Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding Organic Maps: I would recommend keeping tabs on what is happening there since this year. They seem to be having significant governance issues. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/organic-maps-open-lett... Short story: forget Organic Maps, use successor CoMaps or competitor OsmAnd. https://www.comaps.app/about-us/
Thank you, that's interesting and a concern. Do you have pointers to information about the governance and legitimacy of CoMaps? (I see a mention that it's non-profit, but no statement about what kind of non-profit, not even on the donate page where that info is customary and relevant for US tax reasons. Also, I see no mention of who's who, nor how they operate.) The closest I find is this: https://www.comaps.app/supp…
https://github.com/orgs/organicmaps/discussions/9837
https://web.archive.org/web/20250815050441/https://github.co...
In the discussion you link, biodranik tries to say that it was illegal for those with access to the repo to dispose of the open-source code because that open-source code had not be published. I don't think this is right:
Open-source does not mean at all that the code has to be public. It can be private to a community. But whoever has access to that code is allowed, under the open-source licence, to dispose of it under the terms of the licence. My understanding is that this is what happened with the fork of Organic Maps. And it is pretty clearly explained in the codeberg discussion you linked.
> an allegation that the CoMaps project is already tainted with code to which is expressly doesn't have license
I don't think it says that CoMaps doesn't have the licence. It says that whoever forked the codebase did not have permission by some of the founders of Organic Maps. That's very different: the licence doesn't say that you must ask permission to the founders; it says that the code can be used under the terms of the licence. A fork part of those terms.