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.
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.
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
--
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
"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.
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?)
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
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
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)
Here's the open sourced Darwin Streaming Server, based on Quicktime Streaming Server: http://www.opensource.apple.com//projects/streamin g/
--GnrcMan--
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.
> 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.
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
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
- 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.
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 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?
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 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
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.