?
Could a third party (e.g .Maps.me) take portions of OrganicMaps and improve their product and continue relasing it as closed source? Do you want that?

[pastk]

I think there is a concern indeed, that non-free projects could use OM's improvements without contributing back.

I've listed impossibility to dual-license as a possible disadvantage, because I don't really know what is the stance of OM's co-founders who "hold the project's keys" on this GPL proposition.

It would be great to know what do you think, guys? @rtsisyk @biodranik @vng

Do you keep in mind a possibility to finance the project via dual-licensing and don't want to close this door?
Or any other concerns with GPL?

[FedericoCeratto]

In copyright law original authors retain the right to use any license they want in future releases.
Regarding past releases both Apache and GPL grant non-revocable rights to users - aka authors cannot "unrelease" a past release.
GPL does not (cannot) prohibit dual-licensing.

If there are many contributors it can be difficult to reach an agreement for example to provide a special license to a company (but this is not a problem specific to GPL)

[pastk]

well yeap that's what I meant exactly - under the GPL to provide a special license OM will have to get consent of all the contributors which is very hard, while under Apache its a non-issue

[FedericoCeratto]

This is not specific to a type of license. Besides, if the idea is to provide exceptions in exchange for payment this is currently not viable. Additionally, it's possible for contributors to sign an agreement to allow the project to make licensing changes on their behalf.

[RicoElectrico]

Disadvantage: it would be hard to spin off components as libraries. Currently every high-level functionality (map rendering, search, routing) is a custom job. But making a loosely coupled library out of some of them could recoup some of the development effort and hopefully attract contributors among people who would use the library.
For now, I think the most viable element to librarize would be routing. It's quite good and calculates routes quickly. While voice instructions are so-so, there isn't much competition in the space. Hardcoded C++-based profiles make it very fast on mobile. Other use scripting languages which are too slow on phones.

[pastk]

For libraries there is LGPL, right?
Or you mean it won't be possible to switch parts of the code from GPL to LGPL?

[mpawelski]

Yeah, I'm not open-source license expert (in fact, I'm a total noob in this 😅), but I I fear that switching to more copy-left license could prevent any "librarification" initiatives in the future.

I'm not sure that there is any need or wish to do that. I just think it would be cool if OM map could be easily embed in a mobile app. Even cooler, imagine if OM could be embedded on a website, that OM could be another layer on official https://osm.org/ website 🤩. Sounds, cool right? I'm not sure if this is even technically possible, I know OM code is mostly in C++ and OpenGL for rendering map, and this stuff can run in browser with WASM (WebAssembly). And licenses like GPL might not be "web friendly", I even hear that LGPL doesn't even make sense in web word (what is "dynamic linking" of C++ libraries equivalence in JS/web world?). Just some food for thought from my side.

[pastk]

Why GPL is not "web friendly"? Actually AFAIK its kind of looses its copyleft power when used for a web service (because there is no copying or distribution of software). And that is why there is AGPL to preserve copyleft for SaaS things :)

[pastk]

Also I have no idea if the change might possibly affect non-code assets like artwork, translations, etc...
E.g. we use icons under following licenses:

organicmaps/data/copyright.html

Lines 300 to 342 in 98f8140

	<p id="icons">We also use these icons on the map:</p>
	<ul class="license-list">
	<li><a href="https://github.com/google/material-design-icons">Material Design Icons</a><br>
	&copy; 2021 Google; <a href="#apache2-license" class="license">Apache License</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome">Font Awesome Free</a><br>
	&copy; 2021 Fonticons, Inc.; <a href="#cc-by-4" class="license">CC BY 4.0 License</a></li>
	<li><a href="http://www.evericons.com/">Evericon</a><br>
	&copy; 2018 Aleksey Popov; <a href="#cc0-1" class="license">CC0 1.0 Universal</a>.</li>
	<li><a href="https://github.com/Remix-Design/remixicon">Remixicon</a><br>
	&copy; 2020 Wendy Gao, Jimmy Cheung; <a href="#apache2-license" class="license">Apache License</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://github.com/danielbruce/entypo">Entypo</a><br>
	&copy; 2012 Daniel Bruce; <a href="#cc-by-sa-3" class="license">CC BY-SA 3.0 License</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://github.com/scadini/nova-icon">Nova</a><br>
	&copy; 2019 scadini; <a href="#mit-license" class="license">MIT License</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://github.com/danklammer/bytesize-icons">Bytesize</a><br>
	&copy; 2016 Dan Klammer; <a href="#mit-license" class="license">MIT License</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://boxicons.com/">Boxicons</a><br>
	&copy; boxicons.com; <a href="#cc-by-4" class="license">CC BY 4.0 License</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://tablericons.com/">Tabler</a><br>
	&copy; 2020 Paweł Kuna; <a href="#mit-license" class="license">MIT License</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://github.com/mapsme/omim/blob/a2682a0b2aab96a132df61f22c983ace6a37c62f/NOTICE#L20-L21">Old MAPS.ME icons</a><br>
	&copy; 2011-2015 My.com B.V. <a href="#cc-by-4" class="license">CC BY 4.0 License</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.freepik.com" title="Freepik">Freepik</a> from <a href="https://www.flaticon.com/" title="Flaticon">www.flaticon.com</a><br>
	&copy; 2021 Freepik <a href="https://www.freepikcompany.com/legal#nav-flaticon-agreement" class="license">Freepik Free License</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://github.com/mapbox/maki" title="Maki">Maki</a><br>
	&copy; 2022 Mapbox <a href="#cc0-1" class="license">CC0 1.0 Universal</a></li>
	<li><a href="https://www.onlinewebfonts.com/icon" title="OnlineWebFonts">OnlineWebFonts</a><br>
	&copy; 2023 OnlineWebFonts.com <a href="#cc-by-4" class="license">CC BY 4.0 License</a></li>
	</ul>
	</div>

[FedericoCeratto]

As long as the copyright belongs to Google, Fonticons and Aleksey Popov those licenses cannot be changed by the Organic Maps authors. Those licenses would stay the same (and they are compatible with GPL).

[pastk]

It'd be great if someone who knows the matter better will comment about feasibility and possible tricky unobvious consequences (if any)...

[spaetz]

I am not a lawyer, but a researcher who has been dealing with licenses for 2 decades now. On the question of which licensed code can be incorporated/changed into which licenses, I really like the license compatability chart in Figure 2.2. at https://wiki.geant.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=725614690#SoftwarelicenceselectionandmanagementinG%C3%89ANT-2.3CompatibilityofLicencesFrequentlyUsedinG%C3%89ANT which shows that Apache code can easily be incorporated into a GPL project (but not the other way around).
Also, yes, libraries can e.g. be released under LGPL which is "weaker" on the copyleft aspects.

As for other assets, there is no need to put everything under a single license, e.g. GPL does not really make sense for fonts and icons, so it is fine to have those under different licenses, especially if they are more liberally licensed.