Hacker News Reader

Comment by opensourebuild | Hacker News Reader

The claim about open-source is coming from the shareholder of Organic Maps, Alex, but there is no basis to it, as the code for that repository is licensed under the Apache 2.0 license.

It appears Alex is angry about the fork and doing anything possible to spread negativity.

View on HN

The code used by the fork was never published. It was stolen from a private repository and a private server, and then published/used in the fork without the authors' approval. That's a serious legal issue.

The fork also took the new website design that was developed for Organic Maps even before the Organic Maps website was updated.

Don't believe everything on the internet; there are many lies spread around.

So Organic Maps is not actually open-source?

Hmm... This says otherwise, with detailed explanations and screenshots: [1][2]

It shows that you, biodranik, removed the MIT licence from the repo with a commit saying "No MIT yet, sorry". It says that the code had been licenced as MIT since 2021. It is not clear if you own the copyright to all the contributions since 2021, and therefore it is not clear if you are legally allowed to remove the MIT licence.

It also says that the fork was made from the repo in the state it was when you removed the MIT licence. Therefore it is a fork of an MIT project by someone who had legal access to the MIT-licenced code: it's legal.

> Don't believe everything on the internet; there are many lies spread around.

You don't say :-).

I was not entirely sure about the CoMaps vs Organic Maps situation, but this very comment of yours clearly favours CoMaps IMO. Or did I misunderstand something?

[1]: https://github.com/orgs/organicmaps/discussions/9837

[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20250815050441/https://github.co...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com