Could you clarify that a bit for me please? It was unclear to me in the original as well. Is Google copying the data generated by open communities, then closing it with a restrictive license? Or is it copying the idea of community-generated maps?
One's an interesting story worth discussing. The other is silly; community-sourced maps is a fairly obvious idea.
Seen from that point of view and taking into account that Google has a history of censoring maps, I think it's not that silly an argument.
However, if the original article is correct in that Google misleads volunteers, then I hope his post helps correct that.
if someone has huge visibility, they can leverage it to gain more volunteer time at the expense of competing on platform & terms.
However the real problem is how G glosses over the particulars of their business practices, and paints them in the light of community projects. That's deceptive and damaging, not to OSM, but to communities unaware of the obscure details of data and API licensing.