There is a difference. Wikipedia and many open source projects cannot forcibly switch to paid model, because they are currently giving their content away under CC-BY or GPL and you can keep a copy of it. If they started charging, you can fork the project and continue charge-free.
Google maps API is a service controlled by Google. You cannot replicate it and keep using it if Google changes its mind about the licensing.
That doesn't matter. There is no law nor any court ruling even in France against providing free services. Here is the entire key to the issue:
>Bottin Cartographes argued that Google was only planning to give away the service for free until all the competitors had been driven out of business and then they would start charging.
It's not about free services, it's about willfully plotting to gain marketshare via free services with specific intent on charging for the service once the competitors have been driven out. While I believe the French ruling is faulty (where is the proof?), this isn't an issue of free vs paid.
The analogy only works if Wikipedia has specific intent to begin charging for access once your business is gone.
I don't know the specifics of this case, but Google did start charging for Maps last year for commercial users, at least in the US. That may be enough to prove intent?
I have no idea. Like I mentioned, I'd like to see the proof before I believe Google was planning this. Obviously it was enough to convince the courts, but I know courts can be deceived and biased (especially when it's local companies vs foreign companies).
Well, either you did not understand the comment you are replying to, or you believe that Wikipedia will charge for its access. What does make you think such a thing ?
Actually, Wikipedia can't change the license on existing articles to a more restrictive one, as copyright in the articles remains with the mass of editors that wrote them. In fact, they had to get FSF to add a special exemption just for them to an updated version of the GNU FDL so they could add the less-restrictive CC to their set of licenses.
I think the big difference is that Google is using the money from it's monopoly search to artificially subsidize maps below cost. OSM and Wikipedia etc. are doing no such thing.
