Apple Posts Their X11 Source

fdiv_bug writes "This happened a day or two ago, but it slipped my mind to report it. Looks like Apple has released the source code to their X11 implementation for Mac OS X." Also check out more downloads at OpenDarwin.org.

Comments

Re:Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Jebus Cripes, maybe you ought to chill.

He didn't say to "pretend copyright laws don't exist"

He said that having access to code is good for programmers. just like having access to books is good for people who want to be authors.

He's also saying, I think, that minor license differences aren't as important as the big picture of free software, specifically being able to see source code.

Re:APPLE IS DYING

[Alex Thorpe]

Who's a year behind? Dell is finally starting to dump the floppy drive, they're five years behind! ;-) More, if you include the old legacy ports they still use.

Oh, you mean CPU speed? My 3 year old iMac is fast enough for everything I do, save for recent 3D games, and I don't really need those anyway. That's one thing hurting Apple's 'marketshare', the quality and longevity of their products.

Re:Nice

[nathanh]

yes let us not encourage this - its that rabid attitude that we are trying to talk you zealots out of. it is more important that the code is out there. "anything you write later will be tainted" - no seriously chill,

It has nothing to do with "chilling" or "zealotry" or "communism" or whatever stupid buzzword you want to use this week to ridicule people. It has everything to do with comprehending the reality of copyright law. It does affect you, whether you want it to or not. Hiding under a rock and pretending that all the "zealots" are trying to turn you into a communist is pure idiocy. I thought McCarthyism died out in the 60s. Isn't it nice to know it simply spread to the Internet.

The reality of the situation - without your bullshit about communism and zealotry - is that you can't just stare at somebody else's source code without first comprehending the licensing terms. The license ALWAYS matter. You have to care about the license - not for the sake of zealotry or your "greater good" (not a view I share) - but because it's the law.

The original comment that it doesn't "matter" whether it's GPL or FBSD [sic] is pure and utter nonsense. And you are guilty of supporting this nonsense whenever you casually dismiss people as "zealots" simply because they recognise the true danger of copyright; a danger you clearly do not comprehend.

Sigh...

[lvdrproject]

Apple is the only entity that i know that can make ANYTHING pretty. I always regarded X as one of the ugliest, roughest, most uncivilised beasts of modern software. But look at this! Even the logo is pretty.

To go even further, here's your typical implementation of AIM for Windows. And then there's Apple's implementation of AIM.

And i don't even have to mention their hardware. Sigh... i hope you get paid handsomely, noble Apple design team. WE SALUTE YOU!

Re:Complexity

[Golias]

No it's not. People who love movies are more likely to be concerned by the misbehavior of the MPAA, not less.

Hypocracy is not writing about how horrible the MPAA is while writing good things about new movies. Hypocracy would be if they wrote about how horrible the MPAA is, told you not to go to any movies, and secretly went to them anyway.

Re:Damn Apple...

[capmilk]

If you've bought Mac OS X Server 1.0 and a G4 Server afterwards, you'd go for "Evil. Really evil".

For those who don't know: Mac OS X Server cost around $600 (in Europe). If you wanted to use it on your new PowerMac G4, you had to buy the, er, "update" to 1.2. Which cost around $600, as did the retail version. If you bought a new dual processor G4 after that, you had to buy the update to 1.2.1. Which cost, you guessed it, $600.

I bailed out before that and bought a Sun box instead. It runs Solaris 8 which will still be supported for another couple of years. No, there are no patches for Mac OS X Server versions older than a year.

I don't know about the update path from Mac OS X Server 1.2.1 to 10.0, but I do know that the "update" from 10.1.x to 10.2 costs around $650.

Evil. Clearly evil.

Re:does this include source for quartz-wm?

[grammar nazi]

On Apple's X11 list [apple.com], it has been stated that X11.app's QuartzWM is going to remain closed-source and proprietary. That's all their code and they're going to keep it to themselves, as is their right. On the other hand, the extensions made to the xfree86 codebase have been offered back to the community under the same licensing terms as the rest of that project.

There's nothing wrong with this. Apple extended X11 under the terms of the X11 license and as a result is giving the code back to the community. Apple created a propiretary window manager (QuartzWM) and doesn't look like it is going to release this code to the community.

It is within Apple's right to do both things. Please don't get mad at them for not releasing QuartzWM source to the public. Why should they release QuartzWM to the public?

Poeple applaud apple for choosing Khtml and X11 to extend for their own uses. Apple obliges with the licenses, but then people get mad when they don't release source with their browser or WM.

Please be happy that apple has chosen open source software and extended it. The GPL and many other licenses protect the right for businesses to extend the software and still use proprietary extensions in the same way that it protects your right to download the source. It is a good thing that the software allows Apple to do what it does, otherwise Apple would have never used the source code to begin with.

Rather than being happy or sad with Apple for helping/hurting free software, why don't we all be happy with free software for allowing Apple to use it in commercial applications? I don't think that Babbage (the author) disagrees with me, I just wanted to clarify this point with other readers.