Slashdot Mirror
Apple Delays Release of LGPL WebKit Code
jfruhlinger writes "Ever since Apple forked the KHTML project to create WebKit, the rendering engine at the core of Safari, the company has been a good open source citizen, releasing the code back to the community after updates. But that suddenly stopped in March, with no code releases for the last two updates to the iOS version of the browser, for reasons unknown. This might remind you of Google's failure to release the Honeycomb source code. But at least Google announced that it was holding the code back, and Android is under a license that allows for a delay; the LGPL'd WebKit isn't."
Update: 05/09 21:21 GMT by S : Reader Shin-LaC points out that Apple has now released the relevant source code.
http://www.webkit.org/building/checkout.html
CUPERTINO, Transylvania, Friday — After bricking unlocked iPhones, kicking applications off the iPhone store that might even slightly compete with iTunes in the far future, "delaying" the release of GPL source code and filing a wave of patents on basic well-known computer science, Apple Inc. today filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission declaring that it was openly adopting Evil as a corporate policy.
"Fuck it," said Steve Jobs to an audience of soul-mortgaged thralls, "we're evil. But our stuff is sooo good. You'll keep taking our abuse. You love it, you worm. Because our stuff is great. It's shiny and it's pretty and it's cool and it works. It's not like you'll go back to a Windows Mobile phone. Ha! Ha!"
Steve Ballmer of Microsoft was incensed at the news. "Our evil is better than anyone's evil! No-one sweats the details of evil like Microsoft! Where's your antitrust trial, you polo-necked bozo? We've worked hard on our evil! Our Zune's as evil as an iPod any day! I won't let my kids use a lesser evil! We're going to do an ad about that! I'll be in it! With Jerry Seinfeld! Beat that! Asshole.”
"Of course, we're still not evil," said Sergey Brin of Google. "You can trust us on this. Every bit of data about you, your life and the house you live in is strictly a secret between you and our marketing department. But, hypothetically, if we were evil, it's not like you're going to use Bing. Ha! Ha! I'm sorry, that's my ‘spreading good cheer' laugh. Really."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Here's the download webpage. Presumably Apple intends to release it eventually (based on what is written on that web page), who knows why they haven't yet.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Not all of us were suckered into Google's "open" lullaby back in 2007, so it's not all a lost cause. Though to be fair, the parts Google was obligated to release have been.
Apple is obligated to release this software and haven't. I suppose this makes my choice to dump OS X from my old Macbook in favor of Ubuntu justified (not that I need justification, but Apple makes it so easy these days.)
Google doesn't get off scott-free even though the license for Android permits a delay. The license for Webkit absoulutely DOES NOT permit a delay.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
So we have a case of blatant copyright violation, which is even perpetrated for commercial gain. So I guess the DHS will step in and seize the apple.com domain as they have done before in similar cases, right?
OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
Other than some underlying systems bits that's copyleft (Linux kernel, Bluez, some system utils), or BSD licensed, Google generally own most of the Android code outright. So Google don't ever have to release Honeycomb. It's their code, they don't have to give source if they don't want to. (That said, I reckon their bluetooth stack depends sufficiently on BlueZ that their userspace becomes derived from that GPL code - stuffing IPC between your code and GPL code does NOT, of itself, mean your code escapes from the GPL; but that still doesn't mean they'd have to release their code).
Apple OTOH started WebKit/WebCore as a fork of KHTML, which is LGPL. So it wasn't their code at all to start with and, unless they're rewritten ALL the code since the fork AND gotten appropriate grants from the other contributors to WebKit, Apple are obliged to honour the *other* copyright holders and follow the LGPL licence.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Mobile phones are for fags.
Posted from my telegraph.
Apple and Google both delay. Apple is evil, Google gets off scott-free because they use the word "open" with all their crap.
If you read the article you will see that they explain the reason for this. Google actually explained what was going on and why they were holding back the code. It gives us some confidence that they haven't abandoned their open source license.
I think that Google does do some evil at times, but this is not an example of that.
The d-evil is, as always, in the details.
Google released the GPL portion of Honeycomb (including kernel and userland), as per their obligation. The part of honeycomb they delayed is the part that they have exclusive ownership of. They have no obligation to release it but they claim that they will. People are only accepting that claim because of Google's track record on open source: Google creates tons of open-source projects and code.
With webkit, the situation is more complicated: Apple has added a ton to webkit but their code is based on KHTML and interspersed with other people's contributions. It would appear that they are legally obligated to release the code. The fact that they are holding back is consistent with the fact that Apple only releases what they absolutely must release. Perhaps they are now figuring out what that is?
Forgive the line numbers, I grabbed it from the webkit Trac
Here's the license.
1
2 Copyright (C) 2005, 2006, 2007 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
3
4 Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
5 modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
6 are met:
7
8 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
9 notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
10 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
11 notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
12 documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
13 3. Neither the name of Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") nor the names of
14 its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
15 from this software without specific prior written permission.
16
17 THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY APPLE AND ITS CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY
18 EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
19 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
20 DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL APPLE OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
21 DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
22 (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
23 LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
24 ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
25 (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
26 THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
27
28
In other words, "We'll release the source when we're damn well good and ready."
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Apple could have written WebKit from scratch, but instead they decided to fork KHTML.
What would be more apt would be "don't look an Indian-gift horse in the mouth."
Are you sure they haven't? From the last couple of change lists I see nothing regarding Safari.
Apple is INSANELY cool and that's all I care about.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Saying "Google does it too!", doesn't make it right.
Yes, it is. But why wait, or even ask Apple, when /. can run an anti-Apple piece.
Remember kids, if you want page hits slag off Apple, works every time.
Why have they bothered with all this then? http://opensource.apple.com/
Most of the packages for Mac OS X are not even GPLed, so Apple would not need to release any of the code for them.
I seem to recall when this story came out a couple of weeks ago that the speculation centered on the updated JS engine. Apple may be determining if that code needs to be released.
Unlike fanbois, I would prefer to slag off Apple, than shag off it.
All you need to do is recall the shitstorm it took for Apple to release "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to" instead of huge blobs of code that no-one in their right mind would work of off for Webkit in the first place.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Did you read your own post? Because you're on slashdot and you're not the only one complaining about Google.
What pisses you off is that Apple don't get off scot free.
Or they're just getting their ducks into a row first?
If you remember the first release of their changes way back in the early days of Webkit was received very poorly because it was not well documented and didn't mesh well with the existing project (something they have since changed, and now things are smoother).
Who knows why there's a delay here?
In terms of "releasing only what they have to", I'm not sure I fully buy that - Apple is a pretty good open source citizen in terms of project contributions and has even opened up some of its own projects and put them out there when they really had no need. Their work on things like LLVM while clearly very important for their own success, is benefiting the community at large. Projects like the quicktime streaming server, address and calendar servers, Webkit and Nitro, just to name a few.
I don't buy that they're suddenly turning turtle, especially on something as powerful for them as Webkit. Sure they're not the "do no wrong" golden child and they do plenty that is questionable, but I don't thin they're going to shoot the goose that lays their platinum encrusted eggs - they have been *extremely* successful with a combination of open and closed software with OS X (and by extension, iOS). They have carved out a little niche between the two opposing models (Windows on one side, Linux/BSD on the other) that mixes the benefits of both approaches. I see no reason they'd risk that.
No one has actually got any confirmed information that they are *not* releasing anything, and given the track record with Webkit to date (excellent with a bumpy start) they're not just going to ignore something as obvious as the LGPL code restrictions - they'll definitely release those code changes, since they are legally required to do so.
Actually, the license makes no comment on when you have to make the source available, just that you do have to make it available.
I'm fairly certain that could be argued in court by a well paid lawyer. Doesn't matter what the intent was, what matters is how the written words can be twisted to fit the sides fighting the battle.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Can anyone point me to the Android web browser code used in Honeycomb? Seeing it also uses the same LGPL WebCore and JavaScriptCore modules I'd like to have a look. I've tried via the http://source.android.com/ but couldn't get any of the updates that may have been introduced in Honeycomb.
Thanks.
Am I the only one to see the major flaw in logic? iOS updates may include Safari updates which may include WebKit updates but iOS updates are not necessarily WebKit updates. If you look at the actual 4.3 updates that the author describes, the vast majority of changes have nothing to do with Safari. Even if they did, remember Safari is WebKit + Apple's browser code just like Chrome = WebKit + Google's code. The few changes around Safari seem to imply fixes to Safari not WebKit. Also if the author did any deep analysis, in 4.2, Apple updated Safari to use WebKit 533.17.9 whereas the newest stable version if WebKit is 534.20.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Apple is regifting. How delightfully hipsterish of them. WebKit is derived (meaning made from a copy of) KHTML, the browser component used by the Konqueror web browser.
-- $G
Don't you think it is a bit early to be worried about this?
Yes, it is. But why wait, or even ask Apple, when /. can run an anti-Apple piece.
What is your reasoning for believing it's too early to complain? They have distributed LGPL software without the source code for their changes. That means they are currently in violation of the license, and nothing else gives them the right to distribute the software. They're currently committing copyright infringement.
If they want to delay one of the two steps, they can release the source code first, and delay releasing the binary. They can't really do it the other way around.
Reading comprehension, the blobs their released were for Webkit you state so yourself.
The shit-stormers weren't really KHTML people so that one's wrong. Also, "lots of people" started using Webkit when Apple started releasing proper source code, so that one's wrong as well.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
http://www.opensource.apple.com/tarballs/WebCore/WebCore-955.66.tar.gz
Also see:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/tarballs/
It isn't - http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2138492&cid=36073566
My reasoning is summed up nicely by this post - http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2138492&cid=36073566
Wait a second. Isn't the JavaScript code separate from WebCore? WebCore is the part they have a legal obligation to release. They used to have an obligation to release JavaScriptCore, too, but they've replaced that with SquirrelFish (and now SquirrelFish Extreme, aka Nitro).
We generally call the whole gestalt "WebKit," but it's worth noting the actual licensing is more complex than that. We know that Apple updated Nitro. Did they update WebCore at all?
(Don't get me wrong; I think they should continue to release the whole thing. And the fact that they're not is annoying. But saying they've skipped a legal obligation, doesn't *necessarily* follow. If Nitro is not statically linked to WebCore, they'd seem to be fine.)
so are Apples (noteworthy : the endresult is the same as with carrier pigeons)
posted using smoke clouds
"DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
That Apple simply has nothing new to release?
The GPL requires that they provide the source upon request. If a bunch of people go poking around the web site and can't find it, that doesn't mean a thing. If someone actually asks Apple for the source, they are supposed to provide it *to them*. There is no requirement to put to code on the web or in any public place - that is just the practical way to satisfy the GPL terms easily.
You haven't read the license in question, have you? (LGPLv2, according to the WebKit web page.)
Section 4: "You may copy and distribute the Library (or a portion or derivative of it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange."
How do you figure this allows delay in providing the source code?
I guess a well paid lawyer for the copyright holder could get the court to specify a "reasonable time frame". Something like a few weeks, counting from the release of the binary. Because if you can compile a working binary, you obviously have the source code and copying it to a public repository cannot be that hard...
C - the footgun of programming languages
That's one way of spinning it, I guess, if you're looking for the maximum possible negative view of Apple's actions.
You can't simply put it all down to "interoperability is necessary" and all the released code down to "minimal possible contribution".
This is what probably frustrates Apple no end - the OSS community benefits enormously from large commercial support, in just the same way that large commercial entities benefit from OSS - they just bring different benefits to the table that they can both share, yet Apple is *constantly* maligned for their interactions in the OSS space - from being accused of simply "ripping off" KHTML and "profiting from OSS work without giving anything back" to the same sorts of criticism levelled at "standing on the backs of BSD developers to sell a closed OS" (wait, isn't that the point of the BSD licence - the code is out there for people to *use*).
They give back an enormous amount because they know it benefits them to go that route - staying with LLVM, that was an enormous part of the improvements to OS X (and still is). They could have done it all in house, but they identified a project that worked for them and in the process created benefits for anyone who wants to use LLVM (and they're still ongoing).
Same with KHTML - they knew they badly needed a browser of their own, since Mozilla alone wasn't going to cut it (good to have on the platform, but they needed something to ship by default that they had control over development cycles) so they chose KHTML for very specific reasons - the speed and the elegance of the codebase compared to Gecko. They could have gone in house, but why replicate all the effort when there's an open project right there that they can work on that will also benefit hugely from the time and effort Apple would put in - the proof is in the pudding, since Webkit has been a raging success story and anyone can use it.
People love to point out that Apple is "forced" to release changes to Webkit because of the GPL and that it only grudgingly helps the OSS community because it is legally required to, but that ignores the fact that they *chose* to use KHTML as the core of their new browser, knowing full well what that would mean down the line. If they were so anti-non-apple-developer then they'd have simply gone elsewhere for their engine.
They're certainly not perfect, and they're obviously not as open-focused as someone like Canonical or Red Hat but they *do* put a lot into the OSS community, despite all the shouting down then get from the cheap seats because they understand what a powerful resource it is, and that by putting their own weight behind it, it can only become ever more powerful.
Or they're just getting their ducks into a row first?
It doesn't work that way. The LGPL is clear that once you're distributing a binary, you must also be ready to distribute source. So if there was duck sorting to be done before releasing the code, that sorting needed to be performed before they release a binary. The source also needs to be what is required to build webkit. If they mixed it up with proprietary code that they don't want to release, they need to cease binary distribution, and hope that they don't get sued by the KHTML authors. Regardless of the reason, they need to cease binary distribution until there is a source distribution.
Support SETI@home
One wonders if Apple would like to let such a case before a court. I think they would decide to avoid it.
Support SETI@home
http://www.opensource.apple.com/tarballs/WebCore/WebCore-955.66.tar.gz
http://www.opensource.apple.com/tarballs/WebCore/WebCore-955.66.tar.gz
Go find something else to whine like a little bitch about.
Nobody seems to have been clear on what is supposed to be published but isn't. The WebKit source has had checkins as recently as 2 minutes ago, so it doesn't look like Apple have stopped publishing the source to me.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
What do mobile phones and cigarettes have to do with each other?
Anyone know?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Android Webkit source Git repository? Some of the branches in that repo explicitly mention Honeycomb...
Both of them can be held in your hand and brought up to your face.
signature is pants
My reasoning is summed up nicely by this post - http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2138492&cid=36073566
That's pretty good reasoning. I stand corrected.
Delaying with a good reason still violates the license. If it's that important, then they should delay releasing the binary too.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You mean like darwin, zeroconf, contributions to CUPS, launchd, etc?
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
This is not an Apple blog, which would include some good things they do. Instead, it's the foolish fanboys' trivial take on Apple the Monster. Well, be happy with your childish amusements. I'm outie.