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?


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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.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 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to