I’m not convinced that, as a project, we do. “OpenStreetMap is an initiative to create and provide free geographic data, such as street maps, to anyone.” (First sentence of the OSM Foundation homepage.) “Welcome to OpenStreetMap, the project that creates and distributes free geographic data for the world.” (First sentence of the OSM wiki.)

Is OSM supposed to be free as in beer or free as in speech? What is free enough? Would you agree that everybody has to watch an ad before being able to download a small chunk of data? The data would technically still be “free”. Would you agree to OSM monetizing user behavior (which part of the map you are looking at and when?, which part of the map you are editing and how?, what you focus on when editing?) to pay for the server infrastructure to be “free”? Would you agree that the editors and the rendering software will charge you for their use while the data stays free? Would you agree that OSM uses free services that exclude users from downloading or participating at the service’s discretion, making your access to OSM “free”? I do not agree to these scenarios. I also consider the software ecosystem developing around the pure data as part of OSM and equally important. Therefore, why shouldn’t we pay the same attention to these aspects?

If OSM code resides on GitHub, people from some countries cannot participate. And if they can, their data is monetized. Is this OK as long as the data is free? I’m not saying we should abandon everything that is not completely free and open and hosted at own servers, however, I argue for striving for more openness and inclusion. This is better served by building an OSM-software community on an OSM-hosted repository (similar to Debian Salsa). I don’t want OSM to be free as Google services but truly free.

Well, the fact that users in Iran can supposedly access GitHub again (quick check revealed that this is not the case) is not the solution but rather pointing to the real problem. It is at other people’s discretion who is granted access to our collaborative projects. This is certainly not a good starting point and the OSMF should support solutions to grant equal access to everybody.

Arguing that the network effect is ugly but then keeping to justify the use of the lock-in platform (that excludes people) sounds to me like surrendering.

Freedom was never for free. If we want freedom for our projects, freedom for people to contribute to it, freedom from platforms monetizing our data, behavior and personal/professional networks, we need to do something, to move, to create alternatives. Sacrificing a bit of user experience and handling two instead of one login by switching from GitHub to a self-hosted GitLab seems a tiny price to pay for what we would gain.

I support this proposal