Apple Posts Darwin / Open Source News 64
Ex Machina writes "Apple's PublicSource has posted some news on the Darwin OS and other Opensource projects. The first four Darwin Developers are: Scott Anguish, Joe Gervais, Luke Howard, and Andrew Stone. The multiplatform networking architecture OpenPlay has Linux support now. Apple also has released the NetSprockets gaming code for OpenPlay. Finally, the new HeaderDoc source to HTML documentation system has been released. "
Congratulations to Apple (Score:1)
C-Doc (Score:1)
Does anyone know others who do this...
OpenPlay? (Score:1)
I tried to download it (registered etc) but Netscape consistently crashes after I fill in my user name/password.
So when is QuickTime 4 for Linux arriving? (Score:2)
Re:C-Doc (Score:1)
Re:OpenPlay? (Score:1)
DarwinOS sounds very interesting..... but (Score:1)
Re:OpenPlay? (Score:1)
OpenPlay... (Score:1)
"This is an initial port of the OpenPlay sources to Linux.
It does not currently work as the socket code is not finished."
This sort of thing actually impresses me the most -- when people like Apple are prepared to release something that isn't finished.
Re:Congratulations to Apple (Score:2)
Yet another licence.... (Score:2)
IANAL, but it seems to me that they could have used a BSD licence.
I am worried that the plethora of open/semi-open licences is going to cause serious integration problems. What happens if someone creates a 'larger work' containing code covered by two or more of thes 'commercial open source' licences? In the case of a dispute I can see a lot of lawyers getting rich.
Thasnks anyway Apple. It's a move in the rught direction.
Re:Yet another licence.... (Score:1)
Re:Only 2 weeks old! WTG, Hemos! (Score:1)
Any day now, we'll be able to call this place News for Nerds!
I think the site you must really be looking for is more like "news for analy obsessive page reloading latest news now and all the time people." Hemos is allowed to post news as he gets them. It's not his fault that people don't submit things sooner. I'm sure anyday now some moderator will mark you as flamebait, or similar. One can always hope.
---
Re:OpenPlay... (Score:1)
(Apple isn't immune either - anyone remember early versions of OT, ie. 'Broken Transport'?)
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:So when is QuickTime 4 for Linux arriving? (Score:2)
Re:OpenPlay... (Score:1)
quicktime capture using Linux! (Score:2)
The codecs are still proprietary, but the work has begun.
Re:OpenPlay... (Score:1)
Re:So when is QuickTime 4 for Linux arriving? (Score:1)
Think about OpenGL support for Java. I can now write OpenGL apps in Java, but I still need someone to provide the OpenGL implementation on my particular OS/JVM.
Re:So when is QuickTime 4 for Linux arriving? (Score:2)
Install QuickTime 4.0
In order to install QuickTime for Java, developers will need to select 'QuickTime for Java' in the 'Custom' install option. The installers can be found at the following location:
MacOS & Windows
QuickTime 4 Installer [apple.com]
So it seems to me that, in order to download Quicktime for Java and install and run it on Linux, I have to download the Windows or MacOS installer and run it on Linux and select that I want to install "Quicktime for Java". Duh.
Re:Yet another licence.... (Score:4)
CENTRAL CONTROL OF MODIFICATIONS
2.2 (c) if You Deploy Covered Code containing Modifications made by You, inform others of how to obtain those Modifications by filling out and submitting the information found at http://www.apple.com/publicsour ce/modifications.html [apple.com], if available.
TERMINATION OF LICENCE
9.1 Infringement. If any portion of, or functionality implemented by, the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement, Apple may, at its option: (a)
12.1 (c) This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple.
Memories (Score:1)
-----
You probably knew this... (Score:2)
Re:Yet another licence.... (Score:1)
Are you seriously proposing that their lawyers will let them use a BSD (or other "finished") license, and thereby put themselves out of work? If Steve Jobs proposed such an absurdity, they'd probably sue his pants off :-)... remember, "code reuse" is one of the most scary things lawyers can think of.
But it's good news. Scott Anguish and Andrew Stone are very capable people (I don't know the other two personally), and we can expect great things to come along from this collaboration.
Re:C-Doc (Score:1)
Re:OpenPlay... (Score:1)
Hrm. I must have had it all wrong, then...
:>
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:C-Doc (Score:1)
Re:So when is QuickTime 4 for Linux arriving? (Score:1)
Re:C-Doc (Score:1)
Their licensing page doesn't work (Score:1)
Anyone know how I can get around this?
http://www.publicsource.apple.com/apsl/
Re:So when is QuickTime 4 for Linux arriving? (Score:1)
Re:Their licensing page doesn't work (Score:2)
Re:So when is QuickTime 4 for Linux arriving? (Score:1)
Re:Hey, it's Wheezy! (Score:1)
Re:OpenPlay? (Score:4)
It is currently working on Mac and Windows but does not currently on Linux. We could use an experienced Linux sockets programmer to update the Linux side. This is especially true because-
Apple has also JUST released their previously closed-source Apple specific networking API NetSprockets. The plan is that the higher level API features of NetSprocket (which is OT specific at the moment) will be abstracted and rolled into OpenPlay.
The result of this will be a great cross-platform, open-source networking API supporting protocols through modules.
And as Martha Stewart says, "And that's a good thing..."
=tkk
Re:So when is QuickTime 4 for Linux arriving? (Score:3)
Re:Yet another licence.... (Score:1)
--
Re:C-Doc (Score:1)
I've never tried it though
Re:Yet another licence.... (Score:1)
There are plenty of little bits of IP that corporations can set free, or rather would have by now if copyrights were functioning properly.
If corporations aren't really interested in sharing then they should drop the pretense.
Many of us accept it when corps. choose to keep their little secrets. We realize that some of that development is still greed driven. Plus, with a purely proprietary licenced product everyone knows where they stand and there is little likelihood of confusion.
Whereas 'kinda free' licences create a muddled, confused mess.
Re:OpenPlay... (Score:4)
Several individuals outside of Apple, including myself, have been the ones driving OpenPlay since release. Especially the current 1.2 version.
I rolled out the Linux port early to get the much needed portability fixes into the base source.
My usual plug for my OpenPlay web site which has cvs server for source, cvs web interface, history, etc - which Apple does not : "http://www.centrepointsoftware.com/opensource/op
Kevin Holbrook
OpenPlay porting guy
i clicked on the stone link... (Score:2)
Re:i clicked on the stone link... (Score:1)
Re:Yet another licence.... (Score:1)
License? who cares, do what I do: don't read it, and click the "accept" the software button. Contracts are only binding when both sides share an understanding of the terms. If they wish for me to understand the terms, they should construct a simple system for quizzing me. The way it works now, they seem to me to be urging that I accept the software without reading the license. And, now that I've discovered that lawyers are coming to slashdot and quoting people, I want to play too. Please quote me: defendant accepted software without understanding or agreeing to license terms. I would put in the eminently quotable little smiley, except I'm dead serious.
Hey, is there some legal distinction between the word "licence" and the word "license"? Because, there is no such distinction [m-w.com] in ordinary American English.
Re:You probably knew this... (Score:1)
Re:i clicked on the stone link... (Score:1)
and i wasn't aware that asking for what seems to me is a non-trivial port was an "attack."
so i'll ask again, where are the linux ports? are there tech reasons for them not to exist?
Re:i clicked on the stone link... (Score:1)
Stone's apps are full GUI apps using Appkit, Foundation and other classes that are only available on Mac OS X Server.
Porting these to X or another windowing environment is non trivial (impossible without rewriting) without Apple's frameworks on those platforms.
Scott Anguish
http://www.stepwise.com/
Re:Yet another licence.... (Score:1)
Just what strategic advantage do you really think that apple gains by keeping 'control' of OpenPlay?
---
Not much, probably. But the whole of Darwin has some value to Apple. Would you suggest they use conflicting licenses?
---
If corporations aren't really interested in sharing then they should drop the pretense.
---
You are limiting yourself if you think that 'sharing' requires a GPL licensed codebase. While I have no problem with the GPL itself (nobody HAS to use it, it has been used with good software, etc), I DO have a problem with the assumption that anything not put under the GPL is 'evil'. I have yet to see a convincing argument that proprietary software is somehow morally inferior to GPL'd software. Apple has no more draconian rules attached to their license than does the GPL.
In the end, though, you don't have to use the APSL. And they don't have to use the GPL. What's the big problem?
---
We realize that some of that development is still greed driven.
---
Not all development is greed driven. That's a myth, although Microsoft would seem to support your theory.
Much of it is actually "Food" or "Shelter" driven. Just like any other job. I'm sorry, but not everyone can make money off of support, customization, or speaking tours.
---
Whereas 'kinda free' licences create a muddled, confused mess.
---
I've seen a lot of confusion over the GPL - more than any other, really (you don't see it yourself, as you're probably pretty familiar with it already). As for 'kinda free', if the GPL were truly free there wouldn't be nearly as many stipulations attached to it.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:C-Doc (Score:1)
You want AutoDoc. It is the equiv of this program for Objective-C.
Have a look at http://www.stepwise.com/Softrak and search for AutoDoc.
Its Java on top of quicktime, not QT on Java (Score:1)
Re:i clicked on the stone link... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Info about Mac OS X (Score:1)
QuickTime for Java != QuickTime for everybody (Score:1)
QuickTime for Java only allows Java appl[ets|ications] running on Mac OS or Windows to use the QuickTime API. That is all. It is a closed-source solution for the closed-source community (of which I am also a member).
Read the General Overview [apple.com], one click away from the page to which you linked.
< tofuhead >
Re:DarwinOS sounds very interesting..... but (Score:1)