Comments on: Ordnance Survey OpenSpace API using OpenLayers

By: Rob Booth

Rob Booth — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:34:23 +0000

I understand your frustration, and as an OpenLayers user, share your disappointment that their modifications won’t be released to the community. But it must also be quite flattering that Ordnance Survey have selected OpenLayers to base their future on. I think Ordnance Survey really need OpenSpace to be a success, especially in these days of mapping mashups.

By: crschmidt

crschmidt — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:12:56 +0000

Agreed, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it takes some time before we get to that stage. Bureaucracy is hard to fight. However, I’ve found through long experience that the squeaky wheel gets the grease — this is me squeaking.

I’m still pondering what a response on the mailing list itself should say — when I respond on the mailing list, I’m typically trying very hard to do it as “Member of the OpenLayers PSC”, as opposed to in my blog, where I’m just Some GUy On the Internet

It’s good to see them using the software. Well, hear about them using the software — I’m still waiting to “See”, as it were. It would be even greater to see them contributing back to the software — or at least contributing requests for improvement to help lead our direction of development.

By: Paul Ramsey

Paul Ramsey — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:59:08 +0000

Perhaps the true test is if, now that they are “out of the closet”, they move to be more involved in the community. I can understand the difficulty of working with an open community when the project you are working on is supposed to be Double Top Secret, Code Ultra-Black.

By: crschmidt

crschmidt — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:45:37 +0000

Legal? Yes.
Social? Nope.

If I wanted legal recourse against OS, OL would be GPL licensed. I don’t. And if they’re not willing to be compelled to contribute socially, then they’d likely have just rolled their own. I’d rather have them use OpenLayers than do that.

There is still, in my opinion, a strong social reason to participate in Open Source projects. As an example: if they had asked, we probably could have provided the projection support that they need in the core, rather than them rolling their own. Now there will be two different sets of OpenLayers projection APIs, and that’s a frustrating position to be in for *both* projects.

It seems clear that they are (at the very least) willing to offer thanks to the community. In that case, I’Il think that they should have considered mentioning it to begin with — they’d probably have gotten some help out.

But hey, such is life.

By: Sean Gillies

Sean Gillies — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:17:52 +0000

Wait, I thought OpenLayers was BSD(ish) licensed precisely so that people could do practically anything they wanted to do with it without any legal or social compulsion to give back.

All the same, you’re absolutely right that it’s better to be exploited than to be ignored.

By: Barry hunter

Barry hunter — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:59:54 +0000

The OS is a ‘corperate’ entity, basically under goverment control - and the project has been very closed and almost everyone involved would of been under NDAs. I find it very progressive that the project has actually used OL, and have acknowledged its use, which is a sign of a changing (local) culture. I am not trying to defend it, merely offer an explanation that you shouldnt take it personally. Baby steps, baby steps….

Anyway if this is anything to go by (and I not suggesting it is)
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/media/news/2007/dec/osopenspace.html
Then it’s it going to be open source.
(and if it isn’t then there is strong argument for them to make it so…)