I think it depends how it's being used. If the nonfree content is presented as an integral part of the interface, such as inline with the article, that's a problem. On the other hand, if the interface just allows the separate Apple Maps to be pulled up, that's a bit different. We frequently link to offsite nonfree content when, for example, we cite such a source as a reference. It only becomes a major issue when it's presented as part of an article. My more major concern is, would this be a privacy issue? That concern has been brought up before, I think for quite valid reasons, with for example social media "Share this" buttons. Would this allow Apple to gather data on what a reader is reading? Todd On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Jonatan Svensson Glad < gladjonatan(a)outlook.com&gt; wrote:

Hoi, What I do not understand is why? We have had maps and nearby functionality for a very long time 2014 based on Wikidata [1]. It has the benefit of being of use in any of our languages much more than what Apple has to offer. This was developed at the Hackathon in Vienna. OSM maps have as a benefit that they serve countries like Haiti much better [2]. It is why Doctors Without Borders use their maps and not others [2]. A third reason is that by concentrating on the Apple API and kits we are not developing for the majority of smart phones. A fourth reason is that it will enhance the cooperation with the OSM community. A final reason is that we are already Wikidatafying Commons; this will have a geo location part as well and consequently I do not see any advantages in anything but a Wikidata approach to maps because through queries we can target Wikipedia articles in a language. A final argument, it will drive more people to add labels in Wikidata in the language where our coverage is now not so good. Including English in China. Thanks, GerardM PS I do have an iPhone. [1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/05/wmhack-maps-and-wikidata-ii.html [2] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2011/03/need-for-up-to-date-maps.html On 11 March 2017 at 03:59, Jonatan Svensson Glad &lt;gladjonatan(a)outlook.com&gt; wrote:

Hi Jonatan, Thanks for this email, it's relevant to the general wikimedia list & community. I broadly agree with you: we should aim to strengthen and expand the universe of free knowledge, including every building block along the way: so that others can replicate both toolchain and result on their own backends. In practice, I think that means: releasing a Beta feature that uses non-free libraries is ok, if the goal is to get feedback, test iterations, and replace them with free libraries. Releasing a completed tool that uses non-free libraries might be ok if there is currently no free alternative whatever, and the creation/curation benefits of having the tool are significant; in such cases we should still plan partnerships or other methods for replacing those libraries. When it comes to serving maps, integrating map features with iOS, and OSM: a more basic issue comes into play. We should support OSM development and improvement 100% as though it were part of our own mission. Because it is! Maps are an increasingly large part of knowledge capture, discovery, sharing, and prioritization. It's important to get this right not just on the scale of the roadmap of a single feature by a single staff development team, but as a movement. (The movement devoted to global knowledge access; not just the subset covered by current .W. projects & tools!) Getting it right here can mean many things, but definitely includes over time * Ensuring there is a free map ecosystem that is as good as any proprietary one * Working side-by-side with the OSM community, spiritually and practically (and not alienating one another around minor factional differences) Clearly OSM benefits from working through any practical/accessibility reasons that make it hard for app-developers to use OSM maps rather than Apple Maps. So let's work directly with them to solve this. This WP app offers a richly detailed use case, and a new channel for people to potentially discover and contribute to OSM; OSM devs are experts at identifying existing solutions or building new ones. There are nuances of how funding / development / production happens across the various subcommunities, teams, foundations and third-parties, and more than one way to do it. [does WMF fund pure OSM development in parallel to supporting WP feature work? Support community development around crossovers between our networks? does OSM or MB fund some wiki work as part of outreach+expansion?] This shouldn't prevent getting this right — just as temporary gaps in a fully free toolchain shouldn't prevent running tests with a proprietary library in the interim. Warmly, Sam On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Jonatan Svensson Glad < gladjonatan(a)outlook.com&gt; wrote: -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266