Foundation/AGM2024/Election to Board/Answers and manifestos/Q13 Perspective on Open Source
Perspective on Open Source
In the leadup to the election, the OSMF encountered issues with its open-source membership management system, CivicCRM. This reignited a long-running debate about whether the OSMF should consider using non-open-source third-party software to address such challenges. Is it acceptable for the OSMF to use non-free software if it supports OSM's goals?
Craig Allan - Q13 Perspective on Open Source
OSMF currently uses FOSS software for most of its work and is right to be strongly enthusiastic about FOSS software. We share a culture with the FOSS movement. If there is no viable FOSS alternative for some use case (which is rare) then in my opinion proprietary software can be used until a FOSS solution is created.
In the case of CiviCRM, it has been hard to maintain. If the WG decides to replace it, I’d want them to look for FOSS alternatives before adopting commercial products.
Brazil Singh - Q13 Perspective on Open Source
The debate about whether the OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF) should use non-open-source third-party software, particularly in light of issues with open-source systems like CivicCRM, raises important questions about balancing principles with practical needs.The OSMF should prioritize open-source solutions in line with its FOSS policy. However, if there are operational challenges that cannot be addressed by open-source software, any consideration of non-open-source alternatives must involve thorough community consultation, ensuring that OSM's core values are upheld. The focus should remain on transparency, minimizing dependency on corporate-controlled software, and maintaining flexibility for future transitions back to open-source options.
Courtney Cook Williamson - Q13 Perspective on Open Source
I would first answer this by putting some questions back on the FOSS community: How do you support those of us who don’t have the technological skills to navigate a complicated OS UI/UX and/ or might not have access to hardware that makes it possible to use open source software? As someone who has been angrily chastised for not using open source software, even though I had done my best to meet the guidelines within my abilities, I think these are fair questions. One easy way to help increase the use of open source software is help people learn to use it.
Being part of OSM has persuaded me entirely of the benefits of free and open source software, but when it comes to the OSMF we need to be realistic about its advantages and its limits. Proprietary software is often easier to use and saves time but steals our data or charges us, or both. Free and open source software often takes more skill and time to use, so as a result we need to allocate time resources for that. For example, I am never going to be able to do a great job managing an open source CRM like I can a proprietary one, but if we have someone who is good at it, who can collaborate with me as the writer of the messages and reports, then it’s a win for all of us. But, if we don’t have that volunteer, then we should pay the cost of the most responsible proprietary equivalent CRM. When an organization is entirely volunteer run, sometimes there have to be compromises because time, like money is a limited resource. My general position with regard to FOSS and the OSMF is that we should be as ethical as we can be, while keeping the successful governance of OSM.org and supporting the community as the first priority.
Maurizio Napolitano - Q13 Perspective on Open Source
The principles of open source are the foundation on which OpenStreetMap is built, and it's right for the Foundation to advocate for the adoption of open source software. However, the core of OSM is its data, and many applications use proprietary software. Our license is designed to allow data reuse regardless of tools or purpose. Therefore, we need tolerance when tools aren't ready. We can either invest in opensource software and improving them by leveraging OSM’s community or adopt proprietary solutions while safeguarding data ownership for future migration to open systems. This requires thoughtful planning and significant effort. In my point of view, it's essential to prioritize open tools without imposing restrictions that hinder OSMF's operations. If resources are lacking, we should follow the principle of do-ocracy, where those ready to act take on the task, ensuring smooth operations without creating further lock-in.
Can Ünen - Q13 Perspective on Open Source
This issue has a philosophical angle, and a practical/operational one. Over the years I have gradually distanced myself from proprietary software as much as I can but sometimes use freemium or freeware out of either habit or practicality. I also still have some paid/proprietary rudesoftware because there is not a comprehensive open source alternative to. Similarly, my stance on the board would be to support the usage of open source solutions as long as there is one that does the trick, having all the needed functionality by the board. But if the burden of managing and maintaining an imperfect tool would hinder the organization in terms of cost and workload, I might be in favour of exploring practical, non-open-source alternatives. (Drafted on Google Docs, on a Firefox browser, on a computer running Linux.)
Michael Montani - Q13 Perspective on Open Source
I am strong supporter of open-source software, I personally use it and advocate for it whenever possible, often in an "idealistic" way. I prefer open-source software because:
- It is more secure: you know what you contribute to or use, and you do not depend from any third party that may shut it down at its will or need, or use the shared information, even illegally, to train deep learning models or track personal information for commercial purposes.
- Flexibility: you can identify problems, propose changes or just switch to another open-source alternative if you need to.
- Communication: It is easier to contact teams of developers of open-source projects (as opposed, for example, to contact a shady, and maybe not existing, Twitter / X support team).
- I believe it to be more cost-effective (time, money) than proprietary solutions.
By the way, I am also aware of the following things:
- Open-source projects lifecycle often depends on few individuals that created and maintained the project for years, and tend to die if there is not an active community behind it
- It may involve non-negligible costs to self-host open-source solutions
- Generally, proprietary solutions have bigger user bases (just think about X, LinkedIn or GitHub, compared to their open-source alternatives). This is mostly driven by the fact that big corporations are first-movers, have money to spend in updates, infrastructure and marketing, and general network effects of existing users attracting new ones.
Even if I don't like it, I also use proprietary software when I am obliged to. The typical example is when I need to work for the UN and I use Windows, simply because everything in the organization runs on Microsoft applications and the lack of support of Microsoft towards Linux users is just so big that I am obliged to use Windows if I want to accomplish anything...
I believe the biggest priority for the OSMF is to maintain the infrastructure up and running, and focus on the developments of the map. So, my perspective on the usage of open-source software for the OSMF is the following:
- Core OSM tools and infrastructure must be open-source.
- I won't support moving away from open-source solutions that the OSMF already uses, or I would rather support switching to other open-source alternatives if the ones currently used are buggy.
- Being mindful of OSMF funds and (mostly voluntary) manpower, I would prioritize freeware (even proprietary) over open-source, and open-source over non-freeware proprietary solutions, for any additional need.
Andrés Gómez Casanova - Q13 Perspective on Open Source
The foundation's objective is to support the OSM project. To this end, it should not be limited to open-source options but should look for options that solve the needs, as long as these solutions fit the budget and ultimately solve the needs. The Engineering Working Group and the Board should conduct this type of study to reach a decision.
Laura Mugeha - Q13 Perspective on Open Source
As a project and community built on open-source principles, OSMF should prioritize using open-source solutions whenever possible. But, we must also acknowledge that the primary goal of OSMF is to support and grow OpenStreetMap. In cases where the use of commercial software can significantly improve our ability to achieve this goal, it should be given due consideration.
However, any decision to use commercial software should be based on a thorough evaluation, considering factors such as the resources required and data ownership and privacy implications. If these options are used, the decision-making process should be transparent, and the reasons should be communicated to the community.
For membership management, I think we can first assess the current CiviCRM implementation to understand if the issues can be addressed through improved configuration or customization. If it can't be resolved, we can explore other open-source alternatives that better meet our needs.
Héctor Ochoa Ortiz - Q13 Perspective on Open Source
The OSMF should prefer free and open software when possible. However, when the cons outweigh the benefits, I feel that using non-free software is acceptable. The OSMF regularly has contracts with third parties, some of which use non-free software. I do not see how this would be any different.
Español
La OSMF debería preferir software libre y abierto cuando sea posible. Sin embargo, cuando los inconvenientes superan los beneficios, siento que usar software no libre es aceptable. La OSMF regularmente tiene contratos con terceros, algunos de los cuales usan software no libre. No veo cómo esto sería diferente.
Arun Ganesh - Q13 Perspective on Open Source
Open source needs to be the requirement only for software infrastructure critical to OSM operations. Anything not critical like a membership management system should just use whatever option keeps maintenance costs at a minimum and not lock us into any particular system.
OSM Foundation's board election 2024: official questions
Q01 Motivation and Objectives
| Q02 Conflict of Interest Management
| Q03 Transparency and Accountability
| Q04 Strategic Vision and Sustainability
| Q05 Decision-Making and Collaboration
| Q06 Fundraising and Resource Development
| Q07 Handling Legal and Political Challenges
| Q08 State of the Map
| Q09 Your Community Contributions
| Q10 Promoting Community and Attracting Volunteers
| Q11 Technology and Innovation
| Q12 Data Quality and Protection
| Q13 Perspective on Open Source
| Q14 Perspective on Overture Maps
All board candidates' manifestos
2024 OpenStreetMap Foundation's: Board election - Voting information and instructions - Annual General Meeting
| ||||||