I think it depends how it's being used. If the nonfree content is presented as an integral part of the interface, such as inline with the article, that's a problem. On the other hand, if the interface just allows the separate Apple Maps to be pulled up, that's a bit different. We frequently link to offsite nonfree content when, for example, we cite such a source as a reference. It only becomes a major issue when it's presented as part of an article.
My more major concern is, would this be a privacy issue? That concern has been brought up before, I think for quite valid reasons, with for example social media "Share this" buttons. Would this allow Apple to gather data on what a reader is reading? Todd On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Jonatan Svensson Glad < gladjona...@outlook.com> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > > I'm not one who usually writes on these lists, but since it seems like a > good way to get others opinions (and ince I've already formed my own), I > thought it was a good way to see what others had to say and think. > > > The mobile team for the iOS app (who are all awesome!) has recently > released (in beta) a version of the app which incorporates Apple Maps a one > of it's main feature, to find articles nearby. > > > "The Wikipedia iOS app has released a beta version (5.4.0 1081) which uses > Apple maps as its map data source. This is not an easy decision and has > already sparked some discussion of whether this is acceptable given our > project's values." > > > These maps are not free (non-libre) and is in my strong opinion against > our values. We only create and publish things which are freely licensed > (with fair use imagery being the only exception, after a board resolution > regarding EDP's). > > > Some reasons why this was done can be read here: > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Team/iOS/Maps_service > > > I was asked if we could use non-free elements as long as we said it was > non-free and you may not be allowed to re-ue it, and I responded with "If > we can't find enough editors for Wikipedia, would it ever be alright if we > copied text from Britannica, as long as we said it was from Britannica, and > that reusers can not use it" i.e. just because we can't make something, > doesn't mean we should use something else (non-free thing) to reach our > 'wants', if it causes us to loose what is... 'us'. > > > I'm seeking imput and opinions from you all whether this i allowed or not > our according to values, which states: > > > "An essential part of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is encouraging > the development of free-content educational resources that may be created, > used, and reused by the entire human community. We believe that this > mission requires thriving open formats and open standards on the web to > allow the creation of content not subject to restrictions on creation, use, > and reuse. > > At the creation level, we want to provide the editing community with > freely-licensed tools for participation and collaboration. Our community > should also have the freedom to fork thanks to freely available dumps. > > The community will in turn create a body of knowledge which can be > distributed freely throughout the world, viewable or playable by free > software tools." > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>