So wait, it's "shifty and illegal" for them to take code from open source projects and pass it off as their own without attribution in violation of those licences, but it's somehow ok for them to ignore Apple's software licence?
I'm not sure I'm following your logic here.
The only thing stopping them from stealing open source code and passing it off as their own without attribution is the licence its released under that provides legal protection.
That's pretty much what the OS X installer is - an OEM copy. The EULA is written in such a way to reinforce that. All copies of OS X bought at retail are for upgrading OS X - since they can only be installed on Apple Mac machines, which all, without exception, were sold with OS X already installed.
The software licence spells this out explicitly, but Psystar argued that they should be free to ignore that part.
I suppose they could have it do all the various software and hardware checks to make sure you have a prior version of OS X before installing, but that's not how Apple works - they have no serial numbers or encryption or online activation etc, they take it on trust that you're following the licence. If you're a hardware vendor who is openly violating the licence and profiting from it, then expect to get sued.
That's an interesting justification for your dislike of an OS - that it's secretly terrible (hence you not liking it) but no one will come out and say it because they "paid so much" to test it out.
Could it perhaps be that OS X simply isn't for you, or does your self worth depend on telling other people what they should feel about it? If you don't like it then no one should be allowed to?
What's more likely, that lots of people use OS X and find it suits them well, or that they're all cursing their purchases but are too embarrassed to speak up?
OS X is like any other operating system - it has pros and cons. However, if you go on believing that AC trolls represent everyone who uses it, perhaps you need to broaden your sources a little.
I made an installer from the download copy and put it on a cheap USB stick. I gave the rest of the space up for a partition where I can throw the latest combo updater on there as well as various other bits of useful software to save having to redownload them.
It's very handy, since I can update it with the newer combo installers as patches are released. It's handy if I go round to various family members who don't have the speediest internet.
Sort of like the GPL then - you're free to do what you want with that personally.... right up until the point where you decide to sell your widget with GPL code running on it and decide you want to ignore the licence and not release the source. I mean, why should they force you to obey the software licence? It's yours, right?
Has Psystar won this case then software licences would be unenforceable, which is something of a double edged sword. Sure, it means you now "own" your copy of OS X, but it also means that the GPL is now toothless.
Actually they do sell Lion on a USB stick now - there was only a brief period where the only accessible route was via the App Store. You can get it as a physical copy again, just not on DVD.
There are numerous "balance the budget yourself" website with interactive calculations and so on all over the web.
The one I used last time was the one here: http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/budget-hero which uses numbers from the CBO. It allows you to change all sorts of things and it provides projections and calculations for the future depending on what you select.
The biggest thing you notice about these sorts of things is just how expensive the Bush Tax Cuts are - certainly more than twice the cost of "obamacare" for example (which is often held up as "too expensive" by the Republicans, but could easily be paid for by repealing the Bush cuts, but then such is the nature of cut, cut, cut). It also shows how expensive social security is, and the issues affecting the future of the nation given that everyone is living longer - it's something that also needs to be addressed.
The US is not broke. Don't believe that right wing talking point - it has plenty of money, just a political unwillingness to collect it. It's broke if the current economic policies continue, but a repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts here, some slight trimming of defence spending there, a little tweak to social security over there and there's no more deficit.
You do realize that the GP was bringing up Romney to illustrate why the entire idea is bad to an Obama supporter, right? He wasn't whipping out a red penis to measure against a blue penis like you're doing. If the best defense you've got for Obama is that the previous administration did the same thing... well that's a new low for Obama I guess.
You've completely missed my point.
I'm not opposed to government funding and loan guarantees at all, by either party. (I'm not an American, and both "sides" are a little too right wing for my tastes).
My point is that the Solyndra "debacle" has been seized upon by the right wing media as a way to push their small government agenda, when, of course, it's nothing new at all for the government to be backing business ventures, as witnessed by Halliburton.
You'll note that I didn't do any "dick waving" or criticise the administration for those contracts (I could - they were awarded no-bid under the table, but I'm not against the principle of funding support from government per se), merely that there's a double standard that goes into the discussion about it.
I'm not "defending" Obama for this move - if anything it was lowballed. He should have given them a couple of billion to match the sort of ballpark figures given to the oil industry, so in that sense I'm criticising him for not going far enough. I'm not defending him for doing what the previous administration did because *that's what government should be doing anyway*. In other words, I think it's a good thing. Unfortunate when it doesn't work out, like this case, but that's what happens to risky investments sometimes.
"Apple dropped it just to thumb their nose at Adobe"?
Just listen to yourself.
The API was old, and deprecated when OS X was literally brand new - when OS X shipped at the start of its life. It was then kept around by Apple for ten years.
"Notorious for breaking backwards compatibility" - right, like keeping Classic around for years after switching to OS X, then shipping and keeping Rosetta around after *changing CPU architecture* so PPC code could run on x86, and keeping an API that was already old hat by the time OS X launched for 10 years.
"On MaOn MacOS X you need to release a new binary like every time there is a major OS upgrade." - oh come on, you can troll better than that. You're not even close to accurate.
Adobe had *plenty of time* (over 10 years) to adapt to a new API since they knew that Carbon would go away eventually (being already officially marked as EoL when OS X shipped). That they chose not to do anything about it for a decade says more about them than it does about Apple. In that same timeframe, Apple switched from PPC to Intel *and Adobe's ancient code still kept working* on the new platform, with Adobe's customers telling them "come on, it's really time to pull your finger out here... remember what happened to Quark during the OS 9 > OS X transition... they dragged their feet on making an OS X version (since Apple kept the Classic environment around for years so they didn;t have to) and Adobe came along and stole all that lovely user share away from Quark Xpress.... They thought they were too big to be ignored and that everyone would put up with it..."
There are many valid criticisms of Apple and OS X to be made, but "not supporting legacy software" is not one of them by a long shot. I'm amazed they did as well as they managed to with not only a switch to a new core API in OS X, but also a total change of CPU architecture in the middle, with early PPC software still running on OS X right up until the release of Lion.
Of course, it's not the first time they've swapped CPU architecture... the 68k switch comes to mind (and even then, they kept the emulator around for donkey's years afterwards to support legacy software).
You mean like the former administration funnelling millions to corporations like Halliburton? Very few right wing commentators harping on about "government waste" and "risky investment" back then, not that it makes it any better.
Either way, the current administration provided a $500 million loan guarantee that was unfortunately unable to be paid back - still a drop in the bucket compared to the tax breaks given to oil companies, but still not something you really want to lose. The market, flooded with below-cost Chinese panels simply beat them down.
Disabling Carbon? Ok, your delusional ranting is clearly just impenetrable.
Apple kept Carbon alive for *over ten years* and marked it depreciated when OS X was originally launched. If a full decade of development time isn't enough to transition to the parallel, modern API then what the fuck were they doing?
It's hardly Apple's fault that after including an API that was already deprecated at the launch of OS X and telling everyone about it, and that eventually it would go away but that it was around for now alongside Cocoa for legacy code and to smooth the transition that when they finally pulled it after a decade (with plenty of warning), that somehow that is "shafting" Adobe?
You really won't entertain any possibility that Apple is anything other than a Machiavellian empire, bent on screwing everyone for no purpose other than the lulz. Crazy.
Difference between an iPod and iPhone being "one antenna that costs $1-2"? Give me a break, you're not even trying.
You also seem to be ignorant of what the term "DRM" actually means, just throwing it around like a bogeyman. Apple's lack of exposure of the iPhone/iPod Touch's filesystem as a USB mass storage device is not DRM. It may be a silly restriction (I agree with you), but it's not DRM.
So, your argument is Apple are shitheads because although do do have OSS specific programmers on staff (oh, and on the "Google developing their own browser" front, which HTML engine did they opt to use, eh? They certainly didn't start from scratch), you instead condemn them for their choice of business model. They do everything they're asked of and more regarding open source licences (ie, contributing back to BSD projects when they are not obligated to) but that's not enough. You seem to have changed your argument now that I called you out over their totally legal, encouraged and designed-from-the-start use of the BSD licence, now you're saying it's not enough that they contribute back to open source because they make hardware that you personally don't like. That makes them "shitheads".
Mmm. Ok then. Come join us when you've grown up a bit and have more of an argument than "they're shitheads".
How did they "shaft" everyone they worked with?
Motorola and IBM - I assume you're talking about the move to Intel chips. Mmm. Really "shafting" of those two companies there, who were at a dead end with their CPU development, leaving Apple struggling for performance while Intel and AMD streaked ahead with x86, giving Apple little choice but to switch hardware architectures.
Microsoft - a company that originally wrote MS Office for Mac (yes, it was a Mac office suite first) who ripped off the UI for the Mac and later settled the case by agreeing to continue to ship MS Office for Mac and buy $150 million in stock, who continues to this day to run a specialised Mac Business Unit for developing Mac software (that makes them a lot of money), and enjoys the benefits of Apple integrating many MS-controlled features into OS X such as Exchange and Samba. Sounds like shafting to me!
Adobe - I assume this is about dropping Flash on iOS, given that Adobe themselves had neglected Flash on OS X for years, causing it to be an enormous performance hog and severe second class citizen compared to the Windows version. Adobe then claimed this was all about Apple "not providing" needed access to the internals of OS X to shift the blame, but this was clear nonsense given that other developers were doing *just fine* implementing flash playback on OS X with great performance (for example, the XBMC developers showing up the official Flash player on OS X by being able to play back HD flash streams at less than half the CPU use). Adobe then also claiming it was about lack of hardware decoding on OS X, even though comparisons of software-only rendering on Windows and OS X showed large disparity (not to mention XBMC seemed to do just fine). Adobe, of course, dropped support for mobile Flash late on in the game after realising it simply wasn't feasible due to performance reasons on mobile devices.... the exact reason Apple provided at the launch of the iPhone.
I get that you're an Apple hater who seems to define yourself by the hate of a large corporation, but the way you skip around your arguments to keep coming back to your pre-defined hate of Apple is quite amusing when your previous arguments that justify your hate are addressed logically. I'm not claiming they're saints, or perfect, or without criticism - there is plenty of that to level at them - but blind hate is just as bad as being an "apple fanboi" - it leaves very little room for real discussion.
Who says Apple's contributions only benefit the Mac?
Things like Clang are not exclusively Mac-focussed - the very premise of this article talks about FreeBSD making use of a project that Apple has sunk a lot of time and effort into, or projects like libdispatch or the address book and calendar server projects that they released as open source code and so on. I suppose the mindset would have to be that you trust your fellow project developers to also contribute back to the project for mutual benefit, unlike GPL where they are forced to do so.
History of big BSD projects seems to support that fact that most large scale developers do contribute back. I understand why some people would prefer to stick to GPL licensing, however.
News to me. I guess their very public stance against it, and the subsequent dragging of the music industry into a new online business model was something they really didn't want to do.
I assume you're talking about the walled garden approach of iOS devices, but that's not DRM, that's something else entirely.
It's more than that. Apple also wants to retain the right to sue anyone who uses LLVM/Clang for patent infringement if they deem them a competitive threat. Naturally I will be downvoted by the fanatical pro-Apple anti-Linux zealot mob that has taken over slashdot but this is the truth. The GPLv3 protects users from patents related to the code, removing the last great hammer companies like Apple (and Oracle, IBM, all the usual anti-GPL companies) have to destroy their competition.
Ahahahahahaha! Oh wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You honestly think/. is overwhelmingly "overtaken" by a pro-Apple, anti-Linux mob? Come on, pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
No, if you get modded down from your lofty position of zero starting score due to your extremely brave AC login it will be because of your nonsensical post.
They don't want to have to use a GPLv3 licensed compiler, so they worked to produced a BSD one. How is that being "anti-consumer"? Unless all BSD code use by anyone is also "neurotic" and "anti-consumer", in which case your beef is with the nature of the licence rather than those using it.
It's their choice - the GPLv3 is pretty anti-corporation, so they moved away from GCC to avoid it (the older GPLv2 version is getting long in the tooth). There are real limitations for GPLv3 software from the perspective of a large corporation and Apple wishes to avoid them. This is exactly the intended result of those who wrote the v3 licence - the alienation of developers who would otherwise be able to "Tivoize" the code.
Can you really blame Apple for finding that BSD code works for them, and using it where possible? Especially for a key component of their IDE.
They also aren't keeping their C compiler "closed", even though it's under a BSD licence. They've been developing and releasing changes back into the community because it's beneficial for them to do so - namely that open source development of Clang is mutually beneficial to lots of different projects (even Linux itself). This is not some sort of black and white situation whereby the choice to not use GPL means they are automatically taking the diametrically opposed position, merely that the GPL does not suit them but the BSD licence does, especially now that GCC has moved to GPLv3.
That is just about the most insightful thing I've seen written about them.
I'm pro-GPL and pro-open source, but the efforts of these "companies being successful using BSD code are leeches!" people are doing nothing but hurting the image of the OSS community.
They don't necessarily come back to you by force of the licence, but that doesn't mean they *won't*.
Apple (or any other large company), or any other developer is under no obligation to share their changes, but they still do because they get benefits from doing so, but without some of the legal issues that arise from the use of the GPL due to the nature of some of their other licences and their overall business model.
Just because they prefer (or in some cases are unable) to use the GPL does not mean they're opposed to the open source development model.
There's certainly a "risk" that you'll "lose" your code into the belly of the beast with nothing ever coming back, but if you stick exclusively to GPL projects then some of those big beasts can't even sit down at the table to begin with.
How strange, then, that Apple decided to use a BSD licence for Clang. I mean, they're going to lock everything behind a proprietary wall, of course... oh wait.
The fact that you think that companies using BSD code to make money are "ripping off" the community really dispels any doubt that you're a petulant child. It's the most ridiculous argument that I've ever heard and the stupidest reason for "hating" a company possible.
How are Apple "stepping on your feet" by using BSD code and developing successful products with it? If OS X had flopped would you still be saying that?
Apple has put a great deal of effort into open source development because they realise that it is mutually beneficial to everyone concerned. Oh, of course their primary goal is their own success and their own bottom line, but they have been able to strike a pretty good balance with open source software and the community at large on their rise into the company they are now.
Apple are only "stepping on your toes" if you feel jealous of their success or the fact that they aren't legally forced to release the entire source code of OS X because they used a large proportion of BSD code in it. For some reason you think this is Apple being "unfair" or "leeching off the back of the OSS community" to make money. This view is very petulant and childish, and ignores the fundamental truth that *that's how the BSD licence works* and that method of development is *actively encouraged by the licence*. It's precisely why the code was released under that licence.
It also ignores the *enormous* contributions to Open Source (both 'legally forced' on GPL projects like KHTML/WebKit, and non-forced like Apache and BSD code) from Apple, especially with some of the large projects they have been involved with - LLVM/Clang being a big one.
The Open Source community benefits from large companies contributing resources to it - just look at what happened with KHTML, for example, and numerous other projects that large companies have put time, money and personnel behind. The benefits are a two way street, but comments like yours about Apple "leeching" from the community are counterproductive and only damage the community's image.
Slashdot Mirror
They already do. They started selling them ages ago.
Yes, you were *sold* a licence to use a piece of software which you *bought*.
So wait, it's "shifty and illegal" for them to take code from open source projects and pass it off as their own without attribution in violation of those licences, but it's somehow ok for them to ignore Apple's software licence?
I'm not sure I'm following your logic here.
The only thing stopping them from stealing open source code and passing it off as their own without attribution is the licence its released under that provides legal protection.
That's the problem though, isn't it. You may *feel* like they should all be the same, but they simply aren't.
Software licenses are nothing new, even if you don't like them.
That's pretty much what the OS X installer is - an OEM copy. The EULA is written in such a way to reinforce that. All copies of OS X bought at retail are for upgrading OS X - since they can only be installed on Apple Mac machines, which all, without exception, were sold with OS X already installed.
The software licence spells this out explicitly, but Psystar argued that they should be free to ignore that part.
I suppose they could have it do all the various software and hardware checks to make sure you have a prior version of OS X before installing, but that's not how Apple works - they have no serial numbers or encryption or online activation etc, they take it on trust that you're following the licence. If you're a hardware vendor who is openly violating the licence and profiting from it, then expect to get sued.
That's an interesting justification for your dislike of an OS - that it's secretly terrible (hence you not liking it) but no one will come out and say it because they "paid so much" to test it out.
Could it perhaps be that OS X simply isn't for you, or does your self worth depend on telling other people what they should feel about it? If you don't like it then no one should be allowed to?
What's more likely, that lots of people use OS X and find it suits them well, or that they're all cursing their purchases but are too embarrassed to speak up?
OS X is like any other operating system - it has pros and cons. However, if you go on believing that AC trolls represent everyone who uses it, perhaps you need to broaden your sources a little.
I made an installer from the download copy and put it on a cheap USB stick. I gave the rest of the space up for a partition where I can throw the latest combo updater on there as well as various other bits of useful software to save having to redownload them.
It's very handy, since I can update it with the newer combo installers as patches are released. It's handy if I go round to various family members who don't have the speediest internet.
Sort of like the GPL then - you're free to do what you want with that personally.... right up until the point where you decide to sell your widget with GPL code running on it and decide you want to ignore the licence and not release the source. I mean, why should they force you to obey the software licence? It's yours, right?
Has Psystar won this case then software licences would be unenforceable, which is something of a double edged sword. Sure, it means you now "own" your copy of OS X, but it also means that the GPL is now toothless.
Actually they do sell Lion on a USB stick now - there was only a brief period where the only accessible route was via the App Store. You can get it as a physical copy again, just not on DVD.
There are numerous "balance the budget yourself" website with interactive calculations and so on all over the web.
The one I used last time was the one here: http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/budget-hero which uses numbers from the CBO. It allows you to change all sorts of things and it provides projections and calculations for the future depending on what you select.
The biggest thing you notice about these sorts of things is just how expensive the Bush Tax Cuts are - certainly more than twice the cost of "obamacare" for example (which is often held up as "too expensive" by the Republicans, but could easily be paid for by repealing the Bush cuts, but then such is the nature of cut, cut, cut). It also shows how expensive social security is, and the issues affecting the future of the nation given that everyone is living longer - it's something that also needs to be addressed.
The US is not broke. Don't believe that right wing talking point - it has plenty of money, just a political unwillingness to collect it. It's broke if the current economic policies continue, but a repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts here, some slight trimming of defence spending there, a little tweak to social security over there and there's no more deficit.
You do realize that the GP was bringing up Romney to illustrate why the entire idea is bad to an Obama supporter, right? He wasn't whipping out a red penis to measure against a blue penis like you're doing. If the best defense you've got for Obama is that the previous administration did the same thing... well that's a new low for Obama I guess.
You've completely missed my point.
I'm not opposed to government funding and loan guarantees at all, by either party. (I'm not an American, and both "sides" are a little too right wing for my tastes).
My point is that the Solyndra "debacle" has been seized upon by the right wing media as a way to push their small government agenda, when, of course, it's nothing new at all for the government to be backing business ventures, as witnessed by Halliburton.
You'll note that I didn't do any "dick waving" or criticise the administration for those contracts (I could - they were awarded no-bid under the table, but I'm not against the principle of funding support from government per se), merely that there's a double standard that goes into the discussion about it.
I'm not "defending" Obama for this move - if anything it was lowballed. He should have given them a couple of billion to match the sort of ballpark figures given to the oil industry, so in that sense I'm criticising him for not going far enough. I'm not defending him for doing what the previous administration did because *that's what government should be doing anyway*. In other words, I think it's a good thing. Unfortunate when it doesn't work out, like this case, but that's what happens to risky investments sometimes.
"Apple dropped it just to thumb their nose at Adobe"?
Just listen to yourself.
The API was old, and deprecated when OS X was literally brand new - when OS X shipped at the start of its life. It was then kept around by Apple for ten years.
"Notorious for breaking backwards compatibility" - right, like keeping Classic around for years after switching to OS X, then shipping and keeping Rosetta around after *changing CPU architecture* so PPC code could run on x86, and keeping an API that was already old hat by the time OS X launched for 10 years.
"On MaOn MacOS X you need to release a new binary like every time there is a major OS upgrade." - oh come on, you can troll better than that. You're not even close to accurate.
Adobe had *plenty of time* (over 10 years) to adapt to a new API since they knew that Carbon would go away eventually (being already officially marked as EoL when OS X shipped). That they chose not to do anything about it for a decade says more about them than it does about Apple. In that same timeframe, Apple switched from PPC to Intel *and Adobe's ancient code still kept working* on the new platform, with Adobe's customers telling them "come on, it's really time to pull your finger out here... remember what happened to Quark during the OS 9 > OS X transition... they dragged their feet on making an OS X version (since Apple kept the Classic environment around for years so they didn;t have to) and Adobe came along and stole all that lovely user share away from Quark Xpress.... They thought they were too big to be ignored and that everyone would put up with it..."
There are many valid criticisms of Apple and OS X to be made, but "not supporting legacy software" is not one of them by a long shot. I'm amazed they did as well as they managed to with not only a switch to a new core API in OS X, but also a total change of CPU architecture in the middle, with early PPC software still running on OS X right up until the release of Lion.
Of course, it's not the first time they've swapped CPU architecture... the 68k switch comes to mind (and even then, they kept the emulator around for donkey's years afterwards to support legacy software).
You mean like the former administration funnelling millions to corporations like Halliburton? Very few right wing commentators harping on about "government waste" and "risky investment" back then, not that it makes it any better.
Either way, the current administration provided a $500 million loan guarantee that was unfortunately unable to be paid back - still a drop in the bucket compared to the tax breaks given to oil companies, but still not something you really want to lose. The market, flooded with below-cost Chinese panels simply beat them down.
Disabling Carbon? Ok, your delusional ranting is clearly just impenetrable.
Apple kept Carbon alive for *over ten years* and marked it depreciated when OS X was originally launched. If a full decade of development time isn't enough to transition to the parallel, modern API then what the fuck were they doing?
It's hardly Apple's fault that after including an API that was already deprecated at the launch of OS X and telling everyone about it, and that eventually it would go away but that it was around for now alongside Cocoa for legacy code and to smooth the transition that when they finally pulled it after a decade (with plenty of warning), that somehow that is "shafting" Adobe?
You really won't entertain any possibility that Apple is anything other than a Machiavellian empire, bent on screwing everyone for no purpose other than the lulz. Crazy.
You just don't have a clue, do you?
Difference between an iPod and iPhone being "one antenna that costs $1-2"? Give me a break, you're not even trying.
You also seem to be ignorant of what the term "DRM" actually means, just throwing it around like a bogeyman. Apple's lack of exposure of the iPhone/iPod Touch's filesystem as a USB mass storage device is not DRM. It may be a silly restriction (I agree with you), but it's not DRM.
So, your argument is Apple are shitheads because although do do have OSS specific programmers on staff (oh, and on the "Google developing their own browser" front, which HTML engine did they opt to use, eh? They certainly didn't start from scratch), you instead condemn them for their choice of business model. They do everything they're asked of and more regarding open source licences (ie, contributing back to BSD projects when they are not obligated to) but that's not enough. You seem to have changed your argument now that I called you out over their totally legal, encouraged and designed-from-the-start use of the BSD licence, now you're saying it's not enough that they contribute back to open source because they make hardware that you personally don't like. That makes them "shitheads".
Mmm. Ok then. Come join us when you've grown up a bit and have more of an argument than "they're shitheads".
How did they "shaft" everyone they worked with?
Motorola and IBM - I assume you're talking about the move to Intel chips. Mmm. Really "shafting" of those two companies there, who were at a dead end with their CPU development, leaving Apple struggling for performance while Intel and AMD streaked ahead with x86, giving Apple little choice but to switch hardware architectures.
Microsoft - a company that originally wrote MS Office for Mac (yes, it was a Mac office suite first) who ripped off the UI for the Mac and later settled the case by agreeing to continue to ship MS Office for Mac and buy $150 million in stock, who continues to this day to run a specialised Mac Business Unit for developing Mac software (that makes them a lot of money), and enjoys the benefits of Apple integrating many MS-controlled features into OS X such as Exchange and Samba. Sounds like shafting to me!
Adobe - I assume this is about dropping Flash on iOS, given that Adobe themselves had neglected Flash on OS X for years, causing it to be an enormous performance hog and severe second class citizen compared to the Windows version. Adobe then claimed this was all about Apple "not providing" needed access to the internals of OS X to shift the blame, but this was clear nonsense given that other developers were doing *just fine* implementing flash playback on OS X with great performance (for example, the XBMC developers showing up the official Flash player on OS X by being able to play back HD flash streams at less than half the CPU use). Adobe then also claiming it was about lack of hardware decoding on OS X, even though comparisons of software-only rendering on Windows and OS X showed large disparity (not to mention XBMC seemed to do just fine).
Adobe, of course, dropped support for mobile Flash late on in the game after realising it simply wasn't feasible due to performance reasons on mobile devices.... the exact reason Apple provided at the launch of the iPhone.
I get that you're an Apple hater who seems to define yourself by the hate of a large corporation, but the way you skip around your arguments to keep coming back to your pre-defined hate of Apple is quite amusing when your previous arguments that justify your hate are addressed logically. I'm not claiming they're saints, or perfect, or without criticism - there is plenty of that to level at them - but blind hate is just as bad as being an "apple fanboi" - it leaves very little room for real discussion.
Who says Apple's contributions only benefit the Mac?
Things like Clang are not exclusively Mac-focussed - the very premise of this article talks about FreeBSD making use of a project that Apple has sunk a lot of time and effort into, or projects like libdispatch or the address book and calendar server projects that they released as open source code and so on. I suppose the mindset would have to be that you trust your fellow project developers to also contribute back to the project for mutual benefit, unlike GPL where they are forced to do so.
History of big BSD projects seems to support that fact that most large scale developers do contribute back. I understand why some people would prefer to stick to GPL licensing, however.
They do?
News to me. I guess their very public stance against it, and the subsequent dragging of the music industry into a new online business model was something they really didn't want to do.
I assume you're talking about the walled garden approach of iOS devices, but that's not DRM, that's something else entirely.
It's more than that. Apple also wants to retain the right to sue anyone who uses LLVM/Clang for patent infringement if they deem them a competitive threat. Naturally I will be downvoted by the fanatical pro-Apple anti-Linux zealot mob that has taken over slashdot but this is the truth. The GPLv3 protects users from patents related to the code, removing the last great hammer companies like Apple (and Oracle, IBM, all the usual anti-GPL companies) have to destroy their competition.
Ahahahahahaha! Oh wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You honestly think /. is overwhelmingly "overtaken" by a pro-Apple, anti-Linux mob? Come on, pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
No, if you get modded down from your lofty position of zero starting score due to your extremely brave AC login it will be because of your nonsensical post.
They don't want to have to use a GPLv3 licensed compiler, so they worked to produced a BSD one. How is that being "anti-consumer"? Unless all BSD code use by anyone is also "neurotic" and "anti-consumer", in which case your beef is with the nature of the licence rather than those using it.
It's their choice - the GPLv3 is pretty anti-corporation, so they moved away from GCC to avoid it (the older GPLv2 version is getting long in the tooth). There are real limitations for GPLv3 software from the perspective of a large corporation and Apple wishes to avoid them. This is exactly the intended result of those who wrote the v3 licence - the alienation of developers who would otherwise be able to "Tivoize" the code.
Can you really blame Apple for finding that BSD code works for them, and using it where possible? Especially for a key component of their IDE.
They also aren't keeping their C compiler "closed", even though it's under a BSD licence. They've been developing and releasing changes back into the community because it's beneficial for them to do so - namely that open source development of Clang is mutually beneficial to lots of different projects (even Linux itself). This is not some sort of black and white situation whereby the choice to not use GPL means they are automatically taking the diametrically opposed position, merely that the GPL does not suit them but the BSD licence does, especially now that GCC has moved to GPLv3.
That is just about the most insightful thing I've seen written about them.
I'm pro-GPL and pro-open source, but the efforts of these "companies being successful using BSD code are leeches!" people are doing nothing but hurting the image of the OSS community.
They don't necessarily come back to you by force of the licence, but that doesn't mean they *won't*.
Apple (or any other large company), or any other developer is under no obligation to share their changes, but they still do because they get benefits from doing so, but without some of the legal issues that arise from the use of the GPL due to the nature of some of their other licences and their overall business model.
Just because they prefer (or in some cases are unable) to use the GPL does not mean they're opposed to the open source development model.
There's certainly a "risk" that you'll "lose" your code into the belly of the beast with nothing ever coming back, but if you stick exclusively to GPL projects then some of those big beasts can't even sit down at the table to begin with.
How strange, then, that Apple decided to use a BSD licence for Clang. I mean, they're going to lock everything behind a proprietary wall, of course... oh wait.
The fact that you think that companies using BSD code to make money are "ripping off" the community really dispels any doubt that you're a petulant child. It's the most ridiculous argument that I've ever heard and the stupidest reason for "hating" a company possible.
Grow up a bit then come back to the discussion.
What?
How are Apple "stepping on your feet" by using BSD code and developing successful products with it? If OS X had flopped would you still be saying that?
Apple has put a great deal of effort into open source development because they realise that it is mutually beneficial to everyone concerned. Oh, of course their primary goal is their own success and their own bottom line, but they have been able to strike a pretty good balance with open source software and the community at large on their rise into the company they are now.
Apple are only "stepping on your toes" if you feel jealous of their success or the fact that they aren't legally forced to release the entire source code of OS X because they used a large proportion of BSD code in it. For some reason you think this is Apple being "unfair" or "leeching off the back of the OSS community" to make money. This view is very petulant and childish, and ignores the fundamental truth that *that's how the BSD licence works* and that method of development is *actively encouraged by the licence*. It's precisely why the code was released under that licence.
It also ignores the *enormous* contributions to Open Source (both 'legally forced' on GPL projects like KHTML/WebKit, and non-forced like Apache and BSD code) from Apple, especially with some of the large projects they have been involved with - LLVM/Clang being a big one.
The Open Source community benefits from large companies contributing resources to it - just look at what happened with KHTML, for example, and numerous other projects that large companies have put time, money and personnel behind. The benefits are a two way street, but comments like yours about Apple "leeching" from the community are counterproductive and only damage the community's image.