Apple engages such fierce loyalty because it has (according to many) a superior user experience. As the primary differentiator for thier product (Mac OS/Macintosh computers) it makes sense for them to protect it. Whether they are legally or morally entitled to such protection are two seperate issues.
If an enterprising group of people with a lot of time on their hands reimplmented the MacOS X apis (Carbon & Cocoa) on top of Linux (see GNUStep for the Carbon APIs), and coded a user environment that mirrored the look and feel of aqua (including the dock, finder etc) would Apple be ethically entitled to sue? What about morally?
From the Apple web site "The core OS--called Darwin, because it represents the next generation in the evolution of modern operating systems--was built using open standards, and the open source software community contributed to its development. "
Apple not only gives credit to the community, but has returned the favor by licensing Darwin under the APSL. The APSL, which Apple has already revised once in response to community concerns, is in my view much more in line with the spirit of GPL than the spirit of BSD. If you agree with that interpretation Apple has given "Darwin" more freedom than it had under it's original license, or alternatively restricted it more to free redistribution.
"Darwin" has been refined over 14 years as the core of NeXTStep/OpenStep/Rhapsody/MacOS x. It has been ported to three architectures that I know of (M68K, Intel and PowerPC), and draws upon the insite of the best academic and industry research. If provides a complete BSD system (based on FreeBSD) on top of a microkernel (based on Mach 3.0), and as the core of Apple's OS will continue to be refined. In short Apple has responded to the many critics of Mac OS with a truly state of the art OS.
Apple will presumably continue to have difficulty developing a Darwin community outside of the walls of Apple, but they have invited anyone in.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple engages such fierce loyalty because it has (according to many) a superior user experience. As the primary differentiator for thier product (Mac OS/Macintosh computers) it makes sense for them to protect it. Whether they are legally or morally entitled to such protection are two seperate issues.
If an enterprising group of people with a lot of time on their hands reimplmented the MacOS X apis (Carbon & Cocoa) on top of Linux (see GNUStep for the Carbon APIs), and coded a user environment that mirrored the look and feel of aqua (including the dock, finder etc) would Apple be ethically entitled to sue? What about morally?
From the Apple web site "The core OS--called Darwin, because it represents the next generation in the evolution of modern operating systems--was built using open standards, and the open source software community contributed to its development. "
Apple not only gives credit to the community, but has returned the favor by licensing Darwin under the APSL. The APSL, which Apple has already revised once in response to community concerns, is in my view much more in line with the spirit of GPL than the spirit of BSD. If you agree with that interpretation Apple has given "Darwin" more freedom than it had under it's original license, or alternatively restricted it more to free redistribution.
"Darwin" has been refined over 14 years as the core of NeXTStep/OpenStep/Rhapsody/MacOS x. It has been ported to three architectures that I know of (M68K, Intel and PowerPC), and draws upon the insite of the best academic and industry research. If provides a complete BSD system (based on FreeBSD) on top of a microkernel (based on Mach 3.0), and as the core of Apple's OS will continue to be refined. In short Apple has responded to the many critics of Mac OS with a truly state of the art OS.
Apple will presumably continue to have difficulty developing a Darwin community outside of the walls of Apple, but they have invited anyone in.