Can Open Source Escape The Apple Horizon? 325
Meltr writes: "Yahoo has a story about how Apple is using non-GPL'd open source software, making proprietary extensions, and giving nothing back to the community. 'Apple simply found a source of cheap high-quality systems software that it could make its own without needing to give back so much as a bug fix, let alone useful software projects.' Good stuff." Inflammatory, but some of it is hard to deny. On the other hand, there is Darwin on x86 already, and Apple would probably be as happy selling boxes destined to run Yellow Dog Linux as OS X.
Apple & Open Source (Score:2)
My Apple II came with full source code to the monitor ROM printed in the back of the book.
Since then, they've gone downhill, to say the least.
Re:What do you mean "We", Kemosabe? (Score:2)
There's somewhat of a romantic, but false, image floating around on slashdot about Microsoft/Apple/Sun ripping off the poor open source hacker working in his garage on nights and weekends to release BSD code.
Take a step back and follow the money, and ask yourself what the government's policy intent was.
Re:Apple is working like crazy to be Open (Score:2)
Get out of hs/college, and clean behind your ears once in awhile, kid.
Re:Story Moderated (Score:3)
Come on people. If those fucking moderators spent half their points rating comments with CONTENT, slashdot might still be worth reading.
Re:Curiosly blind, this author... (Score:3)
Besides, in the other thread you say "Run along now, and buy more closed Apple hardware. We know how important your time is." Feel free to follow your own advice.
Innovation, Progess. I'm sorry, I believe in GPL. (Score:5)
Why do I program something and then release the code for it?
Possible Answers:
1. So others have the opportunity to learn from it
2. So others have the opportunity to contribute to it
3. So have the opportunity to be innovative and change the way software is written (in a positive effect hopefully)
4. I believe that people should have the opportunity to adapt the code to different platforms
5. I want to improve software quality and others to utilize this fact
6. I don't program.. but uhh.. GPL RULES!
7.
Apple isn't stabbing anyone in the back. Apple did Unix a favour. Literally, Apple has completed something miraculous which I believe should have been done long time ago. With one stroke, Unix was given a new look, a new feel, a new personality and tons of potential. What have they given back? They have brought Unix to the MASSES. Your mother and father, sister and brother. I've heard these promises from other variants and after all these years, nothing. Apple did what the rest of us couldn't. They've given back plenty. We should be saying thank you and taking a lead from them.
They didn't release their source code? Yes they did. Whatever they borrowed they gave. Sure they didn't give you the GUI. Ahh too bad. Listen, seriously sit down and ask yourself why you release source code. If it isn't to further progress and innovation then you are a hypocrite. All everyone is whining about really is not, oh they should be releasing the source, but really, why am I not getting credit, why is X not getting credit or its name proclaimed. Give it up. The problem is *YOU* not Apple.
So ask yourself, why do I release source code?
I know why I do.
To innovate and feed the mouth of progress.
Sure I may not get credit if someone uses my code. But you know what, I know its there, and I am content enough just knowing that I contributed.
Apple has provided the industry with a window of opportunity. Don't fuck it up like always.
Original ZDNet article (now with Talkback!) (Score:2)
ZDNet's home for the piece:
Enjoy!-Andrew
Re:Shows that.. (Score:2)
No-one forces you to use the GPL code. To paraphrase Linus, I'm not really impressed by arguments to the effect of, "mommy, the bad man won't let me steal from him".
What next, arguing that if you're a millionaire, stealing fifty bucks from someone shouldn't count because you didn't steal much relative to your own fortune?
Re:If Microsoft did this... (Score:5)
I really wish ZDNet would disappear into the ground (and yes, I know people who work there, and they mostly feel the same way
--
No... (Score:3)
This seems factually incorrect. They've given back code to FreeBSD. While it's certainly true that Apple isn't "all open-source, all the time," that's different from the claims made in the article. Where they've taken BSD code, they've given back code.
Some of what the author said is true, but not under the guise he presents it. It's FUD.
And MacOS X *still* sucks.. (Score:2)
Despite borrowing heavily from FreeBSD, MacOS still manages to suck. When sitting in front of one, I don't go "Wow! The UNIXness of the system really makes it shine!", I say "God, this wouldn't suck so bad if they hadn't fucked this part up."
The only thing Apple using open source code does is validate the viability of it for some people, but you run the risk of devaluing it when the uninitiated see how much OS X sucks. Perhaps it can be spun into a negative since Apple still has a closed source mentality.
The BSD licenses are set up so that Apple doesn't have to contribute a damned thing back to the user community. Why are you suprised? Perhaps they even dropped mklinux because of this? Who knows? Who really cares?
Why didn't anyone cry foul when BSDi took BSD and closed sourcified it? BSD/OS happily included each and every security update that was applied to Free/Open/Net-BSD, yet kept all of their own changes to themselves. The licenses endorse this. Apple's not the first one to do it.
Sure, legally, they're safe, but they're still assholes. Not that it matters, I don't see myself depending on MacOS X ever. Thankfully.
Re:And MacOS X *still* sucks.. (Score:2)
As good as any UNIX is in theory, they're 100% worthless to me if I don't have the source.
Solaris, for example, has no arguably incapacitating technical issues (well, let's not go there), but it's closed-sourceness totally makes it unusable for me. It doesn't even have to do with me needing to see the source. The closed-source "culture" of the system leads it to be something that I can't use. *shrug*
MacOS X is the same thing. I'm not going to cry for joy just because they gleaned code from a whole bunch of open source projects.
And what exactly did they contribute? The only thing that I'm aware of is a PowerPC port. Maybe they even released other code that was fairly invaluable to them. Hooray! 99% of the source for MacOS X is still tightly closed. Apple obviously doesn't care, but that's the whole plan. I'm not their target market. It's as if die-hard open source people see MacOS X as a version of MacOS made to appeal to them. That couldn't be further from the truth.
I'm very glad that Apple doing this is a great open source validator, but it won't change my life at all, which is what my whole rant was about.
Re:not even a conflict; just Salon grade writing . (Score:2)
Don Negro
not even a conflict; just Salon grade writing ... (Score:5)
Let's see, he misunderstood the basic issues, didn't bother to check the facts, and let his own politics dictate the solution. Hmm, why *is* this on Yahoo instead of Salon?
Apple drew Darwin heavily from NetBSD (though it's now intended to sync with FreeBSD). As even a little bit of fact checking would show, Apple sent back massive number of bug fixes. They weren't requried to do this, but they did.
The writer's complaint isn't that apple doesn't contribute back to open source, but that it doesn't turn over *all* of its projects, and fails to use the Holy GPL.
hawk
Author mixes different things (Score:2)
I think the best way to deal with this possible treat is to send feedback to Apple, asking them politely to port, or even better, free QuickTime.
As for Darwin, right now they are contributing back, worst thing that might happen is that they will stop. In that case, as far as I understand, we could fork Darwin and have an open version vs Apple version, right ?
Opinions are mine only and could change without notice.
Re:Objectives (Score:2)
"I'd just ask you to sit back for a moment and examine this statement. In what way has Unix been 'brought' to the masses? Normal OSX users are using a GUI which is abstracted far, far away from the Darwin core. Since they're not using any bits of the system that really make it Unix, why should anyone care?"
Um, I think you're the one who needs to take a long hard look at what you're saying. It's a circular argument: "Apple hasn't brought Unix to the masses, because they haven't forced the masses to become the elite".
"They're not using a network-transparent GUI, nor a system which runs useful daemons, nor are they using the componentisation, string manipulation tools, plaintext configuration tools nor any of the rest of it."
All of those things are available to OS X users who chose to work that way. "The masses" can even run useful daemons, like httpd, ftpd, ssh etc. with GUI front-ends. Everything else is available through the CLI.
"Sure, you might get the ability to run some Unix programs. Cygwin will give you that."
You really seem to have misunderstood what OS X is. It is Unix, and potentially any Unix program can be made run on it. My web development Mac can now not only run Photoshop, Dreamweaver etc., but Apache, PHP, MySQL, Perl etc. etc. This is really very significant for me, and for thousands of others.
Re:missing the point of the article (Score:5)
"Apple is posturing themselves as a good-guy open source company. They are not. There are several things they could be doing which would greatly help the open-source community, such as releasing the code to Quicktime or their True-Type font technology."
The point the article missed is that Apple are playing the Open Source game, when it comes to those projects with an OSS heritage. As mentioned in many previous posts, Apple has contributed a slew of code, bug fixes, tweaks etc. during the development of Darwin/OS X, and more is likely to come. For the author of the article, however, this is not good enough. In order to play the OSS game by his rules, Apple not only have to contribute to those projects from which it has benefited, it has to be willing to open all of its projects to the OSS world.
In my view, this is extremely unhelpful to the Open Source movement. Why should a company like Apple get involved in the OSS community, if their only reward is to be derided for still maintaining some closed-source projects? Quicktime and True-Type were never open-source projects, and they bear no relation to the code Apple is using under the BSD license. There is no legal or even moral requirement for Apple as a company to become an entirely open-source house just because they make use of community projects.
There are other issues around this which could be the subject of valid debate, such as Apple's use of their own source license, but these are ignored by this article, in favour of this misleading attempt to shame Apple into opening up other projects.
As to Apple "posturing as a good-guy open source company", they have certainly trumpeting the fact that OS X is based on the "open source" Darwin core. However, I don't believe they have ever suggested that they are now an open source company. You won't see the term "open source" bandied about in relation to Final Cut Pro, AppleWorks, DVD Studio Pro, or any of the dozens of closed-source software projects Apple maintain.
Re:Without giving back? (Score:2)
Yep. But never before with Apple-original and -maintained code.
It's easier to mesh with the original code, in many cases, than it is to try to keep up when the underlying stuff changed and be forced to guess from an otherwise closed source.
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
Without giving back? (Score:3)
The former is a QuickTime streaming server, and the later pair is a set of toolkits to aid in multi-player gaming accross the net.
Both could proffit other platforms, such as Linux.
Apart from that, the Darwin code itself includes all the code you'd like to have to manage HFS and HFS+ partitions, AppleTalk & AppleShare networking, and a slew of other bits and peices that could also benefit Linux and other OSes.
Sure, Apple wont open source Quartz. But it too needs to turn in a dollar once in a while.
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
Re:A conflict in philosophy (Score:2)
I think "egodammed" could be a new concept..
Cue man huddled in corner wearing the ragged remains of an expensive armani suit, Italian shoes with holes in the soles and a placard with 'unfashionable and homeless' scrawled upon it with the dieing ink from a Mont Blanc pen....
Girl asks her dad as they walk by "what happened to the lawyer, daddy?"
"he's been ego-dammed"
Troc
2 examples, both wrong (Score:2)
2. TrueType. Microsoft and Apple own patents on this technology. DOES THIS ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ?
So what's left of substance in this article?
-Simon
Re:A conflict in philosophy (Score:2)
An overview that includes "XFree86-style" software in the "free software" category:
This says that, err, umm, according to the overview of categories of software, somebody can take Free Software, modify it, distribute it, and keep the changes secret. (Anybody who believes otherwise either has not read, or does not understand, the "overview of categories of software" page in question.)
Re:This is BY DESIGN (Score:2)
Uh, actually, SunOS 5.x has a STREAMS-based Internet protocol stack from Mentat, not BSD, as far as I know. Earlier SunOSes had the BSD stack.
As for Windows, do you have any evidence to support your assertion that it uses the BSD stack?
Re:You don't get it (Score:2)
Now that is just being stupid. I would like you to point out a single example where MicroSoft allowed anybody to use their source code in a closed-source product without returning something to MicroSoft.
Too many ignorant people don't realize that code can be released under multiple licenses. Therefore, if I write some GPL code, I may be willing to sell it to you for a price for use in your closed-source product. You can also take the GPL code and use it in an open-source product. As far as I can tell this means you can do more with the GPL code than you can with any MicroSoft code.
And don't go saying the code examples in the MicroSoft manuals are free of any encumberances. So are the code examples provided with GCC! Boy can people be thick sometimes...
Re:You don't get it (Score:2)
Can you give an example of a product (ie sold for money, or considered of significant added value when bundled with Windows) made by MicroSoft where they allow you to use the source code in your own product where you are not required to return some compensation to MicroSoft.
PS: in case you are wondering, I don't consider the GPL all that great. I have used the LGPL for my code, but I am changing it to specifically allow static-linked closed source executables, because I believe that the GPL's prevention of closed-source products is a detriment to it's use and adoption. However I don't think people should say obviously stupid things like "MicroSoft's software is more free" as it harms any kind of meaningful discussion.
Re:You don't get it (Score:2)
Again, please give an example of SOURCE CODE for a PRODUCT and stop trying to change the rules to weasel out of this!
I do think people saying things as stupid as you did hurt any attempt to have a reasonable attempt to argue against the GPL. I myself am having trouble with the GPL but we need logical arguments to suggest there may be alternatives. Spewing stuff about "the GPL is not free" is like calling people communists or nazis, or calling everybody at MicroSoft evil. It does not convince anybody and makes you look like a fool.
Re:Damn it, QuickTime IS OPEN. (Score:4)
Let's face it - Apple has no commercial interest in allowing Linux users to view Sorenson-encoded AVIs, so it won't allow Sorenson to license it out to anyone else (that's my understanding of the situation, according to the Xanim site). And since commercial entities are incapable of altruism, it's a moot point to discuss it further.
But writing "our own" wouldn't suddenly make CNN start using it or whatever...
Hmmmm.... (Score:5)
Seems to me Apple is doing what it can with the resources it has available to it at this time. Apple must first answer to its stockholders - not, as much as some would like, to the opensource community. I mean jeeze, they just got X out the door. The framework is there for them to give back - and they seem to be headed in that direction. Just not as quickly as some might like apparently.
Shows that.. (Score:4)
It's called the BSD license (Score:4)
So, no, Apple are not doing anything wrong, but I wouldn't want them using the code I write in that manner. Hence the GPL/LGPL suits me fine in most circumstances.
Go you big red fire engine!
This story is nothing but flamebait. (Score:3)
Apple has a policy of submitting as many changes as possible "upstream" to the open-source projects that they include in Darwin. If that's not good citizenship, what is?
Also, as an aside, they have open-sourced the Darwin Streaming Server.
--
Re:the benefits will come eventually (Score:2)
{sarcasm} Yes, we'll finally get what's coming to us when all of those non-Aqua applications that Apple's writing are ported over to the free oses... {/sarcasm}
I suppose programs will be written by OSX developers that are given back to the community, but I don't see Apple contributing much to the cause. I suppose it'd be wise to port XFree86, GTK+, GNOME, KDE, and QT first, to make it easier for developers to develop with cross-platform portability in mind.
Re:If Microsoft did this... (Score:5)
So while you're screaming bloody murder, the people who wrote the BSD licenced code are wondering what the hell you're screaming about.
What do you mean "We", Kemosabe? (Score:5)
FUD (Score:2)
MPEG-4's file format is based on QuickTime 3, they had to fight tooth and nail to get their open format used for that standard as opposed to Microsoft's. The only thing stopping a GPL'd quicktime player is the 3rd parties which own the codec's. As a matter of fact, I think there ARE QuickTime players for Linux. If the codec owners would release maybe a decode only version for GPL'd OS's maybe under the LGPL, then we'd have a complete QuickTime player on good terms. It's mostly out of Apple's hands.
Anybody can download and have their way with Darwin. There are parts of NuKernel in OS X, which until Darwin, were proprietary. In fact, Darwin Streaming Server (rtp/rtsp) is free (beer and speech) for streaming your media, where Real charges you. Imagine that, a corporation making you pay to speak, we don't see our author complaining about that.
I would have to agree that this article is malicious flaimbait. This is one instance in which I would support Apple's team of evil lawyers filing a libel suit. The article is ill-informed and accuses the company of deceptive trade practices ("Big Lie"...isn't that what Hitler called propaganda?). It is clearly designed to damage the company's reputation and it's appalling to see it come from a professional news outlet.
Re:GPL? (Score:2)
Kiss my ass (Score:3)
Apple had a great reason for opening the source of the Darwin kernel, it gave them some hype before Aqua came out to wow the public. It had the side effect of attracting alot of developer support since they could now learn about the kernel from the kernel. Apple never said they were going to be the new Linux mascot. Theres no reason for them economically to give code back to the "community", like a signifigant portion of you even fucking worked on any version of the Mach kernel. If you want support pay some money (ah yes that great fiend money!) and join the ADC and talk to the developers themselves. Fuuuuuuck Linux.
Re:Apple happy to ship Linux? (Score:2)
Don't be silly - Apple is a hardware company - they'll just start selling yMacs, preloaded with Yellow Dog Linux, and with a cool yellow dog logo on the side, for $100 more.
And there'll be Apple Linux Developer conferences...
You don't get it (Score:2)
This argument is dumb. It would be like saying, "Those evil loggers who chop down trees breathe oxygen released by trees! Those trees should stop giving oxygen to loggers." How do you plan to keep companies from using Free code (I don't consider the GPL free, as it has a licence far more restrictive than anything Microsoft has ever dreamed up) and make them give something back? In fact, doesn't the idea of forcing someone give something back to the community violate the whole concept of free-ness?
And what about all those people who have installed Linux and aren't giving stuff back to the community? I bet one or two of them have been making money at it, like those evil Google people! I haven't seen Linux patches from Google lately! Those evil, evil CAPITALISTS!
-jon
Re:You don't get it (Score:2)
First of all, I didn't mention "Source Code" at all. I mentioned licences. MS licences many things for people to use (software, data). If I clip some data out of Encarta to use in a school report, MS doesn't require that I submit my report back to Microsoft. A citation (which fits the BSD model) is required, of course, because not using one would be plagarism. But MS doesn't demand that the report must now be distributed under similar terms as Encarta. That'd be nuts. Well, the GPL does that for source code. It's nuts. I don't see much difference between source code and an encyclopedia entry. Both are data. Just because one can be compiled into a program doesn't make it special.
Too many ignorant people don't realize that code can be released under multiple licenses.
This is a red herring. We're talking about the GPL here, not multiple licences.
As far as I can tell this means you can do more with the GPL code than you can with any MicroSoft code.
So you're saying that IF you used a non-GPL licence for the code, you could then use it in closed-source? Stating a truth backwards isn't an argument. I bet you noticed that not only does 2+2=4, 4 = 2+2. I don't think you'll get a Nobel Prize for your discovery, though.
-jon
Re:not even a conflict; just Salon grade writing . (Score:2)
Apple could easily release QT and TT, etc, without being sued by shareholders. If the shareholders have sat through their real blunders they'd go for a goodwill building exercise. After all, that's the only reason Apple is alive - the goodwill of diehard users.
Re:It's called the BSD license (Score:2)
If you don't like the license, then look at the changes and rewrite the fixes, it's barely slower than cutting and pasting (it'd be required for anything non-trivial anyway) and it gets around copyright problems.
And because Bison can't be closed, you know anyone using a Bison derivative in the future will keep contributing bug-fixes indirectly to YACC. Of course, most YACC users will be companies who've taken it and closed the source...
I like the GPL. I don't just want to help a specific coder on a time crunch who decides to snag my code, I want to help future generations who want to get into programming by being able to peek under the hood of the OS and programs they use.
I started on an Apple
Then when I got deeper into it, I used the assembly code listings for the OS, printed in the back of the manual. The OS came with BASIC and a 6502 mini-assembler.
How are you going to do that with Windows? There's no free compiler from MS (you have to hunt one down from a third-party) and you can't get source code to the OS or most programs you'll see.
That's what BSD code turns into - cheaper programs for MS, no benefits for users. GPLed code helps everyone. MS can learn from it, new programers can learn from it, other programmers can use it, still others can port it. With BSD code only the initial version is available in open source... Yay.
Re:not even a conflict; just Salon grade writing . (Score:2)
So? (Score:3)
If the author's wanted it to be GPL they would release it under GPL.
It still behooves Apple to feed improvements back upstream to simplify merging with the next upstream release. Its too soon for that with OS-X, maybe in a couple of months when they can stop and breath.
PS. I don't see any Open Source software written or maintained by Evan Leibovitch. Maybe he has, I didn't look too long.
Re:If Microsoft did this... (Score:2)
And which 'standards' did Microsoft take BSD code from and 'pervert'?
They released it under the BSD license. As far as they're concerned, you can wipe your ass with it for all they care -- as long as you keep that copyright notice in there.
This is what's known as *true* Free Software. Software with no viral stipulations. Software that is altruistically given to the community in its *entirety* with no demands that anything be given back.
Simon
Re:Intellectual Property THEFT !!! (Score:2)
Steve Jobs *allowed* Xerox to invest $1.6MM in Apple in *return for which* he got the red-carpet tour.
Xerox divested their interest in Apple before Apple went public, and as a result didn't get anything out of the deal.
Try reading:
Fumbling The Future
Dealers in Lightning
... if you want the real story, as garnered by interviewing Xerox employees.
Simon
Re:If Microsoft did this... (Score:5)
I don't like Apple or MS, but there is nothing to scream bloody murder about here. The BSD license allows these leaches to take their code, modify it and charge for it without giving a single dime back to the community.
So let's see... just because the BSD folks wanted it to be that people could use their stuff with no conditions other than a credit, you're saying that the BSD license has a problem?
What about their wishes? Don't they count for anything?
Simon
Re:Shows that.. (Score:2)
It all depends on your point of view. If you want to exploit free software and make it proprietary you have more freedoms with the BSD license.
But if you arent in the buisness of exploiting free software, you _will_ get less freedom as the end result from code originally licensed with BSD or similar license.
Of course, in the example you gave, the law RESTRICTS the Evil (tm) Mr Gandhi Twins freedoms you know. He isnt allowed to threaten Mr Bloggs with a lead pipe. In that case, the end result of the restriction of one freedom (you cant threaten people with lead pipes) is greater freedom for all (because Mr Bloggs doesnt have to be constantly scared of getting a lead pipe bent over his head).
Re:Shows that.. (Score:2)
The difficulty occurs when you watch the entire system as a whole. For the individual wanting to exercise his freedom you can say he is less free when there are restrictions on what he can do. But when what he wants to do is to remove other peoples freedoms in some way, the system as a whole will be more free when he is denied that right.
In my example where I couldnt fix code, the problem is that I dont get the source. In the most annoying current case, its the HP-UX 11 X server, which leaks memory like a sieve. In other cases there have been small BSD based utilities ported to other operating system with small but annoying bugs that sometimes render them unusable for what I need to do with them.
This I find very annoying because there is basically nothing new there. There is nothing to protect but the porting, and there is no logical reason to close the source. Yet some people seem to take the path of making it proprietary, no matter what.
Of course there is a logical flaw in this argument. The flaw being that without the ability to close the software then maybe it wouldnt have been ported at all. Maybe. But in the cases that have no logical reason for not releasing the source I think the value of having the software available and not having to do more than the porting work and releasing the source, it would get ported either way.
In any case, I think there are good reasons for the BSD license in some cases (mainly in vertical fields), altho I think that in many cases more people would be served better by moving algorithms and interesting pieces of code into libs and LGPL'ing them, in the cases where allowing proprietary use is desired, giving us the best of both worlds.
This is BY DESIGN (Score:5)
Re:Innovation, Progess. I'm sorry, I believe in GP (Score:2)
you are a gem man!
good fortune unto the true heart of GPL.
Re:Kiss my ass (Score:2)
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Article makes ridiculous assumptions (Score:5)
Okay, Apple uses an open source base OS (Darwin), which is based on BSD on Mach. They contribute their bugfixes back to the BSD crowd, which benefit them just as well as they benefit Apple.
Evan Leibowitch seems to think that by using open source software for the basis of their core OS somehow obligates Apple to open TrueType and QuickTime? When has Apple ever said that they would do that?
This ZD article has to be the toastiest flamebait I've read in a while. "Hey kids, all of a sudden Apple is raping open source, because they won't hand over the font and multimedia technology they never promised!"
< tofuhead >
--
Re:Shows that.. (Score:5)
You're right, BSD doesn't promote freedom. It promotes usage. With BSD, importance of the code is emphasized. With GPL, it's the importance of the code's freedom.
< tofuhead >
--
Talk about missing the point... (Score:4)
of cheap high-quality systems software that it could make its
own without needing to give back so much as a bug fix, let
alone useful software projects.'
Well, that proves the BSD license does what it set out to do: make high-quality code widely used, thus setting a higher standard for all.
Objectives (Score:3)
Re:Story Moderated (Score:2)
Re:not even a conflict; just Salon grade writing . (Score:2)
Re:not even a conflict; just Salon grade writing . (Score:2)
Re:Apple just been doing what MS has done for year (Score:3)
Darwin Streaming Server (Score:4)
--GnrcMan--
Re:Well... (Score:3)
That's because the article is wildly off target, and basing your opinion of Apple on it is unwise. The article took two instances of Apple not releasing their own code and from that extrapolated to "Apple is a parasite on open source development", ignoring the many contributions that Apple has made. There is tons of Apple-developed code in Darwin, and they didn't have to release any of it. By the end of this year, millions of ordinary users will be running an open source Unix kernel thanks to Apple, but all some people can do is bitch because Apple hasn't released every single line of code they've written.
Re:Umm (Score:5)
Have you actually used Mac OS X? If you're not a Unix geek, it works very much like Mac OS 9, except applications multitask much better and the OS doesn't crash. "Unix" does not have to mean "unusable by mortals".
A conflict in philosophy (Score:5)
Let me reiterate our position.
``Free software'' refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.
This doesn't mean they are REQUIRED to do these things with thier own code however. Apple has the freedom to use the code however they like.
Apple is just reaping the benifits of our philosophy. If we disagree with them, that is our right. If apple wishes to be code-mongers that is their right as well.
Re:Umm (Score:2)
I've talked to many people who have tried Linux, but far fewer of them actually get stuff done on it. Go to a Linux trade convention, look at the laptops- a fairly large portion of them are running Windows (and they've always got a great excuse about incompatiblities or whatnot)
I also wonder why people don't realize that they have indeed contributed back: Darwin.
Re:It's called the BSD license (Score:2)
Not every developer who is attracted to a project is done so specifically by the license. I would fathom a guess that if GCC had started out with a BSD-style license, it wouldn't be that far off from what it is today.
Re:It's called the BSD license (Score:3)
The GPL may attract developers who don't make significant improvements, and would therefore rather see that others are forced to give back to improve the software.. but there's a large population of good developers (and I'm one of them) who won't spend major amounts of effort going into GPL programs- because it frankly leaves the developer fewer liberties.
(But I do contribute to some GPL'd projects, such as GGZ- I doubt they'll be changing their license anytime soon.. *sigh*)
Article brings out where Apple went wrong... (Score:5)
No it hasn't been. Steve Wozniak was GIVING away schematics for his (at the time - new) computer!
http://www.woz.org/letters/general/10.html [woz.org]
Back in the early Apple ][ days, you could get the complete assembly ROM listing. Schematics were also widely available. (Hehe, I remember the mod that lets you add multiple 16K language cards, and I maxed my Apple out at 96K. Disk Muncher could almost copy a disk in 1 pass
IBM did the same thing with it's early PC.
That's what really started both companies: How easily hackers could hack and expand it. (Of course Apple targeting the schools and business users didn't hurt either. Along with soft good software like Visacalc (the first spreadsheet) and AppleWorks (I believe the first integrated application.)
Bringing this back on topic...
So Apple uses a BSD license. They are NOT under any OBLIGATION to give back. Yes, they are profiteering off other's people work, but guess what: The BSD license is *complete* freedom. Now, I don't want to start a flamewar of GPL vs BSD, but I really don't see what big deal is.
Somewhere along the way, Apple fall into the Not Invented Here Syndrome. Apple "embracing" the BSD license is 180 degree turn around for them. Give them more time and they might reach see the benefit's in GPL software.
Re:missing the point of the article (Score:3)
Apple has contributed a complete microkernel-based Unix operating system, with source. Their paid engineers donated bug fixes to the NetBSD code base. They gave support to inter-BSD groups working on cooperative development. While he worked at Apple as chief Darwin engineer, Wilfredo Sanchez [advogato.org] was also a member of the core development groups of Apache, FreeBSD and NetBSD, as well as contributing to countless other projects (MIT Kerberos 5, Perl, Sendmail...). Though he's changed companies, Sanchez is still active in Darwin development as well as other community projects.
Darwin is a pretty big deal for some of us. I have powermac hardware that is currently running Linux, but Darwin adds another option and sometimes supports devices that Linux doesn't. It is also among the only modern microkernel operating systems available to the Open Source community. But lest you think a complete Unix OS is too little to "give back to the community," Apple has also released an Open Source (admittedly not Free) streaming media server (!), network game development library, and some development tools.
Only a handful of profitable companies have done more for the community. I think your criticism was misplaced.
Re:A conflict in philosophy (Score:2)
Now, this article is not talking about Free Software. It is talking about Open Source Software (Free Software is OSS, OSS is not necessarily Free Software) that is specifically NOT Free Software. This software does protect "freedom" to co-opt the software.
From the GPL:
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it[)]
[. .
[Given you a]ccompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code[. .
This is somewhat simplified (for instance you don't have to do the above if you just provide source up front.)
Note the parenthetical statement "or a work based on it." That is key. No one may take Free Software, modify it, distribute it, and keep the changes secret.
See the GPL [gnu.org].
See an explanation of Free Software [gnu.org].
And an overview of categories of software [gnu.org].
-Peter
Mea Culpa (Score:2)
I have been incorrectly saying Free Software when I meant Copyleft.
And "Correcting" people using the term correctly! Doh!
I didn't understand the distinction.
I, of course, know that GPL is an instance of a Free Software license, not "the Free license." I mistakenly thought that all Free licenses included the Copyleft characteristic.
On re-reading it is clear that BSD style qualifies as Free. I'm sorry that I said otherwise.
I am sorry, and thank you to everyone who helped clear this up for me.
-Peter
Re:Shows that.. (Score:2)
OK, I'll tell you how so, Mr. Kooky Boots (and I mean that in the nicest possible way).
Freedom is defined as "The condition of being free of restraints". BSD licensed code is just that. GPL code is not free in any sense of the word (the perverted definition of "free" as in "software that's free as in speech" notwithstanding*). The GPL imposes restrictions, the BSD license does not. If I get a bit of BSD licensed code I am free to do with it as I please. However, if I get some GPLed code, there are certan things I cannot do with it. Imposing restrictions simply does not promote freedom. Forcing someone else to do something your way because you think it promotes freedom is not only a laughably stupid position to take, but it shows you really don't know the definition of freedom.
>Right... bestowing unto others the freedoms you got when you took the GPL... thus promoting freedom.
"Bestowing"? More like forcing upon others the "freedoms" that were forced upon you when you used someone else's GPLed code. The only way to give freedom is to take away restrictions. If you want freedom, you have to support the freedom for people to do things you don't agree with. Why can't any of the GPL zealots see that?
Let's take an analogy (I like analogies). Look at the Indian pacifist Gandhi. He used passive resistance to promote freedom. He did not want others to adopt Hinduism, or march in parades, or do anything else to explicitly promote his particular viewpoint. He simply wanted people to be more tolerant of others.
Joe Bloggs says to himself, "Hey, that bald robed guy has some pretty good ideas! I'm going to adopt some of his philosophies and apply them privately to my daily life." He is happy, Gandhi is happy, and freedom has been promoted.
Now, let's say Gandhi, instead of being happy that Joe Bloggs has found something useful in the viewpoints he has proffered, decides that's not enough. He shows up at Mr. Bloggs' house with a lead pipe [imdb.com] and an evil sneer and says "Uh uh, sucker. You want my viewpoints? That's what you're gonna get, boy. You want to do the whole tolerance thing? Let's see you get out there in the streets. Lead some sit ins. Make up some signs and march. You don't wanna do all that? Fine, then don't use my ideas, motherfucker." Bloggs looks at Gandhi in amazement, and in his confusion rationalizes it by saying, "Oh, well, it's promoting freedom, so I'll do it..."
I would love to hear anyone try to explain how the GPL is more free (that is to say, less restrictive) than a BSD license.
*What the hell does "free as in speech" mean anyway? That the government imposes no restrictions on the content? Well, I've got news for you. The government (at least in the U.S.) imposes exactly the same restrictions on the content of open source software as closed source software--that is to say, damn few. Basically these days, "free as in speech" means open-source, and more specifically, GPLed. What a load of horse kaka.
It's called the BSD license (Score:5)
Hello!?!?! Anyone home!?!? The BSD license was designed specifically for this purpose! The Slashdot editors are spreading major FUD by expecting people to think that if it isn't under the GPL, it's not Open Source. Apple is using code released under the BSD license, and it's fully complying with the spirit and the letter of that license.
I use the BSD license for all my open source projects specifically because it does not restrict anyone's use of the code, like the GPL does. I once had a request from a company who wanted to use some of my code that I was planning on opening. They were concerned about the licensing, because their product is closed-source and doesn't mix well with the GPL. I told them that I was planning on using the BSD license, and the were very happy about that.
--
Lord Nimon
Re:missing the point of the article (Score:3)
i agree, and this is what has pissed me off about this "open source community" as of late. i'm a long time UNIX and Linux user, and recently i've been really enjoying using MacOS X as my desktop operating system. i love what Apple has provided to darwin and the underlying system and how helpful their developers have been with any problem i've had with MacOS X. i think what Apple has done is great, and i think it's a huge step forward from the completely closed software days.
but of course that's not good enough for the so-called "open source community." Apple made a huge change in offering the kernel and underlying system to their primary operating system open source, but instead of applauding this behaviour the "community" instead turns around and says "great, what are you going to give us next?"
it's never good enough. these people only want one thing: everybody else's cool stuff. well tough! Apple has provided a lot of valuable information with regards to Darwin and they have offered their code back to the community. but that doesn't mean they owe you all of their past technologies too! if you don't like it fine, don't use it, and go program it yourself in Linux. but of course that's not possible as i imagine the vast majority of people bitching about Apple's behaviour have never written a useful piece of open-sourced code in their lives.
for the rest of us, we'll just be happy using by far the best desktop operating system ever written. and we'll be quite happy with whatever code Apple lets us improve.
- j
Re:It's called the BSD license (Score:2)
Actually, the story took Apple to task for failing to allow anyone to even code workalike versions of Quicktime Viewers and TrueType fonts, 2 of the feathers in Apple's patent portfolio. If you use linux you cannot view a Quicktime movie made with the Sorensen codec. Forget about it. Sorensen has exclusive licensing with Apple, and so Sorensen cannot do anything about it. Apple will NOT allow anyone to code a workalike for the Sorensen codec Quicktime movies.
They similarly hold patents on TrueType fonts, which are a blatant obvious extension of SOME aspects of TeX's Metafont. For this reason it will be some years before you will see any vendor claim to use TrueType fonts under linux. The Freetype project is in blatant violation of these patents anyway, so apparently Apple doesn't want to raise a fuss (and, Microsoft pays a hefty fee each year to use TrueType font technology).
Now, Apple releases OS X, based on an open source kernel. They trumpet the fact that they use an open source kernel, yet they disrespect the open source community. WRT Quicktime, they could at least release a binary viewer for linux...
Re:Curiosly blind, this author... (Score:3)
Apple has done this, and those boot details are why you must have a "runty little MacOS partition". That's what the ROM in those older Macs expects to find in order to boot.
Do some research for once.
BTW- a handful of Apple's OS engineers on the darwin-developer mailing list will be happy to tell you in painful detail how the machine boots. Recent discussions have included booting on Mac clones too...
-pmb
Damn it, QuickTime IS OPEN. (Score:4)
THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING LINUX CODERS FROM WRITING A QUICKTIME CLIENT THAT CAN PLAY EVERYTHING EXCEPT SORENSON MOVIES.
And once you do that, write a open source codec that doesn't suck to replace Sorenson.
-pmb
Apple is working like crazy to be Open (Score:5)
And it's so very sad that someone like the author of that article has chosen to spin their own license dogma into a "Apple does nothing for me" story. It's sad becase myself and others are working 80hr weeks to share as much information as possible with our developers.
-pmb
Linux rapes BSD even more... (Score:3)
I have some code that we wrote GPL'd. It is under the GPL because it is easier from a business perspective to GPL it and let someone pay me for a more liberal license. I am likely to switch to the BSD anyways. Our corporate software license is based off the original BSD (with advertising clause) and the right to pay us to switch to a true BSD client. That's my open source involvement.
The Open Source community has written very little. The Mach microkernel was developed by researches at CMU. Like most research projects, some of their grant money was probably government money. Government research is NOT done to benefit whiny anti-corporate bordering on communist high school kids (which seem to dominate the slashdot posts). Government research is to advance national security interests or advance technology to benefit society and particularly the corporations that use it to power the economy. The US Government is interested in economic growth and security.
The BSD System was written by researchers at UCB. It was funded with some grants, and they developed a free implementation of Unix. That is made available for all Americans (and in this case, all people in the world) to use and advance the country.
My tax dollars should NOT be used to fund people whose objective is to derail one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy.
Linux borrowed heavily at various points from BSD. Linux also completely swiped the GNU toolset and now we have distributions, all but one of which don't acknowledge that they started as the GNU collection. The true irony is the RMS tirade about calling it GNU/Linux. I agree with his point that we want people interested in a Free Unix, not Linux in particular. If someone came and wrote this amazing new kernel, we would lose all the mindshare (and credibility and education done to the public) because it wasn't Linux, and they don't know GNU, they know Linux.
Major "Open Source" Milestones:
Kerberos: MIT Research Project
BSD: Berkeley Research Project
Mach: CMU Research Project
Apache: began as a set of patches to NCSA HTTPD (National Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign)
I'm sorry, but university research has spawned some impressive technologies that people have hacked in new ways and done some cool work with. But there is no "open source community" that owns this work. All tax-payers own this work that was created for the nation on grant money.
Just because you run Linux doesn't mean that you own CMU, MIT, UI, and UCB's work. Sorry.
I hate to sound biting, I like a lot of open source software. I respect RMS's beliefs. However, this is absurd.
The fact that RMS defines freedom one way doesn't make it so. Instead of spouting about Free Beer and Free Speech, why don't you think for yourselves for a moment. RMS declaring freedom one way is all well and good. Without a doubt, BSDL meets even RMS's definitions. His complaints about the advertising clause is ironic, because if the GPL included in, there'd be none of this GNU/Linux issue.
RMS: I'm a fan, and I respect what you've done here. You've done a lot of great work. Unfortunately, ESR's minions have made a mess.
Alex
BSDL isn't Free Software? Since When? (Score:5)
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). Check
- The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
(freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Check
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2). Check
- The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
(freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Check
Wow, looks like the BSDL is Free Software. Please repeat after me, The GPL is not the only Free Software license. Thanks for playing. Goodbye.--
Re:Quicktime! (Score:5)
Quicktime! (Score:3)
Plus, Apple is lagging way behind in the streaming market, with a GPL'd codec running on Linux/*BSD/Solaris boxes, their marketshare will certainly increase!
BSD IS FREE! (Score:3)
This is not necessarily bad, because the GPL is fairly Free, and strongly promotes free licensing, which ought to put pressure on the software industry as a whole to become more Free. The BSD license, on the other hand, is completely Free, but does nothing to promote free licensing.
In an ideal world, all code would be BSD licensed, and Dell would give out free (as in beer) computers for everyone! In the real world, I believe that the GPL is useful for fighting back against Microsoft and Apple, who would like nothing better than to keep all software closed. But, do NOT make the mistake of thinking that somehow makes the BSD license unFree.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
silly flamebait story (Score:5)
Re:Shows that.. (Score:5)
With GPL, it's the importance of the code's freedom
That's why the GPL is such bolix. Code can't be free in the "libre" sense. It's not even sentient. Only people can be Free.
How ironic this all is. Anti-IP advocates (who often side with the GPL) are always the first to say that using someone's IP can't harm them. But then Apple comes along and uses somebody elses IP in a way that they don't like, and all of the sudden using somebody's IP harms them? Sorry guys. You can't have it both ways. Either IP has value, or it doesn't.
Re:A conflict in philosophy (Score:3)
I think that you're slightly confused here. Even under the FSF definition, Free Software does not necessarily require that further distribution must also be free. Thus the new BSD license is classified as a Free Software license by the FSF. The distinction you're making is between copylefted software (i.e. that which does require redistributed versions to remain Free) and non-copylefted (i.e. those that allow non-Free derivatives). BSD licensed software is Free, but companies like Apple are allowed to make non-Free derivatives.
missing the point of the article (Score:4)
Apple is posturing themselves as a good-guy open source company [apple.com]. They are not. There are several things they could be doing which would greatly help the open-source community, such as releasing the code to Quicktime or their True-Type font technology.
The point is, they are pretending to be part of the community, while at the same time they are keeping the source closed to a few things the community could desperately use. Not that there is anything wrong or illegal with that. Its just deceptive that they are passing themselves on as nice-guy open-source type of people when they have no intention of giving back to the community.
Re:not even a conflict; just Salon grade writing . (Score:3)
Just to pick nits, TrueType is nigh useless for pro-level publishing. Only PostScript fonts are used in serious works. Most service bureaus and printers will refuse to accept a job that uses TrueType fonts. They want PostScript only, because that's what the very expensive imagesetter that makes film that makes plates for the press understands. Or what the very expensive direct-to-plate machine understands.
TrueType is great for homebrew stuff that is rendered on a cheap inkjet printer, but the head cheese at my printer will throw my files back at me if I try to give it to her.
PostScript is the heart of the publishing industry.
Re:silly flamebait story (Score:5)
Apple's responsibilities to its customers have not changed. Provide value for payment. If Apple's customers don't value freedom of speech in terms of the software running their machines, then Apple is fine. Probably this is the reality of the situation, generally speaking. Most Mac lovers started on Macs which they couldn't even open the cases to, let alone look at the source code to the software. Most of them still don't want to do this anymore than they have to.
To Apple's credit, from everything I've ever heard, they've done a fantastic job of working with software developers and releasing specs and toolkits and stuff that makes for good software. There are other large firms in the OS market who are notorious for the exact opposite behavior. I don't think Apple has been acting unethically at all though (except maybe with their price gouging on memory and inflicting those ugly new iMacs on the world). I seriously doubt the licensing was the primary issue when it came to what software to include in OS X, even moreso I think it would be less of a consideration for the kernel and key software that runs the machine. I'd expect technical considerations to trump most everything else.
Re:Open Source and Apple (Score:3)
Apple has traditionally relied on proprietary hardware and software to differentiate themselves from the hordes of Wintel PC manufacturers. If they did open source their software then everyone could make Mac-compatible machines and Apple would have to compete on price, which is not their strength. If you don't like their philosophical stand then don't use their products. Personally I will use whatever works the best, be it Freeware, GPL, proprietary, or whatever.
What's wrong with what Apple's done? (Score:5)
What is everybody complaining about? Or does the free software community now claim ownership of all code under the "all information wants to be free" act and now simply attack any company that doesn't GPL every last thing?
Re:A conflict in philosophy (Score:5)
[The poster continues to laugh hysterically. Suddenly, he stops and falls right over. The Programmer in Black removes the blindfold from the Newbie]
Newbie: Who are you?
Programmer in Black: I'm no one to be trifled with. That is all you'll ever need know.
Newbie: And to think, all that time it was your license that was poisoned.
Programmer in Black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up immunity to licensing issues.
[The scene switches back to Gates and his men]
Nonsense.. (Score:3)
The bottom line is that Apple has released a Free, Open Source operating system and will be adding to it long after Eazel, Ximian, VA and the rest of the cuddly open-source media darlings have imploded. I doubt if this Leibovitch knows or cares to know anything about how much OS, compiler and toolchain code Apple has given away. Or if that Apple was supporting MkLinux development and putting Linux partioning options in their disk utility long before Dell and Compaq started even making noises about supporting Linux. All he wants is that the should give him their fonts, the Sorenson codecs and their industrial design, too.
By the way, does anyone know why since I upgraded to 10.0.2, my keyboard (USB or ADB) doesn't work in Classic? The mouse is fine and both work in native apps.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
Re:A conflict in philosophy (Score:4)
That's true. But it's important to point out that Apple is, in fact, releasing tons of code, despite the ignorant writer's implication that they're not even releasing bug fixes. An operating system, for example, gcc and toolchain improvements, filesystem improvements.
I suspect the problem here is that the writer's life isn't obviously improved by better BSD support in gcc. It would be improved by Sorenson support for Linux and if he doesn't get that for free, Apple obviously must be evil.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
Rather important notes about mach (Score:5)
The writer of this article has no clue (Score:3)
Because Apple is using technology licensed without restrictions, rather than under the GPL commonly found in Linux
Hmm, what license is gcc under? The GPL? and what did they do to their Objective C modifications to gcc? Release them?
the company can use Mach code, exploit what the open source community has done, make proprietary modifications, and give back nothing of substance. And that appears to be exactly what Apple has done.
Sure the CAN do that, but have they? Last time I checked, they were still releasing all the code for Darwin, which is what was based on the Mach/BSD licensed code. What they didn't release was the code to Aqua, which was totally propietary.
Another significant area in which Apple's actions hurt the open source community is in its refusal to offer any open source support for its QuickTime streaming video format. While some open source players support AVI files, certain vital components, such as the Sorenson Video Codec that provides QuickTime's data compression, are not supported. Apple has never released a binary player for Linux or a binary module for the XAnim video and animation player, and it has no stated plans to do so. Moreover, the company won't allow open source programmers to make their own Sorenson-aware players.
Apple can't release the Sorenson codec because they don't own it. They license it from Sorenson. They have released the specs for the Quicktime format, and there is no need for them to release a player because there are already several out there.
In short, this article was nothing but a collection of factual omissions, misdirections, and outright lies.
Re:Apple just been doing what MS has done for year (Score:4)
Exactly. If you don't want some other developer grabbing your code and incorporating it into their product and selling it without making the source available, then don't release it under the BSD license. Release it under the GPL instead.
Apple, Darwin and Open Code (Score:5)
Re:Shows that.. (Score:3)
Would you argue that speech can't be Free in the "libre" sense? Why or why not?
Anyway, you miss the point. While we may say "the code is Free", that's just for convenience: what we really mean is "the end-user has the freedom to inspect, modify, etc". Free software is about people's freedoms.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Re:Shows that.. (Score:4)
All depends what your goals are... if it is free software without promoting free software, then the BSD is for you... if promoting freedom is a goal of yours, then the GPL is for you.
Ryan T. Sammartino