Slashdot Mirror
The GNU-Darwin World
proclus writes "The GNU-Darwin Distribution was founded
to leverage the open source development dynamic and build the infrastructure for
scientific computing on a new platform. Now GNU-Darwin is a major free software
project, and the infrastructure, such as parallel computing and molecular
graphics software is available to everyone via the web and on digital media
discs. Check it out. Also, Apple
has written up a story
about it."
Apple has no reason to open source specific pieces of their code. They are and have been a publicly-traded, capitalist computer maker that functions to make money. The company wouldn't exist if this were the case... Apple is first and foremost a hardware company. That is where they get their revenue. That is where they must always pledge allegiance. ...especially since I own quite a bit of their stock. ;)
I'm not popular enough to be different.
Homer Simpson, The Simpsons
Actually, the GPL imposes restrictions on further distribution. Therefore, it can't possibly be considered free compared to a license like BSD.
This is the distribution that swore off PPC development because of political reasons, basically saying that Apple is so bad that they can't continue to use any part of the platform they are based on, but yet they are still producing that which they said they wouldn't (new stuff for PPC). They say silly things like "the most free" distribution, as if such a phrase has any meaning. They claim to be the premiere free software distribution for Mac OS X, which is plainly false, unless you are deluded into believing that only copylefted software is free software.
This is a project driven almost solely by politics, not technology, and they can't even be consistent there. Beware.
Well GNU even considers FreeBSD non-free software because of the BSD license.
Basically GNU considers a license (BSD style) that doesn't give you any restrictions whatsoever (except for mentioning copyright) on the redistribution of the software to be non-free. Go figure.
Of course it's much more "free" to have GNU telling me I have to make everything I base on GPL software GPLed as well. This is a restriction. And don't tell me it results in more freedom, because I wouldn't be more free in choosing to use the GPL. The GPL restricts me in how I can use the code.
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
Final Cut Pro didn't have any competition on the Mac, e.g. it was an application for a nishe that didn't have an application, while I agree that Final Cut Express was an outright attack on Adobe... however you did say the Pro version and I beleve that that as an example is worth NULL and void.
The same thing goes for Soundtrack, there were no such applications for the Mac. Argument and examples are again NULL and void.
Safari however is discussable, I do beleve that MS had planned to terminate IE for the Mac and there was need for a standard browser included with the OS. It was thus necissary for Apple to create Safari, they didn't have any choise.
A more valid argument vould have been the Sherlock and Watson "incident".
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
I think it's simplest to say that the GPL is about the freedom of the code (i.e., once the code is Free, it has to stay Free) and as such the freedom of the community at large (since this means that over time, they will almost by definition get a larger choice), while the BSD license is more about the personal freedom of users/companies (to do whatever they want with the code). Imho, it's not about which one is more Free than the other, they simply focus on different (contradicting) freedoms: the freedom of the individual vs. the freedom of the community.
Donate free food here
the problem with this, as i had a similar idea in an earlier post, and this was pointed out was: what about when 1 project is very much in need of highly portable code, while another project isn't... as in, netbsd couldn't necesarily join this universal ports, because they need to have all their ports compile across everything with a microprocessor(this is not a bad thing, btw) but a linux or darwin project only cares about x86/ppc architectures.
GPL = free software, copylefted: protects the [continuing] freedom of the FUTURE users, ensuring the software will STAY free software.
BSD = free software, non-copylefted: protects the [somewhat more ample] freedom of the CURRENT users, ensuring they can do [mostly] whatever they want with the code.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Maintanence mode means that we will continue to provide updates and support.
... this is different from how it was before, how, exactly? And how does the addition of brand-new PPC packages square with this?
So
Macs have been a better deal pricewise than PCs since 1995.
Its time to stop modding up "insightful" every troll who comes along and whines about Macs being "expensive". IT just isn't true, and its a sure sign the person has never used a Mac.
And the point to Darwin, since you're ignorant of what it is, is that it has Apples new IO system, IOKit, and quite a variety of other stuff that is Apple written, and does not exist in BSD or Linux OSes (unless its migrated there.)
There's more to OSX than "eye candy".... if you were a Mac developer as you claim, you'd know that.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
I will argue that open-sourcing Darwin is for purely selfish reasons. There's no need for anything like altruism or ideology.
Apple chose to base OS X on BSD (FreeBSD, I believe) because it's a very good and stable platform. But they knew that they would have to make some changes to the kernel in order to port it to the PowerMac, since it's a hardware platform that that changes with each new release.
In order to reap the benefits of open source (getting updates from people all over the internet) they have to release their source as well. If they don't, then they end up needing a team of engineers to track and integrate updates that are made to the public source tree. And if the public tree undergoes an architecture change, Apple would have to integrate all of that - which can be expensive.
The only way to avoid this is for Apple to release their changes back to the community. In doing so, the community will have them in the baseline code that it uses for making changes. So when Apple then integrates those changes back into its own line, it's a relatively painless process.
In other words, by doing this, Apple greatly reduces their cost of using the BSD platform. And as a happy side-bonus, the rest of the world (that is, us) get access to the sources to the core of their flagship OS.
In your own words:
First, we are making explicit and binding the following policy. GNU-Darwin will not support or distribute any software which links to proprietary libraries...
Followed by:
Second, we will be moving our operations to x86, and we are putting the ppc collection into maintenance mode.
There's nothing at all ambiguous about this. You announced your intent to move your active development operations to x86, while putting ppc development into "maintenance mode." According to the commonly accepted, widely used meaning of the quoted term, your intent was to continue to apply patches and bug fixes to the packages you'd already made for ppc, but only create new packages only for x86.
The confusion here arises solely from the incorrect headline
Okay, let's run with that assertion. The natural question to ask is, why was the headline incorrect? Two possibilities come to mind. One is that you misused a common term, and the editors who wrote the headline assumed you were using it in the more commonly-accepted sense - given the general tone and context of the rest of the announcement, not to mention many of your messages prior to that, that's not an unreasonable assumption to make.
Another possibility is that the editors knew what you truly meant, but for some reason maliciously perverted the sense of your announcement for reasons of their own. As far as many of us are concerned, this idea isn't even half as credible as the first. To assume that every single one of the many editors out there misrepresented your statement would require a pretty high level of paranoia.
I'm giving you some benefit of the doubt, and assuming that your intentions were a bit more benign - let's say you really meant you'd be buying and using x86 workstations for most of your work, and treating ppc as a secondary target rather than your main focus. If that's the case, the fact is that your words and tone did not accurately convey your intent.
Or perhaps you wrote while angry, or frustrated, and later changed your mind. That's understandable - it happens to all of us from time to time.
You need to understand the fact that continuing to blame others for this misunderstanding is not helping your case or your cause. In the eyes of many in the community, you are damaging your own credibility as well as that of the project you represent. The best damage control you could possibly do right now would be to simply admit that you misspoke, or that you changed your mind. No one believes otherwise anyway, and your continuing denials are the reason the issue keeps coming up.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
I think it's simplest to say that the GPL is about the freedom of the code (i.e., once the code is Free, it has to stay Free) and as such the freedom of the community at large (since this means that over time, they will almost by definition get a larger choice)...
/. folklore can never give me an example. Frankly, I've got better things to do than to worry about things that don't happen (other than a pay raise).
By assuming that this is straightforward, you touch on the difference in view that explains the lack of understanding between BSD and GPL proponents. You see, I believe that the BSD license can protect the freedom of the community quite well. First of all, I don't believe in the myth that BSD software will be embraced, extended and replaced by a closed version that we are forced to buy. There are various reasons why this myth is FUD, but the most important one is simply that it rarely, if ever, happens. The people who bandy this
Another myth is that the Free Software library will always keep increasing (because GPL'ed code will stay GPL'ed). This notion is not only false because the copyright holder can relicense his code, but more importantly ignores the unfortunate affliction called bit rot. Software will cease to be useful when it is not maintained and updated or when it is replaced by something better. The continued existence of a useful open source library depends mostly on the ability to attract developers who contribute. Of course, the GPL has an advantage there because it forces a developer to GPL and disclose his changes (in certain circumstances). On the other hand, releasing your changes is often the most sensible thing to do and the BSD license encourages wider adoption. Clearly, the winner depends on the specific project and the rationality of its adopters. There is no reason to assume that the collection of useful GPL software will necessarily grow faster than the BSD collection (other than what is the result of the Linux 'hype' or other marketing issues).
So again, I don't believe that the GPL can protect the freedom of the community any better than the BSD license. You're free to disagree, but please don't pretend that BSD advocates aren't interested in the community.
PS. Note that I'm not championing the sole use of BSD-like licenses. I recognize that other licenses (GPL, LGPL, etc) can be better suited for certain projects. I simply disagree with the notion that the GPL is better if you wish to support the community and BSD is better if you favor the user.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi