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.
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.
ZDNet's home for the piece:
Enjoy!-Andrew
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
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
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 !
"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.
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
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.
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...
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?)
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."
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
'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)
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
The whole "flamebait" rating should be removed as it is too much of a threat to variety of opinion. Any argument which inspires others to write something insightful is valuable. So it attracts a bit of flame, so what, next to every piece of flame on this site there is someone who has an intelligent retort. I suggest that the "flamebait" moderation be replaced with a "flamer" moderation.
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--
That's because the article is wildly off target, and basing your opinion of Apple on it is unwise. The article took two instances of Apple not releasing their own code and from that extrapolated to "Apple is a parasite on open source development", ignoring the many contributions that Apple has made. There is tons of Apple-developed code in Darwin, and they didn't have to release any of it. By the end of this year, millions of ordinary users will be running an open source Unix kernel thanks to Apple, but all some people can do is bitch because Apple hasn't released every single line of code they've written.
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.
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
> 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.
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.
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
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
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
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
Go on, read it. I dare you.
You're going to find that the BSD license is approved by the FSF. If anything, the BSD license has more freedom, as many people have said in earlier threads.
Sorry, Apple is doing nothing wrong or out of the ordinary.
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
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.
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
- 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.--
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
But not uncommon, since most people call the GNU/Linux operating system, which has a Linux kernel, simply the Linux operating system.
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.
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
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----
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.
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
--
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.
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.
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.
People like you fail to grasp the BSD philosophy. BSD code is often the reference design which the rest of the world is derived from. The BSD TCP/IP stack is used almost everywhere else except on Linux. It's actaully a good idea for something as protocol-driven as that to come out of a single code base. Research-oriented operating systems like NetBSD are used to plow the new ground, and are often the first OSes running on new architectures.
It isn't about Mine, Mine, Mine! at all.
The Apple WWDC banner is overhead as I read this anti-Apple article.
:)
These coincidences are a PR exec's dream.
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."
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