Slashdot Mirror
Can Open Source Escape The Apple Horizon?
Meltr writes: "Yahoo has a story about how Apple is using non-GPL'd open source software, making proprietary extensions, and giving nothing back to the community. 'Apple simply found a source of cheap high-quality systems software that it could make its own without needing to give back so much as a bug fix, let alone useful software projects.' Good stuff." Inflammatory, but some of it is hard to deny. On the other hand, there is Darwin on x86 already, and Apple would probably be as happy selling boxes destined to run Yellow Dog Linux as OS X.
However the most interesting parts of OSX are closed source. These are the parts required to develop applications software. These parts are not available, and according to Jobs, will never be available to the Open Source community. Consider this, the old NeXT display postscript and NeXT Step code are still proprietary even though neither technology is currently used by Apple. If one has any illusions that Apple is an Open Source company, one need only to speak to the developers of GNU Step who will greet your query with a hearty laugh. Apple open source? No, don't kid yourself.
Why do you scream bloody murder? BSD Unix was developed at taxpayer expense for the betterment of the technology industry as a whole.
And this is the beauty of the BSD license...truly free software.
Also, Avie Tevanian, the top propellerhead at Apple, coinvented Mach, and in fact. How can he be exploiting himself?
Further, I was under the impression that Apple was returning their improvements to Mach to the community through the Darwin project. Sure, the Apple license isn't ideal, but it's much more free than code hoarded on a server in a locked cage behind a firewall.
Apologies for implying that this was axiomatic. I was just attempting to add a few more reasons for the apparent lack of patches from Apple.
I based the original observation on patches I have sent to maintainers, and the reasons for their rejection make perfect sense from their point of view.
Yeah...Yeah...I know it's flamebait but I'm f*^king tired of people carping about Apple. It's over. Apple lost. Get yourself a Linux box and move on with your life.
What would you think if I told you what RMS has to say about the Freeness(tm) of BSDL?
"This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with no particular problem. It is compatible with the GNU GPL.
I'm seeing the "fast" (yeh right) Java on OS/X one.
The "QuickTime Player" that runs on either Mac OS or Windows is a really small application (requiring less than 10MB of RAM on a Mac) that relies heavily on the QuickTime media layer, which is a major component of Mac OS, and has also been ported to Windows (where it generates revenue). The functionality that actually plays and converts the media formats is in the media layer itself, and is accessible by any application. For example, BBEdit, which is a popular and powerful Mac text editor, can open and play movies and sounds, because it's linked up with QuickTime. Many, many Mac apps feature this functionality, and it's a big part of why I use a Mac. You can almost always open and convert and edit a particular media file.
... MPEG, JPEG, TIFF, AIFF, Flash ... this stuff is well-documented. MPEG-4 is based on the QuickTime file format itself, so that's well-documented, too. Once your player is done, you can use Apple's free, open source QuickTime Streaming Server, on Apple's free, open source Darwin OS, or you can run it on Linux or NT, if you want, because it's been ported by people who had an interest in doing that.
... I know for a fact that they do, and always have, throughout the history of NeXTSTEP/OpenStep/Mac OS X Server/Darwin/Mac OS X (including when it was formerly owned by NeXT). How could a sensible, breathing adult think that Apple would ever fix a bug in BSD and not contribute it back? Do they want to fix that bug again and again as they continue to sync their Unix-layer up with others? For years, Apple's disk utility has included partitioning schemes for various Linux distros. Note the steps it takes to turn a Microsoft PC into a Linux PC, and then note the steps it takes to turn an Apple PC into a Linux PC. Sooooo much easier on the Mac.
... they don't whine about somebody else not giving it away. They don't act like the world+dog owes them something for nothing. They don't point at a market segment that they're not at all involved in and demand that the leading innovator in that market just give all their work away. Linux is so important as the non-commercial side of the computer industry ... it is not an excuse to get the commercial side of the computer industry for free.
Microsoft has been working for years and years to create their own QuickTime-like layer for Windows, and their shit still stinks (in fact, the reason that Video for Windows was end-of-lifed is that it contained stolen QuickTime code). The author of this article, and anyone who demands "free QuickTime" is really just asking Apple to provide a free media layer for Linux. Personally, I think open source enthusiasts, GPL freaks, and Linux people should consider coding their own media layer for Linux. If there is sufficient demand for that, then they will, right? Look at the file formats that QuickTime supports
As for Apple contributing back
Also, consider that Apple developed almost all of the GUI features that we now take for granted, including overlapping windows, pull-down menus, and drag-and-drop. They also pioneered playing movies and audio on PC's, shipping the first CD-ROM drive, in fact. I mean, Microsoft copies Apple, Linux/Gnome/KDE copy Microsoft, and then a Linux guy has the temerity to write an article about how Apple has never done anything for Linux?
Frankly, it's embarrassing to read this article. The level of ignorance is staggering. This guy has no idea what he's talking about. This is the stuff that gives Linux a bad name. True Linux cats build the shit that they need themselves
Apple develops and sells solutions, which thanks to open source software, are now the most-compatible solutions ever offered to a consumer. If you don't like their solutions, build your own, or use Microsoft's closed copies of Apple's solutions. I mean, that's the facts of life.
Us? So how much of your code has Apple used? Apple's only responsibility is to the people who wrote the code they use. And their only responsibility is to comply with the license under which those people released the code. They've done so.
If those people don't like Apple's actions, they should have picked a different license.
But I don't think we're hearing too many complaints from the people who wrote the bulk of the open-source code Apple uses. The bulk of these "Company $foo is screwing the open source community!" whines come from self-appointed representatives of the community who write relatively little significant code, themselves.
That's not off topic, also it's not a flamebait, oh wait, nope not a troll either...looks like it's a _statement of fact_ eek mod that badboy down. It's short and to the point, must be something bad.
well I would hope never - if they did that they would be breaking the law (because there is no way they would then opensource their projects).
:)
:)
I agree with the BSD'ers - Apple chose this way of doing things for exactly those rasons outlined in previous posts. However I am a GPL advocate (practically a zealot) - I think the BSD license has merits; and will be a permenent issue in computing (it's not going away - ever) - and GPL will be viewed as the more daring, but morally acceptable alternative (ie you get by giving).
Just remember all you BSD zealots - we're all part of the Open Source revolution, first we start with computer software - then extend these information gathering and distrobution practices to other matters at hand.....because of projects like OSX, open source is being seen as a real alternative - and that good for everyone.
GPL code is the aim tho guys - for this revolution to really work we must make as much innovative code under a GPL license as possible. So that noone has any choice but to come play on our turf - a truely competitive ground I might add.
Personally I think these software companies (like MS and Apple) aren't going to go the GPL way because they know they can't compete in that market. Their software sucks. They hide their mistakes by making the code in inaccessable.
In the end it is a political game - and BSD is just too damn nice about it all IMHO - but it is a stepping stone
So c'mon - if you can't GPL code - don't - you'll go to jail - but if you can - you should.
Apple stole nothing; they complied with the BSD license, which was meant for these types of uses. They didn't even have to release the Darwin source, but they did. That not only gives Apple good publicity, but It also helps the community of Mac users have a more stable operating system, which is what I think is the true spirit of open source, helping the community, regardless of license. I would think it rather silly for them to open source all their software because one product they released is. They are in business to make money after all.
The development tools are free are they not? So any developer can interface with the closed source components of OS X, only thing stopping them is if they are totally opposed to even interfacing with closed software.
Apple had a historical committment to open source ... back in 1976!
My Apple II came with full source code to the monitor ROM printed in the back of the book.
Since then, they've gone downhill, to say the least.
Specifically, BSD UNIX was funded primarily by US and California taxpayers. The *BSD is Dying troll can give specific numbers of lines-of-code changed between Berkeley 4.4Lite and current versions of *BSD.
There's somewhat of a romantic, but false, image floating around on slashdot about Microsoft/Apple/Sun ripping off the poor open source hacker working in his garage on nights and weekends to release BSD code.
Take a step back and follow the money, and ask yourself what the government's policy intent was.
Get out of hs/college, and clean behind your ears once in awhile, kid.
That's what we need valuable moderator points spent on. A joke that was old 8 months ago spewed by a karma whore.
Come on people. If those fucking moderators spent half their points rating comments with CONTENT, slashdot might still be worth reading.
You repeatedly post this same crap, it repeatedly gets corrected. Classic Macs boot a MacOS stub from ROM. There is no BIOS or bootloader. It's probably damn near impossible to boot any other OS on the system (even AU/X bootstrapped from MacOS).
Besides, in the other thread you say "Run along now, and buy more closed Apple hardware. We know how important your time is." Feel free to follow your own advice.
I want everyone to ask themselves one question.
Why do I program something and then release the code for it?
Possible Answers:
1. So others have the opportunity to learn from it
2. So others have the opportunity to contribute to it
3. So have the opportunity to be innovative and change the way software is written (in a positive effect hopefully)
4. I believe that people should have the opportunity to adapt the code to different platforms
5. I want to improve software quality and others to utilize this fact
6. I don't program.. but uhh.. GPL RULES!
7.
Apple isn't stabbing anyone in the back. Apple did Unix a favour. Literally, Apple has completed something miraculous which I believe should have been done long time ago. With one stroke, Unix was given a new look, a new feel, a new personality and tons of potential. What have they given back? They have brought Unix to the MASSES. Your mother and father, sister and brother. I've heard these promises from other variants and after all these years, nothing. Apple did what the rest of us couldn't. They've given back plenty. We should be saying thank you and taking a lead from them.
They didn't release their source code? Yes they did. Whatever they borrowed they gave. Sure they didn't give you the GUI. Ahh too bad. Listen, seriously sit down and ask yourself why you release source code. If it isn't to further progress and innovation then you are a hypocrite. All everyone is whining about really is not, oh they should be releasing the source, but really, why am I not getting credit, why is X not getting credit or its name proclaimed. Give it up. The problem is *YOU* not Apple.
So ask yourself, why do I release source code?
I know why I do.
To innovate and feed the mouth of progress.
Sure I may not get credit if someone uses my code. But you know what, I know its there, and I am content enough just knowing that I contributed.
Apple has provided the industry with a window of opportunity. Don't fuck it up like always.
The story's rife with errors; most of them have already been covered, so I won't elaborate on them. However, there's one particularly glaring one: the author implies that Apple uses BSD-licensed code exclusively, and thus is not required to open its modifications. What compiler does the author believe ships with Mac OS X?
Amazing--it's GCC! And even more amazing still, it's GPL'd! Apple has already fulfilled its legal obligation to make publicly available its modifications to GCC under the GPL. Moreover, it is continually working on merging its changes back into GCC 3 and assigning the copyright to the FSF. This is a boon to Apple's customers (eventually being able to build the official GCC 3 "out of the box"), but even more importantly, other platforms like LinuxPPC and GNUstep will be able to use Apple's AltiVec auto-vectorization and improved Obojective C support out of the box as well. This is truly beneficial to the community at large (e.g. non-Apple customers and Darwin users).
ZDNet's home for the piece:
Enjoy!-Andrew
- A.P.
--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
No-one forces you to use the GPL code. To paraphrase Linus, I'm not really impressed by arguments to the effect of, "mommy, the bad man won't let me steal from him".
What next, arguing that if you're a millionaire, stealing fifty bucks from someone shouldn't count because you didn't steal much relative to your own fortune?
Yeah, the story is really one-sided. They're basically saying, that because Apple doesn't open -everything- it doesn't matter if they open anything. In the case of the Sorenson codec, or much of QuickTime, there are licensing issues that make open-sourcing anything very difficult. Apple voluntarily makes its changes to BSD licensed software in Darwin available, they don't have to. And of course when they modify and enhance GPL'ed software such as gcc, they have their changes publically accessible too, as they must.
:-). These kinds of articles are just blatant grabs for readers.
I really wish ZDNet would disappear into the ground (and yes, I know people who work there, and they mostly feel the same way
--
This seems factually incorrect. They've given back code to FreeBSD. While it's certainly true that Apple isn't "all open-source, all the time," that's different from the claims made in the article. Where they've taken BSD code, they've given back code.
Some of what the author said is true, but not under the guise he presents it. It's FUD.
--Matthew
Hmm, what license is gcc under? The GPL? and what did they do to their Objective C modifications to gcc? Release them?
Yeah, because they had to. Way back in the early days of NeXT, the ObjectiveC compiler that was developed at NeXT, based heavily on GCC, had to be (iirc) wrested from their hands, in effect - they were forced to release it, because of the fact that they did base it so heavily on GCC, using much of the code right out of the GCC codebase. NeXT kinda messed up there - so Steve Jobs and friends already know better than to try that again.
What they didn't release was the code to Aqua, which was totally propietary.
No kidding - Quartz is mostly based upon PDF and Display Postscript code licensed from Adobe. Releasing that would run afoul of the terms they licensed the code under (just like NeXT tried to do with their ObjectiveC compiler, way back in the day, but got nailed on).
Apple can't release the Sorenson codec because they don't own it.
No, but according to Sorenson, Apple has some kind of exclusive arrangement such that Sorenson can't release the source to their codec to anyone else without Apple's approval.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Despite borrowing heavily from FreeBSD, MacOS still manages to suck. When sitting in front of one, I don't go "Wow! The UNIXness of the system really makes it shine!", I say "God, this wouldn't suck so bad if they hadn't fucked this part up."
The only thing Apple using open source code does is validate the viability of it for some people, but you run the risk of devaluing it when the uninitiated see how much OS X sucks. Perhaps it can be spun into a negative since Apple still has a closed source mentality.
The BSD licenses are set up so that Apple doesn't have to contribute a damned thing back to the user community. Why are you suprised? Perhaps they even dropped mklinux because of this? Who knows? Who really cares?
Why didn't anyone cry foul when BSDi took BSD and closed sourcified it? BSD/OS happily included each and every security update that was applied to Free/Open/Net-BSD, yet kept all of their own changes to themselves. The licenses endorse this. Apple's not the first one to do it.
Sure, legally, they're safe, but they're still assholes. Not that it matters, I don't see myself depending on MacOS X ever. Thankfully.
Don Negro
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
Let's see, he misunderstood the basic issues, didn't bother to check the facts, and let his own politics dictate the solution. Hmm, why *is* this on Yahoo instead of Salon?
Apple drew Darwin heavily from NetBSD (though it's now intended to sync with FreeBSD). As even a little bit of fact checking would show, Apple sent back massive number of bug fixes. They weren't requried to do this, but they did.
The writer's complaint isn't that apple doesn't contribute back to open source, but that it doesn't turn over *all* of its projects, and fails to use the Holy GPL.
hawk
The very day that Apple started tooting it's own horn about being Open was also the same day they shrouded the first STAR WARS I trailer in vendorlock.
On slashdot that day, the corresponding articles were nearly next to each other.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"Apple speaks with forked tongue"
That's simply all there is to it. While the right hand is trying to appear warm and furry, the other has an iron gauntlet on it and is slapping us silly.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The harm that Apple's continued perpetuation of vendorlock is far greater than what meagre part of MacOS 10 has been opened. The genuinely interesting parts of MacOS 10 are still closed.
The Apple grade in this area is more like D.
It's better than failing, but only minimally so.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
...except this rarely ends up being the case.
Usually in software, it is the network effects that determine what you can buy. It is those networks effects that determine what can survive in the marketplace.
Apple's actions pose an active market barrier to anyone trying to offer something better than MacOS or WinDOS. These practices cause far more harm than the meagre benefits of their Darwin source releases.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
No, there's nothing keeping a more proprietary entity from releasing something like NeXTstep with a L/GPLed core. The line between your work and someone else's is quite easy to see. It's quite easy to limit your "liability".
Component reuse is supposed to be something taught to young computer scientists. Such practices are all that is required to prevent your company from being forced to give away it's crown jewels.
Comments like yours do nothing more than perpetuate misinformation. This is amply demonstrated by little things like Oracle 9i.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
AMD actually releases interesting software for Linux, including simulators for their new 64bit microprocessor family.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
...except the NT IP stack doesn't represent a "reference design". It represents "embrace and extend". MS took it for free as if it were some sort of corporate welfare and then MANGLED it.
OTOH, if that library were under an FSF licence it would TRUELY be a reference implementation.
It wouldn't merely be masquerading as one.
Either that, or Microsoft would have had to have paid for it's own embrace and extend.
Sockets is actually the perfect example of something that could be perfectly palatable to the common corporation implemented as Free Software (LGPL).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
This has little to do with armchair lawyers and dubious legal advice. What it does have to do with however is the effect of what Apple Corp does as a whole and the spirit of those actions.
A Robber Baron may toss dimes from his limosine but he is still a Robber Baron. Licences are irrelevant here. Apple is simply engaging in Microsoft-esque behaivor that undermines replaceability in consumer computing.
The fact that it is legal doesn't mean that it is in the best interest of the market as a whole.
Some of us have been criticing these dimes, for the hypocrisy that they are, from day one.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I think the best way to deal with this possible treat is to send feedback to Apple, asking them politely to port, or even better, free QuickTime.
As for Darwin, right now they are contributing back, worst thing that might happen is that they will stop. In that case, as far as I understand, we could fork Darwin and have an open version vs Apple version, right ?
Opinions are mine only and could change without notice.
Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
Well, even though I agree with you that Apple is unlikely to ever do this, I would hope that Apple had enough sense to pre-package something OTHER than YDL with their boxen, if they ever did try to do that...
TerraSoft and its founder has about as much interest in the prosperity of "the community" as Apple does... which (unfortunately) probably means that Apple would approach TS before LinuxPPC, etc. to put YDL on their hardware, being like-minded and all...
All in all, it could add up to some serious badness (tm) for us...
http://openquicktime.sourceforge.net
GPL.
---
Live Long & Prosper \\//_
CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
---
Live Long & Prosper \\//_
CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
Jedi & Last *-fytr
"I'd just ask you to sit back for a moment and examine this statement. In what way has Unix been 'brought' to the masses? Normal OSX users are using a GUI which is abstracted far, far away from the Darwin core. Since they're not using any bits of the system that really make it Unix, why should anyone care?"
Um, I think you're the one who needs to take a long hard look at what you're saying. It's a circular argument: "Apple hasn't brought Unix to the masses, because they haven't forced the masses to become the elite".
"They're not using a network-transparent GUI, nor a system which runs useful daemons, nor are they using the componentisation, string manipulation tools, plaintext configuration tools nor any of the rest of it."
All of those things are available to OS X users who chose to work that way. "The masses" can even run useful daemons, like httpd, ftpd, ssh etc. with GUI front-ends. Everything else is available through the CLI.
"Sure, you might get the ability to run some Unix programs. Cygwin will give you that."
You really seem to have misunderstood what OS X is. It is Unix, and potentially any Unix program can be made run on it. My web development Mac can now not only run Photoshop, Dreamweaver etc., but Apache, PHP, MySQL, Perl etc. etc. This is really very significant for me, and for thousands of others.
"Apple is posturing themselves as a good-guy open source company. They are not. There are several things they could be doing which would greatly help the open-source community, such as releasing the code to Quicktime or their True-Type font technology."
The point the article missed is that Apple are playing the Open Source game, when it comes to those projects with an OSS heritage. As mentioned in many previous posts, Apple has contributed a slew of code, bug fixes, tweaks etc. during the development of Darwin/OS X, and more is likely to come. For the author of the article, however, this is not good enough. In order to play the OSS game by his rules, Apple not only have to contribute to those projects from which it has benefited, it has to be willing to open all of its projects to the OSS world.
In my view, this is extremely unhelpful to the Open Source movement. Why should a company like Apple get involved in the OSS community, if their only reward is to be derided for still maintaining some closed-source projects? Quicktime and True-Type were never open-source projects, and they bear no relation to the code Apple is using under the BSD license. There is no legal or even moral requirement for Apple as a company to become an entirely open-source house just because they make use of community projects.
There are other issues around this which could be the subject of valid debate, such as Apple's use of their own source license, but these are ignored by this article, in favour of this misleading attempt to shame Apple into opening up other projects.
As to Apple "posturing as a good-guy open source company", they have certainly trumpeting the fact that OS X is based on the "open source" Darwin core. However, I don't believe they have ever suggested that they are now an open source company. You won't see the term "open source" bandied about in relation to Final Cut Pro, AppleWorks, DVD Studio Pro, or any of the dozens of closed-source software projects Apple maintain.
Funny... I could have sworn the Linux had support for both AppleTalk and HFS/HFS+ before Darwin.
Yep. But never before with Apple-original and -maintained code.
It's easier to mesh with the original code, in many cases, than it is to try to keep up when the underlying stuff changed and be forced to guess from an otherwise closed source.
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
Check out the Darwin site: it lists two major contribution to the open source movement: Darwin Streaming Server and OpenPlay & NetSprocket.
The former is a QuickTime streaming server, and the later pair is a set of toolkits to aid in multi-player gaming accross the net.
Both could proffit other platforms, such as Linux.
Apart from that, the Darwin code itself includes all the code you'd like to have to manage HFS and HFS+ partitions, AppleTalk & AppleShare networking, and a slew of other bits and peices that could also benefit Linux and other OSes.
Sure, Apple wont open source Quartz. But it too needs to turn in a dollar once in a while.
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
Apple should do that as we have helped sell a lot of Apple hardware, and we have helped keep older Apple hardware in use, even when company mandates have said that the unit should be moved to /dev/null.
Apple's hardware guys love us; their software guys are often a wholly different story.
Haaz: Co-founder, LinuxPPC Inc., making Linux for PowerPC since 1996.
-- haaz.
Dunno
I think "egodammed" could be a new concept..
Cue man huddled in corner wearing the ragged remains of an expensive armani suit, Italian shoes with holes in the soles and a placard with 'unfashionable and homeless' scrawled upon it with the dieing ink from a Mont Blanc pen....
Girl asks her dad as they walk by "what happened to the lawyer, daddy?"
"he's been ego-dammed"
Troc
Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
Apple has never mandated that machines be obsoleted. In fact, they give away, for free early versions of the OS that keep, say, 68K Macs running. Features released with newer OS versions are also often available, free, as add ons for older OSes: OT, QT, NavServices, DragManager etc... Apple has done a much better job at keeping older machines useful than the Wintel conspiracy.
-Simon
1. QuickTime. QTSS is open source. Write your own. Sorenson is marvellous. The company that developed and owns the codec deserves to make money from it. APPLE LICENSES Sorensen. ALONG WITH MOST OTHER CODECS QT uses !!! (This was classic Be FUD. I once met JL Gassee, he was bitching to me that Apple wanted $1m to port QT player to Be. Sheesh, that's cheap, but Be damn well knew that wouldn't be much use without the third party Codecs - they did get Cinepak ported, and had a player.)
2. TrueType. Microsoft and Apple own patents on this technology. DOES THIS ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ?
So what's left of substance in this article?
-Simon
An overview that includes "XFree86-style" software in the "free software" category:
This says that, err, umm, according to the overview of categories of software, somebody can take Free Software, modify it, distribute it, and keep the changes secret. (Anybody who believes otherwise either has not read, or does not understand, the "overview of categories of software" page in question.)
Uh, actually, SunOS 5.x has a STREAMS-based Internet protocol stack from Mentat, not BSD, as far as I know. Earlier SunOSes had the BSD stack.
As for Windows, do you have any evidence to support your assertion that it uses the BSD stack?
Now that is just being stupid. I would like you to point out a single example where MicroSoft allowed anybody to use their source code in a closed-source product without returning something to MicroSoft.
Too many ignorant people don't realize that code can be released under multiple licenses. Therefore, if I write some GPL code, I may be willing to sell it to you for a price for use in your closed-source product. You can also take the GPL code and use it in an open-source product. As far as I can tell this means you can do more with the GPL code than you can with any MicroSoft code.
And don't go saying the code examples in the MicroSoft manuals are free of any encumberances. So are the code examples provided with GCC! Boy can people be thick sometimes...
Can you give an example of a product (ie sold for money, or considered of significant added value when bundled with Windows) made by MicroSoft where they allow you to use the source code in your own product where you are not required to return some compensation to MicroSoft.
PS: in case you are wondering, I don't consider the GPL all that great. I have used the LGPL for my code, but I am changing it to specifically allow static-linked closed source executables, because I believe that the GPL's prevention of closed-source products is a detriment to it's use and adoption. However I don't think people should say obviously stupid things like "MicroSoft's software is more free" as it harms any kind of meaningful discussion.
Again, please give an example of SOURCE CODE for a PRODUCT and stop trying to change the rules to weasel out of this!
I do think people saying things as stupid as you did hurt any attempt to have a reasonable attempt to argue against the GPL. I myself am having trouble with the GPL but we need logical arguments to suggest there may be alternatives. Spewing stuff about "the GPL is not free" is like calling people communists or nazis, or calling everybody at MicroSoft evil. It does not convince anybody and makes you look like a fool.
Ah.
Most companies can't be bothered to make their web site render properly on all browsers and platforms, let alone changing CODECs to accomodate alternative operating systems.
As well, this new CODEC would have to start shipping on Mac and Wintel boxes for your argument to hold. Fat chance of that happening, eh.
Except that most files out there are encoded with the Sorenson CODEC, so even if we had our own, we're still locked out of most/all content out there.
Let's face it - Apple has no commercial interest in allowing Linux users to view Sorenson-encoded AVIs, so it won't allow Sorenson to license it out to anyone else (that's my understanding of the situation, according to the Xanim site). And since commercial entities are incapable of altruism, it's a moot point to discuss it further.
But writing "our own" wouldn't suddenly make CNN start using it or whatever...
errr... What? I've worked with the BSD code and I've worked with the IOS code. I'm having a really hard time connecting these dots. Are you sure about this?
>It's actaully a good idea for something as protocol-driven as that to come out of a single code base.
Haha. Yeah, then what would we need standards for anymore, everything will interop! Yeah!
-- dieman - Scott Dier
Hate to break it to you, but Visicalc was not a M$ product. M$, at the time, was only really doing languages.
Visicalc was a VisiCorp product. I remember, because I did my comic book collection in it on my 80 character Franklin 1200 with built-in shift-key modification and dual floppy...
Your Working Boy,
- Otis (GAIM: OtisWild)
My impressions of OSX 10.0.2 on a G4 Cube 500MHz/512MB:
I like OSX, I think it's pretty cool and it shows a lot of potential once carbon (and cocoa!!!) apps show up. I would not, however, put it on my mom's iMac. That will not happen until there is NO NEED for a shell window, which is not yet true.
Your Working Boy,
- Otis (GAIM: OtisWild)
then why not, if I might ask, provide a binary-only module for XAnim? Even if you have to download it from Apple or Sorensen directly?
XAnim is modular now, and can use binary-only shared libs.
Your Working Boy,
- Otis (GAIM: OtisWild)
Hehe, play a QT movie then shrink it to the dock.. It keeps playing! Chromasweet!
Your Working Boy,
- Otis (GAIM: OtisWild)
The real reason Jobs would never ship YDL is that its look and feel is terrible, not up to Apple's standards.
http://www.opensource.apple.com/tools/cvs/
Seems to me Apple is doing what it can with the resources it has available to it at this time. Apple must first answer to its stockholders - not, as much as some would like, to the opensource community. I mean jeeze, they just got X out the door. The framework is there for them to give back - and they seem to be headed in that direction. Just not as quickly as some might like apparently.
http://windows.scares.us
the BSD license, like it or not, is truly a 100% free license.
So, no, Apple are not doing anything wrong, but I wouldn't want them using the code I write in that manner. Hence the GPL/LGPL suits me fine in most circumstances.
Go you big red fire engine!
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Can't see a problem here for the community.
It just means that when we move forward they have to recode and diff to keep up. Tough.
When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
From my perspective as a long-term reader of the FreeBSD developer mailing lists, it doesn't seem to me that Apple has anything to apologize for. The people who work on FreeBSD understand that their code is available for anyone to use for any purpose, and none of them seem peeved at Apple's actions. One of FreeBSD's core team members even works on Darwin as well.
Apple has a policy of submitting as many changes as possible "upstream" to the open-source projects that they include in Darwin. If that's not good citizenship, what is?
Also, as an aside, they have open-sourced the Darwin Streaming Server.
--
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
1) do not coincide with the maintainers vision, or 2) are not worth the maintainers time to merge in, as PPC has traditionally been a second-class target.
Where do you get your facts from? This strikes of an Apple apologist. I just don't believe for a second that Apple has been trying hard to give back to the community, but the community won't have anything to do with them because of the maintainers tremendous egos. What a crock.
I maybe wrong, cite your sources.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
our benefit will be the applications that are ported from osx over to linux/bsd.
{sarcasm} Yes, we'll finally get what's coming to us when all of those non-Aqua applications that Apple's writing are ported over to the free oses... {/sarcasm}
I suppose programs will be written by OSX developers that are given back to the community, but I don't see Apple contributing much to the cause. I suppose it'd be wise to port XFree86, GTK+, GNOME, KDE, and QT first, to make it easier for developers to develop with cross-platform portability in mind.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Weren't IBM mandated to publish their hardware specs because of an anti-trust case a few years earlier?
So while you're screaming bloody murder, the people who wrote the BSD licenced code are wondering what the hell you're screaming about.
The open source community didn't write BSD UNIX or Mach. Individual programmers, and the institutions that funded or supported their work, created that software. It is their choice as to how to license and distribute the software. The so-called open source community has no standing to complain about how other people use that software.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
My first Linux distro was from Apple and released under the GPL (MkLinux), so the author is way wrong about not giving back. If it weren't for their doing that, I would never have been able to learn linux (for lack of an x86 box) for several more years. There have been times in Apple's history where they were releasing more versions of Unix for their hardware than MacOS. Apple's tech honcho (Avie T.) was one of the guys who helped INVENT mach, he should certainly be afforded to use his own work, and rightfully, thanks to the Open Source license it's released under, it's legal to do so.
MPEG-4's file format is based on QuickTime 3, they had to fight tooth and nail to get their open format used for that standard as opposed to Microsoft's. The only thing stopping a GPL'd quicktime player is the 3rd parties which own the codec's. As a matter of fact, I think there ARE QuickTime players for Linux. If the codec owners would release maybe a decode only version for GPL'd OS's maybe under the LGPL, then we'd have a complete QuickTime player on good terms. It's mostly out of Apple's hands.
Anybody can download and have their way with Darwin. There are parts of NuKernel in OS X, which until Darwin, were proprietary. In fact, Darwin Streaming Server (rtp/rtsp) is free (beer and speech) for streaming your media, where Real charges you. Imagine that, a corporation making you pay to speak, we don't see our author complaining about that.
I would have to agree that this article is malicious flaimbait. This is one instance in which I would support Apple's team of evil lawyers filing a libel suit. The article is ill-informed and accuses the company of deceptive trade practices ("Big Lie"...isn't that what Hitler called propaganda?). It is clearly designed to damage the company's reputation and it's appalling to see it come from a professional news outlet.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
Bring Apple to court for what fucko? Acting within the legal bounds of the BSD license? Yeah, I don't think people will laugh at how stupid you just made yourself look.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
So...Yahoo is trying to do what? Show the world they spent their remedial reading classes masturbating to pictures in their anatomy textbooks? The code they used was NOT under the GPL and they never said they were going to join your fucking software communist ranks. I'm tired reading you fuckos whining about Quicktime codecs not being open sourced. Apple licenses the Sorensen codec and therefore CANNOT RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE TO IT. Besides the fact they fucking sell it making the free code to the codec in direct competition to themselves. It would cost alot of fucking money porting Quicktime in its entirety to X and your thousand fucking configurations of it. It cost them enough money to port Quicktime to Windows which they had to do because Windows was a prominent platform that lots of potential customers use. Even then the port was fairly rough. If you want to license shit fucking pay for it you whining commie bastards. Microsoft licensed TrueType from Apple and thus gets to use it all they want, do the same and you can to. Put your money where you whining fucking mouths are.
Apple had a great reason for opening the source of the Darwin kernel, it gave them some hype before Aqua came out to wow the public. It had the side effect of attracting alot of developer support since they could now learn about the kernel from the kernel. Apple never said they were going to be the new Linux mascot. Theres no reason for them economically to give code back to the "community", like a signifigant portion of you even fucking worked on any version of the Mach kernel. If you want support pay some money (ah yes that great fiend money!) and join the ADC and talk to the developers themselves. Fuuuuuuck Linux.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
It might be, though - after all, it could just be bad hardware.
Don't be silly - Apple is a hardware company - they'll just start selling yMacs, preloaded with Yellow Dog Linux, and with a cool yellow dog logo on the side, for $100 more.
And there'll be Apple Linux Developer conferences...
So, um, is anyone going to try to reinforce the GPL license in court, or, as usual and as expected by Apple, are we going to march around protesting but do jack shit? Be honest. I'd like to see the programmer / company with the balls to bring Apple to court over this. People complain that the GPL has never been proven in court - now's a golden opportunity. So, all you zealots and ragers, time to put those oh-so-eloquent big words to the test and aswer the question: do you have the balls?
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit. -- Robert Anton Wilson
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit. -- Robert Anton Wilson
jdube is who
From reading the article, Apple appears to be morally bankrupt in this case, but well within their legal rights. Yes, it is an asshole thing to do, to take something people have worked openly and freely on, given freely without restriction, then not repay them with like generosity. But an the other hand, these same developers who are being "abused" released their code with licensing terms that make this sort of code grab perfectly legal and perfectly hunky-dory with said developers. It is the rest of the community that is getting supicious, and with good cause. When given the chance to do what is widely perceived as the "Right Thing To Do" in the "GPL" community, Apple has behaved as a grasping, lurker-not-a-participant the-end-justifies-the-means corporate entity.
As read in the article, Apples support of Open Source appears to be a 1-way street, which will piss off people, but again, Apple is does not appear to be violating licenses. Just the trust they have been asking for.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
This argument is dumb. It would be like saying, "Those evil loggers who chop down trees breathe oxygen released by trees! Those trees should stop giving oxygen to loggers." How do you plan to keep companies from using Free code (I don't consider the GPL free, as it has a licence far more restrictive than anything Microsoft has ever dreamed up) and make them give something back? In fact, doesn't the idea of forcing someone give something back to the community violate the whole concept of free-ness?
And what about all those people who have installed Linux and aren't giving stuff back to the community? I bet one or two of them have been making money at it, like those evil Google people! I haven't seen Linux patches from Google lately! Those evil, evil CAPITALISTS!
-jon
Remember Amalek.
or at least the FSF approved licenses.
BSD code is very attractive to businesses for precisely this reason. People want to leverage free software without giving anything back. The best way to fight is to put out high-quality killer apps under the GPL. Then, if companies want to incorporate it, they have to play ball.
to mail me, first remove the evil spam.
By the logic on competing in the 'great game'... You'd expect Apple to port that stuff to Linux (or allow it to be done) in an instant. But you'd also expect them to handicap the windows client. That way it'd be the dominant streaming video platform for non-MS platforms. (People may not love QT, but they hate Real.)
Apple could easily release QT and TT, etc, without being sued by shareholders. If the shareholders have sat through their real blunders they'd go for a goodwill building exercise. After all, that's the only reason Apple is alive - the goodwill of diehard users.
As an active contributer to Darwin (I have cvs commit access), I would just like to say I think the article is silly and inane. Apple attempts to give back all of its updates upstream, it makes their life simpler. Sometimes it doesn't quite work out immediately, but it generally does).
The general policy, as far I can tell, is to keep everything under the originating license. The one excpetion to this was when the released the original kernel code they put an APSL on everything, just in case. If you want some changes Apple made to a file that did not originate at Apple, but is under APSL, ask, they will probably relicense it.
When I committed a bunch of code from FreeBSD into the kernel recently, I asked, and was specificly told to leave it under the original BSD license.
Apple tend to contribute to the projects it takes from.
Louis
(On a side note, while I do not currently work for them, I have accepted a job offer from Apple. I have been involved with their Open Source development since well before this occured, but I figured I would be entirely open about).
Hey, the article mentions the possibility of Sorenson BINARIES. Nobody's expecting Apple to open-source TrueType and Quicktime. Evan's beef is they won't even let US do it.
Wow. Really? You're going to ignore Apple until they clean up their act? Wow. Once Steve Jobs hears that metatruk is ignoring Apple, he'll undoubtedly re-release all of Apple's products under the GPL. Being ignored by the righteous metatruk would, after all, simply be too much to bear.
READ THE THREAD ALREADY. APPLE HAS GIVEN BACK BSD AND GCC BUGFIXES, UPDATES, AND A COUPLE OF LARGE-SCALE PROJECTS, INCLUDING THEIR CORE OS. THEY ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO DO ANY OF THIS, BY THE BSD LICENSE. GET A CLUE.
People who write software and release it under the BSD license expect that it can be used by anyone. That is intent of that license.
If the author's wanted it to be GPL they would release it under GPL.
It still behooves Apple to feed improvements back upstream to simplify merging with the next upstream release. Its too soon for that with OS-X, maybe in a couple of months when they can stop and breath.
PS. I don't see any Open Source software written or maintained by Evan Leibovitch. Maybe he has, I didn't look too long.
Perhaps they have not yet had the joy of dealing with the bits of embrace and extend that Microsoft added to their work. Perhaps they haven't notice yet that Microsoft took their nice standards and perverted them.
And which 'standards' did Microsoft take BSD code from and 'pervert'?
They released it under the BSD license. As far as they're concerned, you can wipe your ass with it for all they care -- as long as you keep that copyright notice in there.
This is what's known as *true* Free Software. Software with no viral stipulations. Software that is altruistically given to the community in its *entirety* with no demands that anything be given back.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Actually, no, they didn't pay in Apple stock.
Steve Jobs *allowed* Xerox to invest $1.6MM in Apple in *return for which* he got the red-carpet tour.
Xerox divested their interest in Apple before Apple went public, and as a result didn't get anything out of the deal.
Try reading:
Fumbling The Future
Dealers in Lightning
... if you want the real story, as garnered by interviewing Xerox employees.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
It is the BSD license, it is perfectly legal. Everyone already knows that MS uses BSD code, and that is perfectly legal as well. The problem is the BSD license, which allows them to do it in the first place.
I don't like Apple or MS, but there is nothing to scream bloody murder about here. The BSD license allows these leaches to take their code, modify it and charge for it without giving a single dime back to the community.
So let's see... just because the BSD folks wanted it to be that people could use their stuff with no conditions other than a credit, you're saying that the BSD license has a problem?
What about their wishes? Don't they count for anything?
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
The BSD licenses have been around forever, and have been used forever to push good technology into the hands of corporations. How do you think Sun got started? By a couple of Berkely students that took the BSD code, made some modifications, and released them binary. What about the BSD tcp stack, which half of the internet uses? What about cisco IOS, which has a BSD base (altho it's pretty obscured nowdays)? What about all the vendors who sell black-box hardware (nokia firewall-1, etc) which are based on BSDi, which is just FreeBSD with some additional drivers and some other stuff like different SMP support? BSDi "steals" technology from FreeBSD and sells it to other people, and are the FreeBSD developers crying foul? Of course not, if they were really pissed they'd just start writing a GPL'd OS. What about all of the people selling Apache-based web servers? The developers who choose to release their code under BSD-style licenses do so EXPECTING that corporations will take that code, modify it and integrate it into a product, and release it binary only. Ce la vie. Grow up.
I am the king... of No Pants! www.penny-arcade.com
Apple's actions are completely compatable with the "Open Source" community. If people don't like that, perhaps those people should be a part of the "Free Software" community instead.
I did, in fact, read the article. The point is that Apple is acting fully within the scope of the licenses they're using. They're participating fully in the Open Source movement. Further, the bit about apple not contributing back changes to Mach is just plain wrong; Darwin is available under the APSL. Nothing about Open Source requires you to give back your changes, but Apple is choosing to do so. They're not doing so by releasing their results under the BSD license because they don't have to. People who find this frustrating should understand that it's at the core of the difference between Open Source and Free Software.
i'm an american and i understand. i really dont see what the big deals is either.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
Apple is contributing its whole installed base. Soon, the pre-installed OS on all iMacs will be a BSD. That's quite a contribution! Imagine Dell pre-installing Linux on all boxes, would people complain "Ah, yes, but you can also run Windows on the machine, so Dell is violating the Open Source spirit"?
They are even giving away development tools, just in case you'd want to write something cool... How many big shops develop for MacOS, which now will have an incentive to improve this (gcc) compiler, accelerate this (BSD) networking stack, make that PC client (Samba) easier to use?
And this is in addition to all the contributions other pointed out (Quicktime except Sorenson, Quicktime server, Darwin fixes, NetInfo, etc)
-- Did you try Tao3D? http://tao3d.sourceforge.net
you are a gem man!
good fortune unto the true heart of GPL.
Okay, Apple uses an open source base OS (Darwin), which is based on BSD on Mach. They contribute their bugfixes back to the BSD crowd, which benefit them just as well as they benefit Apple.
Evan Leibowitch seems to think that by using open source software for the basis of their core OS somehow obligates Apple to open TrueType and QuickTime? When has Apple ever said that they would do that?
This ZD article has to be the toastiest flamebait I've read in a while. "Hey kids, all of a sudden Apple is raping open source, because they won't hand over the font and multimedia technology they never promised!"
< tofuhead >
--
It is still the dark of night.
For all who want to share additional facts and information (please aim your flame throwers elsewhere) you can email the writer here: evan@starnix.com
Sig-"Out beyond fields of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there." Jelaluddin Rumi
That darn Apple, still surviving after all those years - and so many said it'd be dead by 1985. Why isn't Apple long gone?
Here's why.
Apple survives only because they stole the good stuff from { Xerox PARC | Open Source Programmers | MIT | the Amiga | Bill Gates | Their Customers | Their dealers }.
'Apple simply found a source
of cheap high-quality systems software that it could make its
own without needing to give back so much as a bug fix, let
alone useful software projects.'
Well, that proves the BSD license does what it set out to do: make high-quality code widely used, thus setting a higher standard for all.
(8-DCS)
-1, Flamebait.
-- "so let us not talk falsely now / the hour is getting late"
BSD code in Windows 2000? How about BSD code in Windows 95's MS DUN 1.3??? take a look at the ile attributes for the winsock dll's:
08/14/98 04:12p 42,480 winsock.dll 4.00.1114 BSD Socket API for Windows
08/14/98 04:12p 66,560 wsock32.dll 4.00.1114 BSD Socket API for Windows
Every rule has an exception, and this is the only rule with no exceptions! Huh? -- Spatch
Every rule has an exception, and this is the only rule with no exceptions! Huh? -- Spatch
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
too true. How many times have we heard: xyz company released abc product open source, how come they havn't released everything open source!? followed shortly by sobs and whimpering. I dont know, maybe it has something to do with making money?
How we know is more important than what we know.
seems kind of hypocritical to threaten someone with the force of the state to forward the cause of freedom.
How we know is more important than what we know.
yawn.. if it is bad hardware then it is not my code causing the problem now is it?
How we know is more important than what we know.
as I think it has been mentioned a dozen times already, everybody uses the BSD tcp/ip stack.. If you need some specific functionality in your product and you can get it for free, why wouldn't you go and grab it.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Perhaps one day you will learn that insulting people is not a way of talking to them. Now fuck off and take your stupid opinion with you. Fuckwit.
How we know is more important than what we know.
See this is the second time that someone has posted the exact same retort, I will respond. Quicktime is Apple's baby. It is considered one of their best pieces of IP. To a lesser extent, so is TrueType (being the essence of their desktop publishing market hold). To give these technologies away or otherwise weaken their hold on them would be detrimental to their overall business strategy and the person responsible would be strung up by their shareholders. Frankly, I find it scary that QT for windows exists.
How we know is more important than what we know.
They cant let you do it. TrueType and Quicktime are listed on their balance sheet as IP. Failing to defend their Patents and/or Copyright of this IP would not be in the interests of profit.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I stand corrected, in the case of TrueType they're just cunts.
How we know is more important than what we know.
personally I want my software to work. I want the software that is running the web servers to which I connect to work. I want the software which runs my bank and my car and my coke machine to work and I know that not all of these systems are going to be open source. So if I write the best damned solenoid control software available and make sure everyone can use it, I'll be able to walk past someone banging the side of a coke machine for five minutes and say "well, it aint my code!"
How we know is more important than what we know.
Here's the open sourced Darwin Streaming Server, based on Quicktime Streaming Server: http://www.opensource.apple.com//projects/streamin g/
--GnrcMan--
Sure it would, if it were as good as or better than Sorenson. If CNN has a zero-cost alternative to Sorenson that would be accessible to more customers, of course they'd use it.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Have you actually used Mac OS X? If you're not a Unix geek, it works very much like Mac OS 9, except applications multitask much better and the OS doesn't crash. "Unix" does not have to mean "unusable by mortals".
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
The real problem is that Apple supporters would come back and flaim open source OSes.
As we all know, Apple fans traditionally consider everything other than Mac stuffs are inferior. Regardless of the past court cases, Apple threatens open source community with thier "look and feel" creations. Unfortunately most Mac people are not technically oriented to realize that UNIX, what they called "inferior OS" is the base of thier new Mac operating system.
This really piss me off. I mean, I know BSD license have no problem with Apple using thier code. We don't care if Apple is free loading UNIX code, but will Apple fans PLEASE stop coming at us and telling me how inferior UNIX is? UNIX people don't deserve this.
Unfortunately, if you look at the struggle Apple had with Microsoft in the 80s, you will find that merit does not always win the battle. Apple has been stung by this before and are not likely to loosen their grip anytime soon.
"There's one born every minute." - Steve Case
Apple is bad because they are using the code the way it is designed to be used?
The creators of the code obviously wanted the code to be used by other people, otherwise it would not have been released under an open source license.
The creators of the code obviously were not terribly concerned with people releasing the code back to the community, or they would have released the code under a more restrictive license.
Get a grip.
Need a Catering Connection
We, as a community, would want "free software" to be availible to anyone for any use. That brings along with it the problem of people just using the software the community has created without giving much back. That is the price of our ideas.
Let me reiterate our position.
``Free software'' refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.
This doesn't mean they are REQUIRED to do these things with thier own code however. Apple has the freedom to use the code however they like.
Apple is just reaping the benifits of our philosophy. If we disagree with them, that is our right. If apple wishes to be code-mongers that is their right as well.
I've talked to many people who have tried Linux, but far fewer of them actually get stuff done on it. Go to a Linux trade convention, look at the laptops- a fairly large portion of them are running Windows (and they've always got a great excuse about incompatiblities or whatnot)
I also wonder why people don't realize that they have indeed contributed back: Darwin.
-bugg
"All the software is written in ObjectiveC as it came from NeXT... who wrote the ObjectiveC support you'll now find in GCC and GDB".
Yes Jobs gave that to the community after he was threatened with a lawsuit which he knew he would lose. How generous.
> Apple has always been a company of closed software and closed hardware.
:)
No it hasn't been. Steve Wozniak was GIVING away schematics for his (at the time - new) computer!
http://www.woz.org/letters/general/10.html
Back in the early Apple ][ days, you could get the complete assembly ROM listing. Schematics were also widely available. (Hehe, I remember the mod that lets you add multiple 16K language cards, and I maxed my Apple out at 96K. Disk Muncher could almost copy a disk in 1 pass
IBM did the same thing with it's early PC.
That's what really started both companies: How easily hackers could hack and expand it. (Of course Apple targeting the schools and business users didn't hurt either. Along with soft good software like Visacalc (the first spreadsheet) and AppleWorks (I believe the first integrated application.)
Bringing this back on topic...
So Apple uses a BSD license. They are NOT under any OBLIGATION to give back. Yes, they are profiteering off other's people work, but guess what: The BSD license is *complete* freedom. Now, I don't want to start a flamewar of GPL vs BSD, but I really don't see what big deal is.
Somewhere along the way, Apple fall into the Not Invented Here Syndrome. Apple "embracing" the BSD license is 180 degree turn around for them. Give them more time and they might reach see the benefit's in GPL software.
I'd like to see more developer's with the cajones to deliver their systems in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. If ever there was a free for all of intellectual property, public domain is it.
Anyone, anywhere, whether capitalistic developers or hippie-RMS droids can take PD software and do what they like with it. They don't have to give it back if they don't want to, They can't sue competitors who use PD software. In the end, it's a battle of merit, not patents and copyright, that wins the battle.
My software is PD, is yours?
Apple has contributed a complete microkernel-based Unix operating system, with source. Their paid engineers donated bug fixes to the NetBSD code base. They gave support to inter-BSD groups working on cooperative development. While he worked at Apple as chief Darwin engineer, Wilfredo Sanchez was also a member of the core development groups of Apache, FreeBSD and NetBSD, as well as contributing to countless other projects (MIT Kerberos 5, Perl, Sendmail...). Though he's changed companies, Sanchez is still active in Darwin development as well as other community projects.
Darwin is a pretty big deal for some of us. I have powermac hardware that is currently running Linux, but Darwin adds another option and sometimes supports devices that Linux doesn't. It is also among the only modern microkernel operating systems available to the Open Source community. But lest you think a complete Unix OS is too little to "give back to the community," Apple has also released an Open Source (admittedly not Free) streaming media server (!), network game development library, and some development tools.
Only a handful of profitable companies have done more for the community. I think your criticism was misplaced.
When people write software they choose a license (or don't.)
I choose the GPL for my little hacks because I don't want people doing this with my code.
One would assume that people who are making OSS that isn't Free Software don't care if this happens (or maybe even want it to, how can I know.)
Anyway, this is why license choice matters. This is why OSS is not necessarily Free Software.
-Peter
I did not realize that Free Software includes BSD style.
I looked into this a bit. I thought that Copyleft was just a pun. When I said Free Software above I really meant Copylefted.
Sorry.
-Peter
To all those who set me straight in this thread:
I have been incorrectly saying Free Software when I meant Copyleft.
And "Correcting" people using the term correctly! Doh!
I didn't understand the distinction.
I, of course, know that GPL is an instance of a Free Software license, not "the Free license." I mistakenly thought that all Free licenses included the Copyleft characteristic.
On re-reading it is clear that BSD style qualifies as Free. I'm sorry that I said otherwise.
I am sorry, and thank you to everyone who helped clear this up for me.
-Peter
Evan,
...that doesn't mean they have the funds to move it over. Become a shareholder...convince them otherwise. Or, better yet. do something with Darwin yourself.
Just because you want Quicktime and Darwin on Intel...doesn't mean it's going to happen. Every week, I read where Apple is done for...either financially or through market share. ZDNet is one of those doomsayers. If they tried to be everything to everyone...they wouldn't make a penny. And they wouldn't turn a profit for the people who really count...the stockholders. They owe money to the stockholders and owe them a money-winning strategy. Apple is doing a world of good for BSD. They are doing a world of good for the open-source movement...oin regards to Darwin. Quicktime probably isn't the cash-cow they would hope that it should be. It is a very excellent player...and does some nice stuff with the OS.
The point isn't whether or not Apple is violating the BSD license, it's that Apple is taking from the open source community and not returning anything to them. NO, under the letter of the BSD license, it isn't necessary, but it would be A Good Thing to do. Apple wouldn't have their beautiful OSX without that open source BSD code. It's not inapropriate to expect Apple to give back to the community as a thank you. IBM has entered the open source community through Linux, benefitted from the hard work of open source programmers and then returned the favor by devoting programmers to help develop particular projects. Not only that, but IBM has in no way dominated the open source community despite the fact that they easily could due to their girth. Apple could learn from their example.
Chris
Hello!?!?! Anyone home!?!? The BSD license was designed specifically for this purpose! The Slashdot editors are spreading major FUD by expecting people to think that if it isn't under the GPL, it's not Open Source. Apple is using code released under the BSD license, and it's fully complying with the spirit and the letter of that license.
I use the BSD license for all my open source projects specifically because it does not restrict anyone's use of the code, like the GPL does. I once had a request from a company who wanted to use some of my code that I was planning on opening. They were concerned about the licensing, because their product is closed-source and doesn't mix well with the GPL. I told them that I was planning on using the BSD license, and the were very happy about that.
--
Lord Nimon
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
i agree, and this is what has pissed me off about this "open source community" as of late. i'm a long time UNIX and Linux user, and recently i've been really enjoying using MacOS X as my desktop operating system. i love what Apple has provided to darwin and the underlying system and how helpful their developers have been with any problem i've had with MacOS X. i think what Apple has done is great, and i think it's a huge step forward from the completely closed software days.
but of course that's not good enough for the so-called "open source community." Apple made a huge change in offering the kernel and underlying system to their primary operating system open source, but instead of applauding this behaviour the "community" instead turns around and says "great, what are you going to give us next?"
it's never good enough. these people only want one thing: everybody else's cool stuff. well tough! Apple has provided a lot of valuable information with regards to Darwin and they have offered their code back to the community. but that doesn't mean they owe you all of their past technologies too! if you don't like it fine, don't use it, and go program it yourself in Linux. but of course that's not possible as i imagine the vast majority of people bitching about Apple's behaviour have never written a useful piece of open-sourced code in their lives.
for the rest of us, we'll just be happy using by far the best desktop operating system ever written. and we'll be quite happy with whatever code Apple lets us improve.
- j
> That's what really started both companies: How > easily hackers could hack and expand it. (Of
> course Apple targeting the schools and business > users didn't hurt either. Along with soft good
> software like Visicalc (the first spreadsheet)
> and AppleWorks (I believe the first integrated
> application.)
My theory is that, since VisiCalc was a Microsoft product, the young World Domination meme actually
worked to Apple's advantage. Those early victims of Microsoft's secret seratonin-depleting library functions had to keep coming back for more-- once they were hooked on VisiCalc, getting them to switch to DOS was easy, just follow the monkey.
-- You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
What I see here, is another example of how a company actually took the time to read the software license and did what it legally was able to do. You can't expect ethics from a software license, just as you can't expect ethics from a business. They might be the product of a particular vision which may have some motivation in ethics, but not much more.
Expecting a company to adhere to it's moral obligation to give back to the community even though it purposely entered into an agreement with the community requiring no such thing... is back-asswards.
We should all have a good look at what a BSD license looks like, and what a GPL license looks like, and any other license we're going to get involved in. Then we should question whether that license actually serves what we believe or if it just served the interests of it's creators--if perhaps it's time to look at things a new way.
Please stop whining about Apple not open-sourcing everything it does.
Has Apple broken any laws with this? Have they violated the licenses of the open-source components of their operating system, which they spent millions developing?If so, file a lawsuit. If not, stop whining.
Look, Open-Source World (tm): YOU wrote the license, YOU wrote the terms. If you want to write code under a new "Non-Apple" license that you create because you don't like Aple, then do it. But quit your crying about how people legitimitely use the license YOU created just because they don't give away all the cool shit they create with it.
Flame away, but the kneejerk Apple-bashing that goes on here is really starting to make me sick. It's almost as bad as the M$ bashing.
TomatoMan
-- http://frobnosticate.com
Non-copylefted free software comes from the author with permission to redistribute and modify, and also to add additional restrictions to it.
If a program is free but not copylefted, then some copies or modified versions may not be free at all. A software company can compile the program, with or without modifications, and distribute the executable file as a proprietary software product.
The X Window System illustrates this. The X Consortium releases X11 with distribution terms that make it non-copylefted free software. If you wish, you can get a copy which has those distribution terms and is free. However, there are non-free versions as well, and there are popular workstations and PC graphics boards for which non-free versions are the only ones that work. If you are using this hardware, X11 is not free software for you.
My mistake was probably to read things too generally: By applying the rules recursively, which it does not explicitly state. My apologies for confused readers. This is one of the reasons I'm never going to be a lawyer, not in any lifetime. I'm just too general.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Before OSX you would never have gotten to see as much (if any) of the source code to the OS you see now. Microsoft is still all closed up.
What the hell do you want! Apple to embrace say Yellow Dog Linux or Linux PPC stick all the cool OSX tools on it and give it away for nothing? Apple wants/needs to make money. They have investors and stock holders to show earnings to. As warm and fuzzy you are to code in your spare time and whatnot and give back paches, Apple doesn't have or want to do this for whatever reason. They're a company that's out to make money.
--
Free Mac Mini
"It's sad becase myself and others are working 80hr weeks [and getting paid] to share as much information as possible with our developers."
-HobophobE
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
Thank you. My earbacks are much cleaner now and I've found god too.
-HobophobE
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
Kids today. Everything on a silver platter...
---
Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman
And you don't think Apple would use a free alternative to Sorenson if it was as good?
Get real. Apple is paying Sorenson for a competitive advantage. Open Source whiners are jumping up and down saying "gimme." If Open Source coders wrote a sorenson killer, you can bet that Apple would be all over it. Of course, then the whiners would just ignore the decades of work that is QuickTime, and whine that Apple gives them nothing in return...
Help yourself for once. That's one of the points of Open Source, right?
-pmb
You are wrong, and dozens of people here have provided examples.
I've PERSONALLY contributed code back to BSD licensed projects, so it doubly pisses me off to see people spewing these lies.
-pmb
Apple has done this, and those boot details are why you must have a "runty little MacOS partition". That's what the ROM in those older Macs expects to find in order to boot.
Do some research for once.
BTW- a handful of Apple's OS engineers on the darwin-developer mailing list will be happy to tell you in painful detail how the machine boots. Recent discussions have included booting on Mac clones too...
-pmb
QuickTime is a file format! The only closed part of it is the sorenson codec.
THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING LINUX CODERS FROM WRITING A QUICKTIME CLIENT THAT CAN PLAY EVERYTHING EXCEPT SORENSON MOVIES.
And once you do that, write a open source codec that doesn't suck to replace Sorenson.
-pmb
I know, because I'm one of the people working there. Apple is doing all of the Core OS work out in the open. Check out the darwin-development mailing list, where dozens of Mac OS X engineers contribute on a daily basis. This is unprecidented at Apple, allowing engineering types to communicate directly with developers.
And it's so very sad that someone like the author of that article has chosen to spin their own license dogma into a "Apple does nothing for me" story. It's sad becase myself and others are working 80hr weeks to share as much information as possible with our developers.
-pmb
They can, too. Corporations donate property all the time to charities or various community groups. It's called building goodwill with potential customers, and many companies do it.
Mind you, not that anything intellectual should be classified as property, but I digress...
As for "in the interests of profit," there are many times where sueing people for violating patents or copyrights is not profitable, and companies look the other way. Unlike trademarks, copyrights and patents do not have to be constantly enforced to retain their legal strength.
I seem to remember a little company that gave its patented algorithm away for free, let it become established, and then started suing anyone who wrote programs that used this algorithm. Also, record and movie companies don't pursue copyright violators unless the violators either A: pose some great threat to them or B: have a lot of money that can be stolen via settlements.
There are many different reasons that a company might not enforce IP, ranging from altruistic through selfish down to just plain stupid.
"Perpetuation of vendorlock"? You make it sound like they're doing something illegal. They have a product and are doing their best to compete in a very difficult/tight market. They have an obligation not to screw their shareholders or their customers. They owe absolutely _zero_ to a bunch of people who do nothing but bitch.
--
Max V.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
It isn't. Capitalism isn't pretty. I'm no great fan of it, but I'm not surprised when capitalist enterprises act as such.
--
Max V.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Rant that agrees with you...
I have some code that we wrote GPL'd. It is under the GPL because it is easier from a business perspective to GPL it and let someone pay me for a more liberal license. I am likely to switch to the BSD anyways. Our corporate software license is based off the original BSD (with advertising clause) and the right to pay us to switch to a true BSD client. That's my open source involvement.
The Open Source community has written very little. The Mach microkernel was developed by researches at CMU. Like most research projects, some of their grant money was probably government money. Government research is NOT done to benefit whiny anti-corporate bordering on communist high school kids (which seem to dominate the slashdot posts). Government research is to advance national security interests or advance technology to benefit society and particularly the corporations that use it to power the economy. The US Government is interested in economic growth and security.
The BSD System was written by researchers at UCB. It was funded with some grants, and they developed a free implementation of Unix. That is made available for all Americans (and in this case, all people in the world) to use and advance the country.
My tax dollars should NOT be used to fund people whose objective is to derail one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy.
Linux borrowed heavily at various points from BSD. Linux also completely swiped the GNU toolset and now we have distributions, all but one of which don't acknowledge that they started as the GNU collection. The true irony is the RMS tirade about calling it GNU/Linux. I agree with his point that we want people interested in a Free Unix, not Linux in particular. If someone came and wrote this amazing new kernel, we would lose all the mindshare (and credibility and education done to the public) because it wasn't Linux, and they don't know GNU, they know Linux.
Major "Open Source" Milestones:
Kerberos: MIT Research Project
BSD: Berkeley Research Project
Mach: CMU Research Project
Apache: began as a set of patches to NCSA HTTPD (National Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign)
I'm sorry, but university research has spawned some impressive technologies that people have hacked in new ways and done some cool work with. But there is no "open source community" that owns this work. All tax-payers own this work that was created for the nation on grant money.
Just because you run Linux doesn't mean that you own CMU, MIT, UI, and UCB's work. Sorry.
I hate to sound biting, I like a lot of open source software. I respect RMS's beliefs. However, this is absurd.
The fact that RMS defines freedom one way doesn't make it so. Instead of spouting about Free Beer and Free Speech, why don't you think for yourselves for a moment. RMS declaring freedom one way is all well and good. Without a doubt, BSDL meets even RMS's definitions. His complaints about the advertising clause is ironic, because if the GPL included in, there'd be none of this GNU/Linux issue.
RMS: I'm a fan, and I respect what you've done here. You've done a lot of great work. Unfortunately, ESR's minions have made a mess.
Alex
Contrary to popular belief, Apple is not a software company. They are by nature a hardware company. They make most of their profit on hardware, and only make software because their hardware needs it. I'm sure Apple wants to squeeze a few pennies out of OSX, but they aren't going to be basing a business model on it. Unless you consider they will probably be releasing new machines that are "OSX Optimized" soon. Wait, they can't because I'm about to patent the idea, and copyright "OSX Optimized".
Th
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). Check
- The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
(freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Check
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2). Check
- The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
(freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Check
Wow, looks like the BSDL is Free Software. Please repeat after me, The GPL is not the only Free Software license. Thanks for playing. Goodbye.--
Many companies take BSD code, and do proprietary things with it, and don't release anything they add under an open source license. That happens all the time, and since that is one of the things the license is meant to allow, no one bitches about it too much.
This is not a problem with Microsoft, because Microsoft is not trying to present themselves as an Open Source company. Apple is trying to present themselves as either an Open Source company, or at least one that is friendly to Open Source, and so this makes Apple much worse than Microsoft.
The QuickTime file format is extremely well documented, and numerous players (and evern some editors, such as (I believe) Broadcast 2000) already exist for Linux/BSD/etc. That's not the issue. The issue is almost exclusively the availability of the Sorenson codecs. Sorenson actually would be perfectly OK releasing them on Linux if someone licensed them, but Apple will not allow them. (I apologize that I cannot remember the name of the application, as I do not use Linux anymore myself, but I think this came up with Xanim or something along those lines. The author was willing to license the Sorenson codec, but they informed him there weren't allowed.) Hence, getting QuickTime ported isn't the issue at all. Getting most QuickTime movies to use a more standard or open-source codec (such as DivX or the MPEG4 video codec, once that is released) and/or getting Sorenson on Linux should really be your focus.
Bottom line -- it's good that apple is using open source, even if it isn't giving its changes back to the community, because otherwise Apple would have stuck with completely proprietary software.
A reporter of dubious credential accuses Apple of grave missteps. Without much research, many condemn Apple based on this reporter's article... Some of the posts are a little more level headed and inform us that Apple did nothing illegal as far as the licensing is concerned. Others rant anyway... But how many here have actually contributed back to the community? When was the last properly formatted bug report that you sent in for review? When did you contribute to the FSF?
The only way for Open Source to work is for people to take an active part in the development or testing of the source code. Maybe if more did this, the MacOSes and Windows of the world will become irrelevant.
It's a kernel -- he should know better, especially if he plans to write about it.
Paul
I wish Apple would release a Quicktime player under the GPL. I realize that they can't release the Sorenson Codec due to licensing issues, but if they could make the player GPL and have the codecs imported through a neat plugin (even if the codec is binary only), Apple would likely get the support of Linux enthusiasts who port plugins from other codecs (like Divx) to Quicktime!
Plus, Apple is lagging way behind in the streaming market, with a GPL'd codec running on Linux/*BSD/Solaris boxes, their marketshare will certainly increase!
Doh!
This is not necessarily bad, because the GPL is fairly Free, and strongly promotes free licensing, which ought to put pressure on the software industry as a whole to become more Free. The BSD license, on the other hand, is completely Free, but does nothing to promote free licensing.
In an ideal world, all code would be BSD licensed, and Dell would give out free (as in beer) computers for everyone! In the real world, I believe that the GPL is useful for fighting back against Microsoft and Apple, who would like nothing better than to keep all software closed. But, do NOT make the mistake of thinking that somehow makes the BSD license unFree.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Perhaps this story headline should be "Apple violates GPL on Non-GPL'd Software." Or maybe "Apple Complies with BSD License." But that would hardly generate frantic posting and pageviews.
Access to the source code is mandatory for the public to be able to release improvements to it, so that the whole community benefits.
That is, IF you are the licensor. IF you are not, then you are Free to use the code as you please (dependant on license - please read the BSDL) - this includes NOT deriving the benefits of keeping the code open. The BSD freedom can stop with you, the end-user; its requirements are not stringent upon you, but rather the author/licensor. The point of the GPL is that it cannot stop with you if you're producing something for public consumption - you, the licensee, have a lot of requirements to follow. Freedom 3 (the one you quoted) is not applied to the end-user, but rather the author: it is not so much a restriction (ref. the GPL) as a freedom.
The GPL is a restrictive license - it propagates open source code. The BSDL is a relatively unrestrictive license - it propagates software.
[|]
This article talks big, but all it really says is that Apple doesn't license QuickTime, and it impedes the development of TrueType Fonts. I admit I know nothing about TrueType fonts. As for Quicktime, I fully agree that it should be ported to Linux, and I feel it's in Apple's best interests to do so. But anything anyone but Apple says about it is speculation. I do know that Apple is understaffed, and can't do everything they want. My big issue with this article, however, is that it claims Apple takes the Mach/BSD code, and gives nothing back. Apple has been submitting changes upstream at every opportunity. Ask Stan Shebs or Fred Sanchez, they would be quite upset at such an assertion. I urge the author to check the facts before writing anything. I'm tired of seeing this kind of crap.
I think its inevitable that OS X will run on Intel. The PowerPC chips apple is selling these days are getting dangerously underpowered compared with the AMD/Intel rivalry.
I think Apple will go X86. That doesn't mean they'll use white box PCs to run; but I don't see the advantage apple has right now using PPC chips.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
It doeasn't? The Sorensen codec is probably the single biggest reason to use Quicktime. Apple wants people to use Quicktime. Letting Linux users use xanim to view sorenson QT (esp when many of those users would/could boot in to windows & use QT to view the movie) seems counterproductive. Life isn't fair.
If Apple let Sorenson license the codec to xanim would you then start whining about the QDesign audio codec? What about the QT movies with Quicktime sprites? 3dmf sprites? vector tracks? text tracks? qtvr? QT live effects? More whining. When will the whining stop?
What I've heard from the apple is "want sorenson? License & port quicktime." Apple takes an odd pride in their backward compatibility. movies made in 1992 can still be played. Apps written in 1992 to the QT api can take advantage of the features in the latest version of QT
And of course when they modify and enhance GPL'ed software such as gcc, they have their changes publically accessible too, as they must.
You're wrong. The GNU GPL allows you to fork the code and keep the source, and any further modifications, for yourself. Since you're not obligated to redistribute changes, that means that the GPL allows you to "privately close source" something.
I agree about apple owing nothing to the FSF community (since they used BSD code, not GPL code), but I disagree with this whole notion about apple bringing Unix to the masses.
How does the 3-5% of the market that apple has count as "masses", especially since most of those with OS 9 (or lower) aren't going to spend the $100+ to upgrade to OS X?
Some of the statistics producing firms say that MacOS has more users than Linux, and some say that Linux has more, and this doesn't accurately count the number of people who download Linux, go to an install fest, or borrow a CD from a friend. But in most cases the numbers are very close. So it looks like Linux has brought Unix to as many people as or more people than OS X has yet, and that will probably be true until OS X runs on commodity hardware (or better yet a dozen different chips like Linux).
I'd prefer it if the two communities would cooperate better. Since they're the two largest non MS groups, they have the best shot at keeping MS from making the internet proprietary, through it's control of most client machines.
Those Linux counts are of machines shipping with the OS. You're right about them being a joke, because most installs are done after the machine ships.
It's very good as a workstation. I'm using right now as an X server to connect to a Sun box, where we develop our products. And I can try things, like Apache and Jakarta, out and make sure they work the way we need them to before. I also use it at home, as do many people I know. The only problem I have with it is the lack of commercial game support. And that is the _only_ thing I don't use it for at home. I dual-boot for Baldur's Gate II (but for Neverwinter Nights I won't have to).
Most people at those tradeshows are probably in marketing or sales, the useful people are back at corporate headquarters doing work. Of course marketing people are going to use windows, they don't want to learn new things. Most people don't that's one of the main reasons the Mac won't cut into windows sales. It's different.
the authors of the software in question CHOSE to release their software under a license which allows apple's actions.
when they made that choice, they knew that it would allow people to do this.
So where exactly is the problem? maybe you have an issue with the authors of the software because they use the BSD license or whatever, but THAT IS THE AUTHOR'S choice.
I really don't see that APPLE has done anything wrong here
Apple would probably be as happy selling boxes destined to run Yellow Dog Linux as OS X.
/. today).
I doubt it; then Steve couldn't lock you into his idea of the digital lifestyle. After all, if you're running Linux, you won't buy a copy of Final Cut Pro ($999) or DVD Studio Pro (also $999), nor would you be very likely to shell out over $1,000 to attend their developer conference (see ad banners on
And of course when they modify and enhance GPL'ed software such as gcc, they have their changes publically accessible too, as they must.
And they're not just minimally complying with the GPL, either; the cc people at Apple are currently slaving away to get various Darwin/NeXT extensions (general Darwin support, AltiVec optimization, and Objective-C++ are the Big 3) properly integrated into the original gcc tree.
(yet another darwin-development subscriber)
So apple is exploiting BSD license software. Big whoop, Microsoft, and damn near every company that makes a form of UNIX does too. Does it break the license? nope. Is it nice? nope, but none of them are in business to be nice, they are in business to make money.
"My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett
I think the whole idea of whether Apple is in the right (both legally & morally) has already been hammered enough as it is from this posting. But my question relates to the APSL. I'm definitely nowhere near a lawyer (I personally think trying to decipher any sort of license agreement is worse than trying to understand any code ever written). But in reading the APSL (http://publicsouce.apple.com/apsl/ - found above) it almost seems as though from section 3(a) that anyone that modifies any code Apple has released under the license is required to release those modifications back to the community. Am I reading this license wrong? Are they only required to release the modifications back to Apple? I'm just trying to understand the license better for a better perspective on Apple's stance on open source. If anyone could explain it for me (or point me to some links), it would be greatly appreciated.
--
pepermil
The fact is that with Darwin Apple has done more than most. Yes, QuickTime is still proprietary (that's probably a bad thing, but it's the only thing Mac-related that really matters to the world at large) and should have Linux versions available. But methinks the author of this article has an axe to grind -- not every company can be IBM, and Apple may be getting a C+ on its Open Source report card (IMHO) but at least it's a passing grade.
/Brian
Please, did you think Apple was the Open-Source messiah? Apple has always been as closed and proprietary as Microsoft, they have barely showed the flexibility of an underdog. Anyone who is suprised that Apple hasn't truly embraced open source is a moron -- their previous track record proves they are vehemently AGAINST the freedom of software. That having been said I will still cheer them on as a capitalistic counterbalance to Microsoft. I would prefer the market was dominated by Free Software proponents, otherwise I'll gladly vote for two monopolists over one.
---
Apple is posturing themselves as a good-guy open source company. They are not. There are several things they could be doing which would greatly help the open-source community, such as releasing the code to Quicktime or their True-Type font technology.
The point is, they are pretending to be part of the community, while at the same time they are keeping the source closed to a few things the community could desperately use. Not that there is anything wrong or illegal with that. Its just deceptive that they are passing themselves on as nice-guy open-source type of people when they have no intention of giving back to the community.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
To a lesser extent, so is TrueType (being the essence of their desktop publishing market hold).
Just to pick nits, TrueType is nigh useless for pro-level publishing. Only PostScript fonts are used in serious works. Most service bureaus and printers will refuse to accept a job that uses TrueType fonts. They want PostScript only, because that's what the very expensive imagesetter that makes film that makes plates for the press understands. Or what the very expensive direct-to-plate machine understands.
TrueType is great for homebrew stuff that is rendered on a cheap inkjet printer, but the head cheese at my printer will throw my files back at me if I try to give it to her.
PostScript is the heart of the publishing industry.
Microsoft does do this (there is a lot of BSD code in Windows 2000) and I for one do scream bloddy murder. The only thing that makes the Apple case any better is that they at least admit to using Open software (although not GPL they are *not* violating a license.) But I also bitch about them. This is one of the arguments for the GPL there are arguments against it and for the BSD license also. I for one have very mixed feelings about bsd license vs. gpl.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Funny everyone mentions "closed hardware." HTH does Linux/NetBSD manage to run on modern Macs if they're "closed?"
True, but try passing that line around Be and see how far you'll go before being smacked.
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
you see, this is the beauty of the bsd license. this is the only truly free license out there, as it allows the source code to be free. midsize to large companies tend to not want to touch gpl code due to the red tape surrounding its use. it usually has nothing to do with their desire to "give back" to the community, the bsd licensee is just a lot easier to deal with. as a person who likes the idea of great and powerful "free code" to evolve, that makes the bsd licensee great. who really cares if bigger users don't submit bugfixes/enhancements, someone will.
as for apple, im sure they will contribute to this so called community, it may take a fair bit longer to happen, and it may not be too obvious to the slashdot community, but as soon as everyone sees how similar osx and linux are from a development standpoint, our benefit will be the applications that are ported from osx over to linux/bsd.
.brad
Drink more tea
organicgreenteas.com
flesh eating ants records
The author is upset that Apple has released neither Sorenson nor TrueType to open source. Great examples: 1) Sorenson is not owned by Apple. It's owned by Sorenson. I'm sure they would not be real thrilled about Apple releasing their codec open source. 2) TrueType is patented by both Apple and Microsoft. Apple has given back. They may not be the "release everything you have as open source" that many people want them to be, but name another major OS vendor that's doing more. Wade
Hey wait a minute, didn't apple give the person who was one of the lead developers of Mach a high profile (probably lucrative) job? yet they're not "giving back to the community" well get over it, unless you've actually written some of the code apple uses you have no right to complain. Even if you have you knew what you were getting when you released it so stop bitching.
--aiee
Why is apple using open source? if you think its for you or the open source community you're dead wrong. Apple is making sure the foundation of it's OS is open source for mac developers. They're doing it so that if company A needs feature Y then instead of just complaining about it they can help take action. and they're doing it so that if company B doesn't understand how feature Z works they can just take a look. The 'free labor' that the poster refers to isn't apple's main concern, but would you realistically expect them to dissuade it?
--aiee
I hate to sound like troll here, but...that is really the only thing going for Open Source, when it comes to corporate america. It's cheap (as in free beer). If you expected companies to embrace it because it's "Free Speech", you need a reality injection.
Because Apple is using technology licensed without restrictions, rather than under the GPL commonly found in Linux
Yahoo makes use of this same technology, btw...his idiocy defies words.
--
$tar -xvf
Others here have posted about how the APSL and BSD licenses are open-source, despite what the article claims.
according to the article:
The main reason TrueType isn't supported as well under free operating systems as it should be is that developers fear they might run afoul of Apple's patents on TrueType. The folks at Apple haven't offered any clarification to the FreeType project (which is trying to improve font handling on open source operating systems) or to anyone else. Because of this, TrueType support under Linux and FreeBSD lingers under a cloud of uncertainty.
This is mis-information. Concern over Apple's patents are different then expecting Apple to contribute to projects outside of the scope of Darwin.
Even if Apple wanted to help out Freetype with font support, it would be largely illogical- Apple's Darwin doesn't come with a graphical desktop. OS X isn't APSL-open source, and the font system of OS X isn't open source, it's proprietary and part of OS X.
Quicktime is quicktime, sorenson is sorenson. There were never any promises to give either of these to open source.
The reporter is mistaken about running Darwin on x86- Apple has no interest in running OS X on intel at this time. Apple has run Darwin on x86 out of scientific curiousity. Others have run Darwin on x86 out of their own interest. Having Darwin as open source is a great benefit for learning. (I ran it for the thrill of doing it!)
The article suggests that Apple won't port applications based on the Gnome or KDE libraries (GTK+ and QT). I submit that it was never Apple's intention to do so- Apple is quite happy writing iTunes, AppleWorks, and others to be worried about bringing in KWord or Gnotepad+. The article writer also hints that it may be illegal to port GPL software to OS X. This is nonsense. It would be illegal for Apple to profit from GPL software, although it's okay to profit from media or support costs. Any GPL software they distribute, they must also distribute the source code.
This isn't really a worry tho, I can download and recompile anything I like. XFree, Gimp (macgimp.org?) and others... Fire.app, an instant messenger application is GPL and works great- and it's only for OS X, for now.
All I can say is that I believe Evan did a poor job of researching his article, and an even poorer job of disguising it as anything other than an inflammatory editorial.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
What are you, a bunch of whining communists? You all live in a utopia, where everything is free and nobody gets paid for anything? I am sick and tired of the open source community whining everytime somebody tries to make money and whining when good companies go bankrupt because they can't charge for (because you all whine) service.
Yeah, Open source does so good stuff, but nobody in their right mind is going to use the Open source model to run a business because they just can't make any money. If people want to donate to the charity of open source, that is fine. But don't expect anyone in business to hug the open source model.
Oh, BTW, I don't care what my Karma is. My dogma got run over by my Karma.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I don't think that Apple would be as happy selling Yellow Dog Linux boxes as they would OS X boxes. Just because OS X has a BSD core doesn't mean that Apple doesn't have a lot invested in it. In my opinion, it's in their best interest to have people using the Apple OS (whatever its components may consist of) as much as it is to have people buying their hardware.
-- Have you ever noticed that at trade shows, Microsoft is always the company that is handing out stress balls?
Maybe he meant xMach. Who knows. But this article feels like a flame. I don't care for the BSD license, but there *is* software released under this license, and if a company wants to make money with BSD licensed software, so be it. This authot has no right to bitch about it.
--
When MS took open source software and gave nothing back to the community everybody was bitchin. Now that Apple is doing it, suddenly it's okay.
Let's see, open source Apple products:
Quicktime Streaming Servers
Darwin
While these aren't all their products, it's better than some companies, say ones in Redmond, do. Plus, Apple, and its employees contribute to the FreeBSD source; just look for everything my Winfred Sanchez (who no longer works there by the way).
But should we really expect ZDNet to be anything but totally biased? See most of the thread a couple weeks ago about John Dvorak, the PC "columnist".
Arthropoid, the Right Clam for the Job
That's the point of the BSD license. Do whatever you want with the software without being forced info full disclosure, like you are with the GPL.
Here's how I see the two; the GPL people want to make a complete universe of software that's seperate from commercial software. Thus the full source disclosure principle of the GPL keeps GPL code out of commercial software.
The BSD people want to make stuff anyone will use without fear. The world is big enough for both concepts.
_ The bureaucracy is expanding to meet
_ The bureaucracy is expanding to meet
the needs of an expanding bureaucracy.
Maybe they WANTED their code to be put to use by anyone who could use it, without the requirement that they release source. Honestly, I don't see the problem here.
At first I thought the article was going to say Apple had used GPL code without releasing source... but it doesn't. It just seems like Apple bashing.
Not just the OS, of course. Apple's computers are now able to run Apache, sendmail, and just about any other BSD-compiled binaries right out of the box. Now, Apple's not Microsoft, but this still should create a noticable increase in the number of users of free software. More users leads to more popularity, more feedback, more development, and a higher profile overall.
Apple has traditionally relied on proprietary hardware and software to differentiate themselves from the hordes of Wintel PC manufacturers. If they did open source their software then everyone could make Mac-compatible machines and Apple would have to compete on price, which is not their strength. If you don't like their philosophical stand then don't use their products. Personally I will use whatever works the best, be it Freeware, GPL, proprietary, or whatever.
What is everybody complaining about? Or does the free software community now claim ownership of all code under the "all information wants to be free" act and now simply attack any company that doesn't GPL every last thing?
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The bottom line is that Apple has released a Free, Open Source operating system and will be adding to it long after Eazel, Ximian, VA and the rest of the cuddly open-source media darlings have imploded. I doubt if this Leibovitch knows or cares to know anything about how much OS, compiler and toolchain code Apple has given away. Or if that Apple was supporting MkLinux development and putting Linux partioning options in their disk utility long before Dell and Compaq started even making noises about supporting Linux. All he wants is that the should give him their fonts, the Sorenson codecs and their industrial design, too.
By the way, does anyone know why since I upgraded to 10.0.2, my keyboard (USB or ADB) doesn't work in Classic? The mouse is fine and both work in native apps.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
As much as you'd like to believe so, Microsoft doesn't play that way; they have to keep in touch with the rest of the PC world so that things don't screw up. As for Apple, it's their way or the highway. The Internet marked the very first time that Apple had to adhere to standards made by others. They were obstinate (if Steve Jobs had his way, the entire Internet would be running AppleTalk), but in the end, they gave in, seeing the Internet as an opportunity to acquire more customers.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
I didn't know you could log into a Linux Box using a voice print ID? I didn't know a blind person could active necissary GUI functions with their voice in Linux? Since when did Linux do this out of the box?
"Quicktime is no inherent advantage to Apple. Neither is TrueType. Both are available to a competitor that could KILL Apple if it really desired to. "
You really don't know what you are talking about, do you? Why is the video editiing industry moving to Macs? Now that sillyness about them being available to competitors, well thats true, but they can't kill Apple with them, since both are based of Apple PATENTED technologies.
"Also, MacOS 10 is not quite that impressive. It certainly doesn't constitute "beyond Linux developer's dreams".
You obviously have never USED OS X other than maybe a screenshot or seeing it at CompUSA.
"All Apple has done is recycle SOMEONE ELSE'S successful attempt at making Unix easy. "
1. OpenStep was never successful
2. I've USED OpenStep when I was doing sound production a few years ago. Although, technologically impressive, it certainly had nowhere the user friendlyness of Mac OS X. It didnt have the Apple core technologies, and it certainly didnt have the graphics capabilities of OS X.
3. You're clueless.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Another thing, while Im in the trolling mood. I think its interesting that in the four-Five years since Apple bought Next, they have done much more to bring Unix to the masses then Linux could ever dream to do.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Funny everyone mentions "closed hardware." HTH does Linux/NetBSD manage to run on modern Macs if they're "closed?"
GPL'd codec running on Linux/*BSD/Solaris boxes, their marketshare will certainly increase!
yeah, i'm sure apple's just dying to port their software to the only platform doing worse in the consumer space than the mac os.
(posted from an imac)
--saint----
Excellent? Robust? huh?
I'm a big fan of enlightened self-interest. I'd like to see more companies follow the spirit of the law (or in this case, the license) but I can't fault them for following it to the letter instead. As far as I can tell, Apple has done nothing wrong, or illegal. I'm a big fan of open-source. It ads tremendous amounts of value to computing platforms around the world and if companies keep their wits about them, they can benefit as much as the users from the resources made available through open-source. since the OSS initiative is really community driven, these companies need to become community-minded in order to avoid incurring the wrath of others within the community. This is simple neighborhood politics. - Keep your yard clean and tidy, do not take your neighbor's newspaper in the morning, do not piss in the neighborhood pool. This is basic stuff.
Companies work in the interests of their shareholders, from which they have taken money - why can't this principle work for the open source community from which they take resources; because there isn't an SEC type organization breathing down their neck?
Having said this, the referenced article was heady on rhetoric and light on fact. It's be vary interesting to see a more balanced article exploring this issue. as anyone put together, for example a list of the most OSS-friendly companies? (exclusing those that were built entirely on OSS, of course).
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
The opening Yahoo article claims that Apple have used Mach for their own gain. But: 1. Thats the licence the mach team decided on 2. They released it back with all enhancements and a new I/O kit as Darwin... even on x86! 3. All the software is written in ObjectiveC as it came from NeXT... who wrote the ObjectiveC support you'll now find in GCC and GDB. AND FINALLY! I wonder what the principal designer and engineer of the Mach kernel would have to say: http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/tevanian.html After all he is Apple's Senior Vice President of Software Engineering. Duh. Nice researching there Yahoo.
[)amien
Because Apple is using technology licensed without restrictions, rather than under the GPL commonly found in Linux
Hmm, what license is gcc under? The GPL? and what did they do to their Objective C modifications to gcc? Release them?
the company can use Mach code, exploit what the open source community has done, make proprietary modifications, and give back nothing of substance. And that appears to be exactly what Apple has done.
Sure the CAN do that, but have they? Last time I checked, they were still releasing all the code for Darwin, which is what was based on the Mach/BSD licensed code. What they didn't release was the code to Aqua, which was totally propietary.
Another significant area in which Apple's actions hurt the open source community is in its refusal to offer any open source support for its QuickTime streaming video format. While some open source players support AVI files, certain vital components, such as the Sorenson Video Codec that provides QuickTime's data compression, are not supported. Apple has never released a binary player for Linux or a binary module for the XAnim video and animation player, and it has no stated plans to do so. Moreover, the company won't allow open source programmers to make their own Sorenson-aware players.
Apple can't release the Sorenson codec because they don't own it. They license it from Sorenson. They have released the specs for the Quicktime format, and there is no need for them to release a player because there are already several out there.
In short, this article was nothing but a collection of factual omissions, misdirections, and outright lies.
If the license allows it, it's not all Apple's fault.
-N
OK, I could give a fsck about mod points, so I'll not dodge my identity to answer you...
look at freedom 3 again. I'm not a FSF junkie, I'm simply correcting the point made.
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
If you are the original author, of course you have the freedom to improve the program. Let me rephrase freedom 3 so you understand it.
Access to the source code is mandatory for the public to be able to release improvements to it, so that the whole community benefits.
Does this help? (Yeah, I know, I'm the troll, right?)
"I've seen plays that were more exciting than this.
Honest to god... Plays!" Homer Simpson
For once I don't have to read the article to post intelligent comments...
This is like saying someone is not smoking in an non-smoking area. Whatever Apple did or didn't do, what is the problem here? None. Now go read another story.
====
Codeala - Just another mindless drone
Anyway, I think it is inevitable, which is why I like the GPL. Maybe someday it won't be so necessary butfor now, it is the only way to open things up without boosting proprietary companies (like Apple or Microsoft) at the same time.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
i am an aquarium
--
I always thought the entire point of the Apache and BSD licenses was along these lines. The highest form of altruism is that which expects nothing in return (not even recognition).
Granted, it would be nice to see Apple open up things like FreeType and QuickTime, and I hope that they will. Goodwill along these lines to the open source community could pay off big time in recipricoral support from the open source community. Maybe this experiment with opening up thrie source (Darwin) will pay off and convince some Apple execs to expand their participation.
In the mean time, hundreds of open source contributors get the satisfaction of knowing that their work has reached a wider audience, and that their grandmother's new iMac will be a better, more stable machine thanks to their work.
Apple makes most (all? anyone know?) of its money selling hardware, not software. Nobody gets mad at AMD for "mooching" off of the open source community because their chips run linux.
What a troll. If Apple doesn't give anything back, what do you call Darwin? Last time I checked, Darwin was open source and free (as in beer). Apple's even provided us with an x86 version that they'll probably never see a dime from.
There's a big difference between "not giving anything at all" and "not open-sourcing Quicktime", which is all this guy seems to care about.
This
This, though, seems to be the approach the corporate world, by and large, is taking to OSS: either create it in-house (like Java) or suck in a BSD-licensed product and hack on it (like Berkeley DB -- and either close the source (countless BSD derivatives) or keep it on a leashed license like APSL. The GPL prevents this sort of thing, but scares off a lot of companies in the process. (Then again, some provisions of the APSL do too...)
The upshot is that you should probably release code under whatever license you and your cohorts feel comfortable with, and deal with it when people do things you don't like but are within the rules of the license. After all, we're supposed to be responsible people, right?
...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
The problem here is that the Open Source Community has decided that in return for using the BSD tree, they want Quicktime and the GUI. They care about nothing else, and Apple could give a billion lines of code, for everything else they write: It would make no difference. They would STILL be whining for quicktime, and for the new GUI.
Give me a break people. For all your pontificating and moralizing, at the core all you're doing is bitching because you cant watch the Fellowship Of The Rings trailer in linux. --
This space for rent.
So apple is exploiting BSD license software. Big whoop, Microsoft, and damn near every company that makes a form of UNIX does too.
Exactly. If you don't want some other developer grabbing your code and incorporating it into their product and selling it without making the source available, then don't release it under the BSD license. Release it under the GPL instead.
Apple helped fund development of Linux for running on Macintoshes. They provided people and other resources as well as previously undisclosed hardware specifications that enabled all the Macintosh efforts. The author seems to have missed that. Somewhat one-sided ranting. If they wanted the software under GPL the authors would have placed it under GPL. If they wanted their software to be more acceptable to corporate lawyers, the true open-source is the way to go.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
As a Darwin developer, I can say that Apple has contributed massive amounts of code back in Darwin. Apple has donated hardware and money to various BSD projects (particularly OpenBSD). Apple, unlike M$, is trying to be a good coperate citizen.
I read this article and threads, and we have a whole lot of people bitching about licenses and somantics...
Shall we compare Apple's Darwin with Microsoft's Kerberos implementation? What license did MS change Kerberos? I know that this issue was posted here before, but compare MS to Apple for a reality check.
Yup, Apple MUST REALLY SUCK! They don't use the CORRECT license... hahhahaahha... idiots....
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
The point about sorenson video not being licensed is tragic, but in case you didn't know, Sorenson doesn't even measure up to DivX. Despite its popularity, DivX is not a very good codec, playing it on macs is barely possible due to microsoft crippling, and there is no encoding option.
Fortunately, besides the new Sorenson 3 codec which should be improved, and an MPEG4 codec which should become available sometime soon for QT5, there are also several 3rd party codecs coming out which have much better performance. On2's VP3 codec is already available for multiple platforms, and there VP4 codec is due soon. VP3 is an excellent codec. Better yet, the folks who made the mac DivX player are now working on their own codec called 3ivx, which so far is already more advanced than many commercial codecs. They even are working on the OpenQuicktime project, which is meant for all *nix environments, and are developing the codec for as many platforms as they can, even the PS2! Beyond that there is also Project Mayo's open source OpenDivX, FastVDO's Allstream technology, and probably dozens of others.
Quicktime is the best multimedia file architecture which unfortunately has been hampered by slow codecs and a late start to streaming media. But don't assume sorenson is the only codec out there.
cryptochrome
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
BSD licensed code has this problem, which is one of the reasons why the GPL exists.
It is interesting how sucessful GPL code has been in the software industry. There are many commercial linux distributions, which has helped the Linux community. Other companies that have traditionally been involved with closed-source, propietary software are now recognizing free software as a viable alternative.
SGI is involved with their XFS project, among other things. IBM is involved with many linux related projects. And is being an incredible influence in the community. BSD has not received anywhere near as much commercial attention, which I find interesting, considering that the BSD/MIT license is considerably more corporation friendly, by giving rights to "use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software".
The BSD license allows companies like Apple to use BSD code with little (if any) accountability to the open source community, which is why the GPL is more widely accepted by open source developers. But the question really becomes that of licensing. Apple has their APSL license, and IBM has their IPL license. A major difference between these two licenses is that the IPL is OSI approved. Apple's APSL is not.
Apple is using the phrase "open source" as a means of marketing. It's not right and I plan to ignore them until they clean up their act. Apple has used BSD code, and has not contributed to the BSD community. But the BSD community doesn't require this. So who is to blame? It's simple. If you do not want companies to exploit your work, don't let them. Use GPL licensing. That's what it's for.
I think in the long run, Apple will figure out that it is not in their interest to keep modifications to open source software to themselves. If NeXT/Apple couldn't compete with open source software using proprietary software a few years ago, they won't be able to a few years from now either. And if they don't feed their changes back into the community, they'll just fall behind as they are trying to juggle ever more diverging code bases. That's why it probably doesn't matter much whether you use BSD or GPL in the long run.
Besides, even if Apple magically figures out how to track open source without feeding back into it, their adoption of standard open source APIs still helps the open source community by training programmers in APIs used by open source software and encouraging programmers that would otherwise only work on proprietary systems to contribute to open source. If we could get Microsoft to go as far as Apple has, we'd all be better off. Apple and Microsoft: please take advantage of us a bit more if you would.
First of all, it isn't Apple's responsibility to support a processor architecture or OS which they do not use. Secondly, TrueType and QuickTime are Apple's, you cannot expect them to just start giving away these technologies that they spent millions developing. Should they? No. Apple is in the business of making money, if they were an open source company, you would expect them to do these kinds of things, but they are not.
His 'digital lifestyle' which you throw around is not centered around PROFFESSIONAL tools. It is based around free software that comes with a mac. (you could probably download it for other OS's though I don't see the point)
I'm glad we are being objective today, and most certainly using the least bit of common sense.
In the end there is just me and my opinion, the facts, and this bottle of Vodka between me and the real world.
If Microsoft did something to get more money along these lines, all the slashdotters would start crying and winging about it all. Can't you fellas see that these companies are exactly that. COMPANIES. They're not just a group of people working on software in their bedrooms, but large, international companies striving to provide food and shelter for their employees.
Every single story I see posted on this site just brings out some ignorant americans whinging on about rights or how 'micro$oft' (very clever) are 'screwing' the public by making excellent, robust software and selling it on.
Say what you want, I don't give a damn. You know I'm right.
Well, if they did GPL it, how quick do you think M$ could copy all of apple's good ideas?
Considering two things:
1) that M$ has copied most every good idea that apple has had (even as of late, the Firewire preference over USB2.0) and 2) under a BSD like licence they could copy everything & not release code themselves (can you say typical MS philosophy about closed source).
Also, I appreciate that they are porting many apps to OSX (and supporting it!!).... to save the open souce community some time to deal with "bigger/better" porting projects.
===> An eye for an eye makes everyone blind - MG
I think Apple is being absolutely fair by giving back the part of the code that it actually is benefiting from. Apple uses BSD/Mach for the core of its operating system and they give back the core of their operating system as Darwin. This seems to be just fine to me. What I think would be cool for Apple to do though, is maybe release a binary version of Quicktime Player for Linux/PPC only. That way they'd be serving people who want to run Linux on Apple hardware.
Are there any laws in place having to do with open source efforts, specifically laws protecting them from things like this? Because if there aren't, we really need some. Open source is a beautiful example of people working togeather and should be preserved.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
Ironic, isn't it, that this flamebait ZDNet editorial was written just 2 weeks after Apple's latest release of Darwin 1.31, including source code? He also conveniently forgets about major open-source projects like Darwin Streaming Server, which Apple didn't need to release as a free product, but did anyway.
ZDNet is notorious for being whores for hits, they always post flamebait editorials hoping it will infuriate people and drive viewers to the site, causing more hits and more advertising revenue. I wonder if other advertisers are using the slashdot effect to their financial advantage like this.
The Apple WWDC banner is overhead as I read this anti-Apple article.
:)
These coincidences are a PR exec's dream.
I really wish apple would release a Quicktime player for linux. I think if apple did this I could use Quicktime for video streaming without hesitaion. Is this true for anyone else?
But I need to use Real to include linux and if I'm already using Real why bother with Quicktime?
I wonder if Apple is unwilling to release Quicktime for Linux because of Microsoft. Becuase this would be one less reason for using Windows on the x86 platform. Microsoft might then want to "punish" apple.
Apple doesn't care because they are a buisness, and they won't make any money off of open source the same way everyone else does. Besides that, they make most of their money on their overpriced proprietary hardware.. the OS is just a way for them to sell it. (Along with colors like Grape)
I'm don't think anyone is saying that Apple is doing anything that any other big doesn't company do, but enough with the "oh how wonderful" OS X is. OS X and Apple are not friends of OSS.
Yes, but then you must not distribute the code to anyone in any form. That is, Apple couldn't release the binaries they made out of the GPLed sources either, thus making anything unusable for them, as they need to actually release the software to sell it. Sounds logical? Ela.
Here's what I had to say:
t odo.html)
o ff &th=8bd7f1594db13278,72&ic=1
Evan,
Your research into the recent article on Apple's open source efforts overlooked many facets to the story that may have changed your mind. I'll briefly explain what I mean by that, and then provide you with links and/or quotes to back up my points.
Apple has contributed many man-hours of their employee's paid work time in support of Open Source efforts. Among the Apple Developers working on Open Source projects was Wilfredo Sanchez, who had (has) commit rights to the CVS trees of both FreeBSD and Apache. This is a privledge and honor amongst Open Source Coders, and only the most trusted (and worthwhile) are granted such rights.
The BSD license is designed to allow anyone, including profit-making companies, to use the code licensed under it as they see fit. Apple is working above and beyond the requirements placed by the BSD license in their development efforts. They are not opening all of their software at this time (their current business model would not easily allow for this option at this time), though the option to do so remains open.
Software players for Quicktime movies have been successfully created in the past (NeXTTIME for the NEXTSTEP OS) without any assistance from Apple. The Sorenson codec is property of the Sorenson company, and is not Apple's to give away. Of course, it too could be reverse-engineered were there an enterprising fellow or two who were interested in doing so.
The FSF boycott of Apple that you mention was lifted in 1995. Somewhat disingenious, especially considering the overhaul that the company has received since the return of Jobs in 1997.
Darwin has been ported to x86. And while it is probably true that Apple itself won't be porting KDE/GNOME apps to the darwin platform, they're certainly not trying to stop others from doing so. The XonX project is well on its way to achieving this goal (http://sourceforge.net/projects/xonx/), and Apple's own "Wishlist" for Darwin states that the goal of a rootless XFree86 port is "highly desirable". (http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/
I hope that you will print a retraction of some of your claims in light of this evidence. Thanks for listening/reading.
Sean Willis
Windows sysadmin and NeXT/Apple fan
-----
http://www.advogato.org/person/wsanchez/
http://www.apache.org/contributors/index.html
-----
From www.opensource.apple.com/projects:
Darwin (including the OO driver development framework, IO Kit)
Darwin Streaming Server (an alternative to the costly RealServer product, that will run on Mac, Windows, and Linux)
Open Play and NetSprocket
HeaderDoc
------
From www.perens.com/Bio.html:
I publicly criticized Apple's first not-quite-Open-Source license. They addressed every one of my criticisms in the next version of their license, which is applied to part of MacOS X and other products.
-----
From a comp.sys.next.advocacy post by Mike Paquette, current Apple employee and developer of NeXTTIME, a Quicktime clone for the NeXT computer:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=
Mike Paquette states:
"Well, typing as someone who was a member of a 4 man team that did build a QuickTime clone, complete with plug-in architecture, editing, and a tiny bit of video capture and recording, running on a Unix derivative, I'd like to chime in.
...
"The information is all out there. You don't need squat from Apple. If you really want a QuickTime clone either copylefted or open sourced, knock off the whining, get off your butt, and do it. Show us what a totally kewl coder you are."
Given the fact the a large part of the current dev team comes from NeXT, I'd say that Apple will contribute to Open Source. NeXT had neglected to keep its compiler in sync with gcc, and they had big trouble getting it in sync again.
One of the advantages of open source is that others will have a look at the code, possibly finding errors you missed. This will only work if you keep everything in sync, and therefore requiring you to give back as well. This is not a license requirement, but a natural requirement (which I like better thatn enforced freedom).
I remember some post from an Apple engineer discussing just this problem, I can't seem to find it, anyone?
The point of the BSD license is that people *can* do this. This is why I use the BSD license for my own code that I have released. 1. I would rather someone use my code if it does what they want rather then have to do it all over again. 2. Someone using my code and not offering anything back doesn't hurt me, or other users of my code than if they had not used my code at all. Now, imagine if you will a world without BSD Sockets being available under the BSD license. Do you think everyone would have opened up their source code so they can use it? No, everyone would have written their own, and *that* would have been a mess. Software is different than money, farms, or a potato. A piece of software is not a limited resource. If you use my source code, you do not prevent me from using it. I think the animals should stay on the farm :)
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Open Source for OS X 's BSD under belly isn't as hard to get your hands on as some of you may belive. There are tons of links around the OS X pages at Apple's site leading you toward thier developers section. They also have Open Source projects page ... one of them being Darwin ... the BSD system which OS X runs on.
You can find that here
http://www.publicsource.apple.com/projects/
Give me a break, maybe they arn't updating the code every day but most of the recent bug fixes and OS X updates have been in the OS X shell not the sub system which it runs on. Stop complaining and go grab the OPEN Darwin Source and sign up to be a Developer which is free !
-
Christopher 'rhino' Morrissey
-
rhino@badlandsgames.com
www.badlandsgames.com
- MOSKIE