Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Releases macOS 10.12 Sierra Open Source Darwin Code (9to5mac.com)

Posted by msmash on from the curious-case-of-apple dept.

An anonymous reader writes:Apple has released the open source Darwin code for macOS 10.12 Sierra. The code, located on Apple's open source website, can be accessed via direct link now, although it doesn't yet appear on the site's home page. The release builds on a long-standing library of open source code that dates all the way back to OS X 10.0. There, you'll also find the Open Source Reference Library, developer tools, along with iOS and OS X Server resources. The lowest layers of macOS, including the kernel, BSD portions, and drivers are based mainly on open source technologies, collectively called Darwin. As such, Apple provides download links to the latest versions of these technologies for the open source community to learn and to use.

3 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Re:huh by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That makes two retarded shit-filled idiots. Apple does not have to release the vast majority of the code that they have. Very little, if any, is released under the GPL.

  2. Re:How easy is it to fix something yourself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The other side of this is that Linux developers can use it to gain insight to making your favorite Linux distribution run – or run better – on Mac hardware.

    Whether you love or hate Mac hardware, there are a lot of people who want to run Linux on it.

  3. Re:huh by Shane_Optima · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No one forces you to use GPL code that other people have written.

    I never understood why people consider this "the freedom to take away freedom" (or the related problems often termed "tolerance of intolerance") argument to be compelling. "Boo hoo, this society is so repressive! I'm not allowed to punch random people in the face!" It's entirely reasonable to insist that people who want to use open sourced software for their own ends not change the license. There are multiple real-life examples showing us of how this can go badly for permissive and multiple real-life examples of how GPL enforcement can lead to very worthy projects appearing.

    Major corporate-sponsored permissive-licensed OSS didn't even take off until years after the GPL had established itself, as a reaction to the GPL. Google doesn't Apache license Android userland stuff out of the goodness of their hearts or because they think permissive freedom is "real" freedom. They did it and do it because the GPL was already well established in the Linux ecosystem and they really didn't want to see any competing GPL projects emerge.

    The anti-GPL / pro-permissive position is, for the most part, completely disconnected with reality.