Source code repository on github

[floppyrod84]

Even though the client is GPL, Waze are not obligated to release the source within any timeframe, although leaving it too long 'may' be considered a breach of the licence as they're required to contribute source back to the community. I may email them about this tomorrow.

Sent from my Telenor_OneTouch using Tapatalk

[AlanOfTheBerg]

Is the Waze 3 client GPL? I thought that totally changed with v3 because of the terms of the voice recognition and text-to-speech engines they have licensed. The About screen in v3 doesn't mention GPL.

[cymike]

Is the Waze 3 client GPL?

Interesting question. The wiki page on copyrights ( http://www.waze.com/wiki/index.php/Copy ... d_licenses ) hasn't been updated since 2010 apparently.

Even though the client is GPL, Waze are not obligated to release the source within any timeframe

http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html

The GNU GPL demands that as soon as you distribute GPL licensed software in executable format you make available the "complete corresponding source code".

"As soon as..." looks like a rather specific timeframe.
The question remains whether v3.0 is still GPL (if the devs removed all GPL code from it or not).

[floppyrod84]

They haven't. It wasn't a complete rewrite. Its still based on code from Ehud's roadmap for linux. If it contains even a single line of GPL code it MUST be GPL itself and as above, must be released immediately or hosted on something like github.

Sent from my Telenor_OneTouch using Tapatalk

[bgodette]

They haven't. It wasn't a complete rewrite. Its still based on code from Ehud's roadmap for linux. If it contains even a single line of GPL code it MUST be GPL itself and as above, must be released immediately or hosted on something like github.

Sent from my Telenor_OneTouch using Tapatalk

That's assuming there were any outside (of Waze) contributors that did not agree to a re-licensing. Use of LGPL libraries (pretty much all of them) does not confer GPL status to code you wrote that uses said libraries. The code Ehud wrote is still Ehud's code, which he's free to license or transfer as he sees fit.

The GPL (v2 or v3) does not prevent you from forking your own work and licensing as you see fit. It does however prevent you from forking someone else's work, without their consent, and licensing it as you see fit, and from revoking availability of code as it existed while under a GPL license. This is why the code for the v2, and earlier, clients are still available. That said, an argument could be made for making the last v2.4.* code bases available instead of what's actually available, which is a bit older IIRC.

[chris_debian]

Hi, all.

Being a keen supporter of open-source software (FSF definition) and with the move from v2 to v3, I asked the Waze team to comment on the licensing, back in March.

The email reply I received was:

"Hi Chris
Thanks for approaching us. Happy to hear Waze can still work on the G1.
Regarding the Wikipedia and Waze Wiki, they refer to version prior to version 3.0 as version 3.0 has been totally rewritten and is no longer distributed under the GPL license.
Regards
Fej"

Not sure whether this clears things up?

Thanks,

Chris.

[floppyrod84]

Yeah but I'd bet there's still GPL code in there, but that's not for me to pursue.

Sent from my Telenor_OneTouch using Tapatalk

[chris_debian]

Yeah but I'd bet there's still GPL code in there, but that's not for me to pursue.

Sent from my Telenor_OneTouch using Tapatalk

I think Waze is a great project, and was disappointed when they 'went closed' with v3.0. I share your concerns about the GPL code, but hope that this isn't the case.

Unfortunately too many vendors abuse the freedom of GPL'd code:

http://gpl-violations.org/

Cheers,

Chris.

[zCougar]

I really hope that Waze will either make an API open and stable and some coders will write a new )and better!) GPL client or Waze will still make its client source available.

I'm actually quite disappointed how Waze tries to make its platform more closed instead of making it more open for everybody. Unfortunately there is nothing better available today than Waze but I do not see any reason why OSM or anyone else can't do something like that in the future and I really hope it will happen in this case.

I'll probably switch back to 2.4.0 if Waze confirms that they do not plan to release 3.x source code any more.

--
Cougar

[chris_debian]

Interesting comments, Cougar.

Not sure whether the 2.4 branch is maintained, or available for easy download for 'normal' users. In an ideal world, the product would be completely open. Right now, I'd be happy to know that GPL code was removed from the v3.0 product, and when installing Waze, it would be great for the user to be asked whether s/he wanted to use the open-source version, or the proprietary version. Obviously the question would be better phrased than this, so the user actually understand what s/he was being asked...some may be unfamiliar with the term 'open-source '. To make it easier, perhaps both versions could be available from Market/ Play (or whatever it is called, now ).

Cheers,

Chris.