What Was Organic Maps Again?
I wrote about alternatives to Google Maps earlier, and how OpenStreetMap was an alternative map database that could be improved upon by the community. Organic Maps is an Android app that used OpenStreetMap data to provide offline-only navigation capabilities, functioning as a replacement for Google Maps - at least, if map data is good enough and live traffic data is not critical.
What Controversy?
How Organic Maps Was Born
MapsWithMe was the original project, later renamed to maps.me, which used OpenStreetMap data to provide offline map functionality. This project was sold to a company - the Mail.Ru Group - who then open-sourced the app. The app was then sold to another company - Parity.com - who changed up the user interface and content, discontinuing the open source offering. This triggered some of the original founders of MapsWithMe to create a fully open source app - Organic Maps - using the last open-source version of Maps.me as a starting point.
The Governance Model
Organic Maps is an open-source app, whose key assets (like trademarks and app store accounts) are held by Organic Maps OU, which is registered as a for-profit company. A legally registered entity was required in order to "shield the project's members from personal liability and to ensure the legal protection of the company's assets". A for-profit entity was chosen in place of a non-profit for pragmatic reasons - for-profits are less bureaucratic and more flexible, allowing the founders to launch the project more conveniently.
On the 16th of April, 2025, a letter was sent by a team of Organic Maps contributors to each of the three shareholders of Organic Maps OU, and the contents were published as an open letter. Some of their concerns were:
- a feature that was developed in private by the shareholders and published only shortly before it was merged into the main codebase, to add sponsored links to a hotel aggregator website when showing hotel details within the app
- a lack of explicit promises that the project will not be sold to another company for shareholder profit, effectively profiting off the unpaid work of the open source contributors
- hiring a full-time developer to work n the project in secret, when this milestone could have been celebrated with the community
- map generator code being closed-source with the intention of blocking copycat projects (hello, open source principles???)
- the shareholders using project donations as personal money with zero accountability to the community - not even totals of money received/spent being shared
- a conflict between the three shareholders (the bylaws require a 75% majority to take up any major decision, effectively meaning the three shareholders have to act unanimously) reaching a boiling point, leading to one of the shareholders beginning exit negotiations
These concerns led to contributors nearly stopping work on the project until its direction was clarified.
Responses
The shareholder looking to exit was the first to respond, affirming his commitment to the community and pushing for the same changes as the open letter requested - dissolving the for-profit and establishing a community interest foundation. The others made no effort to quell the community's concerns, and what short discussions did happen in the past serve only to inflame the community's insecurity about the future of the project.
One of the others provided an update on the shareholder conflict but there was no mention of the project's future.
Fallout
A community-driven fork called CoMaps was announced, aiming to improve on the governance model. The project has no parent legal entity yet, but is functioning with complete governance transparency at the moment.
The number of open-source rug pulls we have seen in the past and the community's proactive action in this case underscores that a perfect system doesn't fall into our laps by magic - the community has to be its own steward.