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).
