OSNews

Well that's what can happen when software is BSD (or BSD compatible) licensed. With the GPL this couldn't have happened. Please, let's dont turn this into another flamewar though, i do not mean to too, just stating the facts.

"Please, let's dont turn this into another flamewar though, i do not mean to too, just stating the facts."
- Careful, my friend. You're in dangerous waters here.

I agree, open licenses are becoming more important to those that don't want to be assassinated by their platform's vendor making bad decisions. When you have a copy of the code for yourself, you can make your own decisions - good or bad as they may be. (usually good)

But on the other hand, there are waaaay too many lawyers getting involved in this whole 'code derivative' game (like SCO being funded by Microsoft to kill the spirit of open source). I know there's many licenses out there, and they all have their caveats - so one does have to be careful when copying.... ...sometimes. But odds are that if you don't release your modified (and maybe illegal) code, nobody's ever gonna know - and I don't think anyone, ANYONE!!! *cough* government *cough* has the right to change that (or break into your house).

This can happen to GPL too - Apple is the original copyright owner, they can do as they please.

Well, not completely. The XNU kernel on which Darwin runs is based on BSD, and I don't think Apple holds the copyright of BSD.

That is, if XNU was based on a GPL kernel, it would have been under the GPL too, and closing it should have been legally impossible. Your statement is right if and only if Apple rewrote XNU from scratch.

Not true. With the GPL you could fork it.

No, under the GPL you can't close the code, even if you hold the original copyright, because the GPL applies to derivatives and modified work, which a fork is.

Now, the BSD lisence is entirely another matter.

To my understanding, you can close all parts of the code that you own. You cannot "unrelease" versions that were covered by the GPL, but you can apply a new licence to your code.

Anyway, that's what Trolltech and MySQL AB are doing. Of course, this doesn't apply to a fork: I'm talking of an original project.

Aha. I was unclear what you meant intially.

Yes, if there is a version of the code that was never GPL'd, then yes, it can be closed no problem, because it was never really "open" though it may have been distributed free of charge.

Well, I'm not the original poster, but I suppose that's what he meant.

No, under the GPL you can't close the code, even if you hold the original copyright

Copyright holders are free to license their work as they see fit. This includes not making subsequent releases of software previously released under the terms of the GPL available under the terms of the GPL. Copyright holders own their own work, which they then license to others. They don't license their own software to themselves.

It's interesting to think about the ramifications of the expiration of the copyright on GPLed works in the distant future. Or how muddled by uncertainty the determination of the copyright status of some software will be in such a distant future. There will, in any event, come a time when the "viral" nature of such code will disappear.

Well you don't truely have freedom of licensing unless you are free to take your software in the direction you want. And I thought the OSS movement was all about freedom.

The free software movement is not about freedom of people but about freedom of software. So it is nothing obscure to prevent people from taking away freedom from software.

What is the difference. Software is made my people? If people don't have freedom to make the software, how can the software be free?

It sort of sounds like the USSR, where the economy was given (or free) to the people, but the people weren't free to do what they wanted to better them selves.

I don't see any relation to the USSR, but I also don't understand your first statement.

That's because as a developer who distributes software under a certain licence, I have no power over people's freedom anyway; in particular I can't prevent them from making software!

But, I have power over my software which I want to make free. To ensure it stays free - and further work done on it - I use a licence which prevents deriving software from it which is unfree. Sounds perfect for a developer who wants freedom for software.


Let's see: If you fight for freedom of people, it comes down to protect people against other people. If you fight for freedom of software, it comes down to protect software against some people.


In the end one can hope that the society, or people, benefit from having free software. One can fear that this benefits will be destroyed by people building unfree software on top of free software thus attract people to fall back to unfree software which is not the best for them in longer terms.


But to be pragmatic, me as a developer can decide to do a gift to the public by releasing free software. But I want to get something back eventually - if someone improves my software, I want to benefit from these improvements, too. As my gift gains in value or as I can use these improvements myself (I wrote the software because I needed it myself in first place).

Blah. Blah. Blah.

So you are allowed to choose how your software is distributed and under what license, but Apple is not. Sounds like you are making a hipocrit of your self.

This is absolutely not my point!

The topic was that if the kernel would've been GPL, Apple would have to stick with the GPL.

That is, because the originate work wasn't done by Apple, and Apple didn't have any copyright over it. It was done by others and released with BSD licence. If Apple would've chosen Linux, it couldn't do what it did now and perhaps that was a reason because it didn't choose Linux.


But anyhow, you talked about "freedom" and that the "OSS" movement (in particular it's more the free software movement" isn't really about freedom as they clame they are. I just wanted to point out that they indeed _are_ about freedom, but about freedom of software and not of people.


This doesn't affect (and that was part of what I was talking about!) software of others, in particular software under a BSD license, and _no_ serious member of the free software movement would want to dictate anyone how (under which terms) he/she has to distribute it's software. All they talk about is that they themselves wouldn't release "unfree" software (but would be ok to release the BSD way), wouldn't use "unfree" software and _suggest_ to others to do the same. And it's perfectly reasonable for them to forbid others to use _their own_ work to create unfree software.


They - and I - would never come to the idea to forbid apple to do anything with their (apple's) software, or the software they got from others, as these people decided in history they want to allow what apple does (seems to do) now. And that's perfectly fine and creditable!

Its because of the fact it was BSD licensed, Apple has the true freedom to decide not to share should they choose not to. With the GPL it would have forced Apple to do something it didnt want to do. But the truth of the fact is that Mac OS X is just another UNIX fork.

" Well that's what can happen when software is BSD (or BSD compatible) licensed. With the GPL this couldn't have happened. Please, let's dont turn this into another flamewar though, i do not mean to too, just stating the facts."

True freedom? *LOL*

GPL would not have forced Apple to anything at all. They can change their license whenever then want, to the extent they are the copyright holders. If they're not the copyright holders, then of course they don't have that right (according to the GPL), but that's only fair when they are gaining from other peoples free work

But one can ALWAYS change the license term for the future, for all code where one is the copyright holder.

The BSD does not allow me to change who is the copyright holder. It does however allow for sub-licensing (which the GPL doesn't, I might add).

Mac OS X isn't Unix btw.

BSD is UNIX :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution

BSD is UNIX :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution

Wow, your grammer and punctuation was almost flawless there. Guess you're better with the shorter sentences!

Its not grammar ?

> GPL would not have forced Apple to anything at all

Sure it would have, because Apple was not the copyright holder. This discussion was not about which license _Apple_ chose, but about wether Apple would have chosen another kernel (like Linux) if it wasn't GPL. That was the starting point of the whole discussion as you can read back.

Actually... if you GPL a version of your software, for ease of use, lets call this version 1.0. So you have version 1.0 of MegaProggy GPLed, people like it, yada yada yada. Now you develop a new version that you will release as 2.0 of MegaProggy. However, you decide you don't want it to be GPL any more, you want it to be proprietary software (closed source). Well thats too bad. version 1.0 is GPLed and version 2.0 is a derivative work of 1.0 and thus cannot be closed source. However, you could make version 2.0 licensed under a GPL compatible license.

The only way to move GPLed software to closed source is to start over from scratch.

"Actually... if you GPL a version of your software, for ease of use, lets call this version 1.0. So you have version 1.0 of MegaProggy GPLed, people like it, yada yada yada. Now you develop a new version that you will release as 2.0 of MegaProggy. However, you decide you don't want it to be GPL any more, you want it to be proprietary software (closed source). Well thats too bad. version 1.0 is GPLed and version 2.0 is a derivative work of 1.0 and thus cannot be closed source. However, you could make version 2.0 licensed under a GPL compatible license.

The only way to move GPLed software to closed source is to start over from scratch."

That's not quite true, if you release version 1.0 (i.e. the whole of the code is copyrighted to you) and version 2.0 has no code from other people (or the code they contribute has had the copyright transferred to you) then you could make version 2.0 into a closed source product.
What you can't do is make Version 1.0 closed source that will always be under the GPL (which means that potentially somebody could add in all of the v2 functionality and directly compete with you - but you couldn't use their contributions since they were under the GPL without make yours v2.0 GPL as well).

Hopefully the above made sense,
Steven.

That's not entirely correct. As long as the code is mine alone (e.g. I'm the only copyright holder) then of course I can at any time change the license for future releases.

However, if the code contains parts that belong to other copyright holders, then I have to remove those parts.

The copyright holder is not bound by the license.

Or put another way: I can take a GPL'ed project, remove all code not owned by me, and rerelease under a non-GPL license. Of course I'd have to rewrite all the GPL'ed code not owned by me. Probably not worth the effort, should I ever want to (and I don't).

I can explain to you where your misconception lies.

You yourself as a developer have every right on your software. A license given to anyone else can give him some rights, like the right to use it or to distribute it. The GPL in particular gives the right to do quite many things. And it is offered to anybody - accept it and you get the declared rights on the software.


There would be also the possibility of selling your own rights, like some record contracts forbid the artists themselves to distribute their music.


Only if you do this, you wouldn't be allowed anymore to release your software under another license or to other licensees. But this is _not_ part of the GPL.

"Well that's what can happen when software is BSD (or BSD compatible) licensed. With the GPL this couldn't have happened. Please, let's dont turn this into another flamewar though, i do not mean to too, just stating the facts."

Yeah, because the BSD license allows that and the GPL doesn't. What's else is new?

Yes, Microsoft is really getting close to being obsolete.... puhlease.

First of all, Apple is not in any way a business based purely on charging for an operating system.

Second, Microsoft is not a business based purely on charging for an operating system. They have a pretty big software catalog.

Third, only a very small percentage of people install operating systems, most just use whatever is on the machine, which usually happens to be windows. If the OS was really becomming a comodity you should be able to sell computers with other operating systems on them and have NORMAL people buy and use them. I just don't see that happening, and my guess is that that wont happen any time soon.

Both vendors are playing a soon-to-be-obselete game. The thing they appear not to get is that the OS is becoming a commodity, and a business based purely on charging for it is in a lot of trouble going forward.

Oh man...this tired old argument again (modded up? Why?).

If the OS was a commodity, Apple would be out of buisness! Their OS and stylish casings is all they got! And a lot of people don't care for white casings with rounded corners, but they do care for the OS. If Apple lost control of that, the market would be flooded with non-Apple Macs.

Two points to make

1) I'm not sure it is the OS that sells Macs. I think it may be the casing and industrial design, and that they would double the sales overnight if they shipped with Windows.

2) You have to ask an interesting question. Why exactly would Mac sales collapse if it were possible to run OS X on non-Apple computers.

Think about it, the integrated experience, the controlled environment are what the Mac people praise and buy.

So why would they stop buying it and buy white box hardware to run their OS X on, with all the alleged attendant disadvantages?

Think about it, the integrated experience, the controlled environment are what the Mac people praise and buy.

So why would they stop buying it and buy white box hardware to run their OS X on, with all the alleged attendant disadvantages?

It dilutes the Mac brand name? Imagine having to explain to people that running OS X on some franken-PC isn't the same as running OS X on a Mac?

"Think about it, the integrated experience, the controlled environment are what the Mac people praise and buy."

Well, you just negated your first point with the above statement. There would be no integrated experience if OS X were to run on vanilla hardware. It's the whole integrated package that we Mac users want.

The fact that Windows "runs" on such a wide array of configurations is one of its MANY shortcomings.

"The fact that Windows "runs" on such a wide array of configurations is one of its MANY shortcomings"

Silly thing to say, the fact that Window's will run on almost anything with an x86 chip in it is a source of instability (mostly due to misbehaving drivers), but it is one of the sources of Windows massive market share, as well as Linux's.

This is what you said:

"Think about it, the integrated experience, the controlled environment are what the Mac people praise and buy." Well, you just negated your first point with the above statement. There would be no integrated experience if OS X were to run on vanilla hardware. It's the whole integrated package that we Mac users want. The fact that Windows "runs" on such a wide array of configurations is one of its MANY shortcomings.

That's exactly the point I was making, and it has not been answered. You have asserted the experience is integrated and that Mac users value it, but you have failed to draw the logical conclusion, which is that if OSX would run on white boxes, no mac people would buy it, and so it could not hurt Apple Mac sales.

The mac people argue at the same time:

1) The integrated experience is better and is the buying motive for mac users

2) If OSX were not locked to Apple hardware they would stop buying it, and instead buy white boxes.

Please, tell me how these two propositions are consistent! If the integrated experience is what they value, they would carry on buying it. So releasing the OS would not damage Apple at all.

If they would not carry on buying it, and instead would turn to white boxes (which by the way are also argued not to be cheaper!) it cannot be better, it cannot be a buying motive.

In fact, if you followed the MacContortions of some people to their logical conclusion you'd find yourself arguing that Mac buyers who value the integrated experience that only OSX on Mac can deliver, if given the choice, would pay more for cheap white boxes to install OSX on, thus forsaking that integrated experience for something like the unintegrated Windows experience.

Consistency, please, consistency!

Edited 2006-05-18 06:27

@jaduncan

Both vendors are playing a soon-to-be-obselete game. The thing they appear not to get is that the OS is becoming a commodity, and a business based purely on charging for it is in a lot of trouble going forward.

hahaha nice sarcasm

That phrase you typed reminds me of that failed doctrine: communism. Promises the weak of being exploitation free from the strong but ended up in PURE 100% LOCKED IN exploitation of everyone, strong and weak, by the strong.

Thanks for the laugh. Made my day.

That phrase you typed reminds me of that failed doctrine: communism.

Oh wow. Another communism comment!

And what exactly reminded you of communism in his/her comment, given that he/she was talking about the direction economics tend to go in when a market matures and becomes saturated?

Because in the United States, people mistake their economy as an embodiment of 18th century capitalist theory, and anything that hints that business reliance on government-imposed monopoly and secrecy tends toward irrelevance is communism, because that which is known as the private sector disagrees.

how...

every one of my songs (100+gigs worth) can be played on my powerbook... my XP box... my PSP.... my xbox.... my iPod.... a linux box.... if i had one.... or any other MP3 player...if i had one!

how can that be... i'm locked in! hum....or am I?

"its not what they're selling.... its what you're buying!"

every one of my songs (100+gigs worth) can be played on my powerbook... my XP box... my PSP.... my xbox.... my iPod.... a linux box.... if i had one.... or any other MP3 player...if i had one!

Right, and I can export all my MS Word documents to RTF, so no lockin there either

I don't think this is a good thing for apple at all. One of the big draws for me at least to osx was darwin. Now it's gone. Oh well, apple just lost another customer because of their bone-headed decisions.

Darwin is still going to be there, no? It's not gone. You just don't have access to the source to recompile it. I would venture a guess that 99.99% of Mac owners don't even know what the kernel is, let alone want to recompile it. This doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

Seems to be such a big deal to the people who use it as an excuse to down microsoft and windows..

Oh well, I guess since it's not microsoft it must be okay.

The only reason Windows is a success, is because people dont want to learn anything other than what is forced upon them...and the fact that the richest people in the world got there because they were put there by other rich helps also.....besides, most people do not know what Source Code is......

So of course Microsoft would be the top choice, most windows user I have met say that Mac OS X is harder to learn, which is not true.....

Yeah, Apple made another mistake, that will definitly cost them in the long run, I will still buy Apple....

at least until Apple and Microsoft merge....

Edited 2006-05-17 21:37

Using the same logic one could argue "Apart from activists, who needs Free Speech, big deal...". When a "liberty" is removed or impeded, such as the ability to alter your kernel, your not just hindering it for the current set of users who depend upon it but for all possible future users as well. When these "technological freedoms" are hindered the possible future creations that would have been made possible by them become impossible.

Now I've heard this cry-of-wolf story before, that Apple is going to lock down their OS instantly. This argument has always been hinged on the fact Apple is slow to post the x86 branch of their source code. Even if Apple decides to do this, there's plenty of old Darwin x86 branches to work from.

http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/

It's like when you wish to modify the Windows Kernel, you can if you have the moneay to buy the license! That's right, you can pay a special license that will give you the Source Code for Windows 2000/XP and recompile it yourself.

I bet that Apple will do likewise...

Modifying OS X's Kernel is a not a right but a privilege, and this privilege is no longer free, you will have to pay...

I feel sorry for scientists who relied on that for their precious research, but I bet that a good Linux Distro will do just fine!

Out of all the posts I will have to agree with this one the most. Linux looks prettier and prettier day by day. So does a distro based on MINIX 3!!!

Apple basically desires to make the cracking of its x86 releases more difficult. It isn't a matter of stopping it (at least for now), but a matter of making it harder and slowing the process. It's basically a matter of not subsidizing the development of third-party operating systems "OSx86" that run their proprietary software without requiring people to pay the markup on Apple hardware. Apple has received little tangible benefit from releasing the source code to XNU up to this point, and so it loses little and gains some marginal amount.

Apple never had to release the source code, but did so anyway. They don't require a lie to stop. There are a lot more people that want to run "pirated" versions of OS X on their existing PCs than people that use XNU's source code for derivative works.

What!? Be real, tens-of-billions in the bank and a 95%+ dominance of the consumer PC OS market is "almost out of business"?

That's madness.

However, going forward we may see some of these numbers flip around w/ the momentum open source is gaining.

"What!? Be real, tens-of-billions in the bank and a 95%+ dominance of the consumer PC OS market is "almost out of business" "

Please, pick up a dictionary and go read the definiton for "sarcasm".

"numbers flip around w/ the momentum open source is gaining."

Mmm. Momentum. I also heard that circa 1996. Yup, a decade ago. You guy's Open Source momentum sure is one fast rabbit.

I remember hearing that as well, however in 1996 there wasn't corporate backing in the (B)illions of dollars around every corner and on everyone's lips in investment circles.

What!? Be real, tens-of-billions in the bank and a 95%+ dominance of the consumer PC OS market is "almost out of business"?

That's madness.

However, going forward we may see some of these numbers flip around w/ the momentum open source is gaining.

You know that "business", in Linux zealots' point of view, is you release your software with GPL. Eventhough you release your software for free, but not give the source, you're out of "business". So if you dare to sell your software, you're miles away from "business".

Eh? Are you talking to me personally? Wow, I hadn't realized that I was a "zealot", nevermind representing all "zealots" and those who use the GPL license everywhere.

Anyhow, I'm not sure I was able to follow this, it was a little incoherent. Both closed & proprietary and free and open source software are viable business models. Everything must be put into perspective given the current market, the type of software you're selling, and who your competition in the marketplace is.

In the 90's, Microsoft had an advantageous position in the marketplace as they were the cheapest deal in town, (arguably) the best software for the personal & corporate desktop, and not "much" by the way of competition. Today, competitors are seeing chinks in the armor and are going for it, they may or may not succeed, that's for consumers (on all levels) to decide.

Have you ever heard of a thing called sarcasm?

Could it be that now that the open source community has helped Apple get OS-X into fairly stable, fast shape, they don't need them anymore? Thanks for nothing Apple.

Could it be that now that the open source community has helped Apple get OS-X into fairly stable, fast shape, they don't need them anymore? Thanks for nothing Apple.

I think this has to do with Leopard. Leopard will be the first x86 version of OSX in retail channels, and as such, extra security measures will be taken in order to prevent people from running this on non-Mac PCs.

Give it a few months and watch the open source community hack OS X wide open and have it running on a better platform ala AMD computers.

That made absolutely no sense at all.

then your too stupid to get it , its not that it dont make sense , its that you have no sense to begin with.

It has nothing to do with stupidity sweetheart. It has everything to do with your poor command of the English language. Don't make futile asssertions about my intelligence. You have no evidence to back it up and it just makes you look like a schoolchild grasping at straws. "Ooh, you don't understand what I said, so you must be stupid." Please, learn some grammer and try again...

There's a good reason why nobody else replied to your post (I'm wishing I didn't bother now). It made NO SENSE.

"It has nothing to do with stupidity sweetheart."

Thats exactly why you dont get my comment , and I aint your sweetheart.

Sorry honey. I didn't say I didn't get it. I said it made no sense. It made no sense because it was very badly written. Your confusion arises from the assumption that I misunderstand your points. The fact is that your points are unclear because you use run-ons, a lack of plurals, punctuation, definite articles, etc (which are all completely forgivable for a non-native speaker). What is more problematic is your rambling non-sequiters and your terrible metaphors.

"it has everything to do with your poor command of the English language."

No it as to do with your lack of understanding of the subject and news that goes with it. I discuss something which as no value directly for you hence you dont get what I am talking about and from what angle.

I understand it just fine. It's really not rocket science. Interesting that you find it should be so challenging to me. I have given you no reason to believe that. Your post is stocked with assumptions (I obviously rattled you). Your assumption that you discuss something which is "of no value dirctly to me" couldn't be more wrong.

"Don't make futile asssertions about my intelligence."

I read what you wrote. Not what you tought.

Ahem...Look up 'futile' in the dictionary.

"you have no evidence to back it up and it just makes you look like a schoolchild grasping at straws."

http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14633&comment_id=12...

http://www.osnews.com/usercomments.php?uid=4417

" "Ooh, you don't understand what I said, so you must be stupid." Please, learn some grammer and try again... "

Nope , you said it dont make sense , not that it was poorly written or explained. Your not interested in what I have to say , or what is beeing said at all.

OK, listen carefully - IT MAKES NO SENSE BECAUSE IT'S POORLY WRITTEN AND EXPLAINED. I'm sorry and I really don't want to be rude. I might be interested in what you had to say if you could make a cogent argument!

"There's a good reason why nobody else replied to your post"

They dont like to be called and shown as stupid ;-)

Heh, there you go again. "Whoever disagrees with me is stupid."


No , again , your too stupid to understand it. Good example is the problem in Africa , the rest of the world seems to not care about it , but in reality most people have problem sustaining and supporting themself , let alone try and help more then they already do , there is also the fact that they think someone else is paid to take care of it , and its actually the case but those funds are diverted or missused.

Wow, way to go off at a tangent. Can you keep one consistent thought in your head? Next thing you'll be talking about your Aunt Mabel's arthiritis and thinking it's somehow relevant.

Most people dont understand computers and dont get how they work , if someone tells them they dont need the kernel to be Open they will believe them because they dont think that they personnaly use that kernel.

Most people don't care. Everyday users have no idea what open source is or how it affects them. They just want to get their work done. Normal people do not sit there recompiling and patching their kernels.

but I dont worry , you whont get it.

Don't worry, there's really nothing to get. Ah well, I won't resort to calling you stupid (repeatedly), just because you don't "get" it.

Psst! Chicken Blood, don't feed him.

Psst! Chicken Blood, don't feed him.

Ah, bugger. I've been trolled and didn't even realise it!

Thanks for allerting me to my folly :-)

I decided to fix your post for you.

-------------------------

"It has nothing to do with stupidity sweetheart."

Thats exactly why you don't get my comment, and I am not your sweetheart.

"it has everything to do with your poor command of the English language."

No, it has to do with your lack of understanding of the subject and news that goes with it. I discuss something which has no value directly for you. Hence you dont get what I am talking about and from what angle.

"Don't make futile asssertions about my intelligence."

I read what you wrote, not what you thought.

"you have no evidence to back it up and it just makes you look like a schoolchild grasping at straws."

http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14633&comment_id=12...

http://www.osnews.com/usercomments.php?uid=4417

" "Ooh, you don't understand what I said, so you must be stupid." Please, learn some grammer and try again... "

Nope, you said it doesn't make sense, not that it was poorly written or explained. You're not interested in what I have to say, or what is beeing said at all.

"There's a good reason why nobody else replied to your post"

They don't like to be called and shown as stupid ;-)

"(I'm wishing I didn't bother now). "

Now you know, don't worry I am nice enough to use my real name and not change it, I am really easy to skip over.

"It made NO SENSE."

No, again, you're too stupid to understand it. A good example is the problem in Africa. The rest of the world seems to not care aboutit , but in reality most people have problem sustaining and supporting themself let alone try and help more then they already do. There is also the fact that they think someone else is paid to take care of it, and its actually the case but those funds are diverted or missused.

Most people dont understand computers and don't get how they work. If someone tells them they dont need the kernel to be open they will believe them because they dont think that they personnaly use that kernel.

But I will not worry, you won't get it.

--------------------------------------

I also fixed the extra space you put before every comman, but there was no way to bold that change.

Moulinneuf is a troll with a script that outputs Klingon. Here's how a conversation with Moulinneuf works:

Moulinneuf: This is traitor license , these are people lie , people I am expert .
Person: Mistake #1. Mistake #2. I can't read what you're saying.
Moulinneuf: No you one not know English , you wrong , you just don't know what is .
Person: No, you're the one that isn't speaking English. It's hard to tell if you're mentally handicapped or just a non-native speaker.
Moulinneuf: No my English perfect , you do not know English, I am the one that know what I talk about.

Just treat him like a kook on Usenet or a homeless person with schizophrenia on the street corner talking about the aliens. It's just not worth your time, unless you like playing with people that are intentionally being annoying.

You can come to my parties if you want. Why hold grudges over Internet trolling?

First..not to be a dickhead... but i just cannot understand your post. Secondly... i use linux and os x ..and frankly, i could give a r@ts @$$ about having the source code. I am a user.. not a developer..not a programmer..not an admin. ok.. now people in the darwin community may be pissed.. and i understand that.. but do you seriously think that the majority of the already small community of mac users is out there recompiling mach??? Personally the last time i recompiled my kernel on my ibook was NEVER?.. ok.. thats it.. sorry if i was an ass.

I normally do not respond to posts like this. However yours was particulary ascerbic and elitist, so I will give it a try. First take note that most of what you have posted is gibberish.

"You need the klingon decoder ring in the get a life cereal boxes apparently."
What you don' seem to get is that I have a life. Being a professional chef and parent and student doesn't really leave me much time to recompile the kernel on my mac. Beyond that there is no necessity in the life of joe user to do so. NONE whatsoever.

"your someone who is giving freedom away"
Actually..no I am not. Look at the license that apple distributes their code under. other than mach and the gnu programs in the userland.. they can pretty much do what they want. I am no more taking away peoples freedom than you are enlightening them.

"It look to me like its 3 against 1 , wich make you the minority. "
Yet another rediculous and fallacious statement. To imply that as a regular user, I am in the minority of computer users when compared to devs, programmers, and admins is just false. I would say that if thats how it looks to you.. get glasses. You are not seeing things clearly. Mach is released under a berkley -style license.. not the gpl... where does that leave your statements Mr. Stallman?

"No thats not it , since they can close the kernel , they probably will target other things , pray , its not something you like doing."
Like what..reading my email? Riding my bicycle? You use the "slippery slope" argument, that assumes that if they do A than they will do B necessarily. Sorry.. fallacy. It implies no such thing other than from the squirming mass of your paranoia mind.
You than continue your personal attack by stating that i could not understand the feelings of the Darwin community. What kind of 37334ist arrogance gives you the right to doubt my compassion? You than follow it up by stating , after I apologize for sounding like flaming you that i am not an as.. but that I am stupid. Personally.. I'll take stupid compared to your arrogance.

"However yours was particulary ascerbic and elitist"

I tought I was being really insulting , I guess my basic english is really not that good.

"First take note that most of what you have posted is gibberish. "

Wow , the new definition for gibberish in the making.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:gi...

"What you don' seem to get is that I have a life."

Yes , and those who compile kernel dont ...

"Being a professional ... kernel on my mac. "

Do you even know what a kernel is ? what recompiling the kernel is , what its for and how to do it , you must be one of those people who set there VCR - Tivo to record a show will they watch it ( Just insulting you here , I dont assume you really do it ).

"Beyond that there is no necessity in the life of joe user to do so. NONE whatsoever."

I could make a list , but I dont think that this particular list would apply to you in anyway , hence your not going to give a rats ass anyway.

"Actually..no I am not."

In reality you are.

"Look at the license ... much do what they want. "

Yes , blame the license , its always someone else fault isn'it.

"I am no more taking away peoples freedom than you are enlightening them. "

No you are actually agreing with an action that they did not use to do before , because you dont care and are not touched by it directly , removing the little freedom others had , I dont enlightnen people , I dont think I really inform them , I just make them think a little.

"Yet another rediculous and fallacious statement."

Redicoulous , another new word ...

"To imply that as a ... is just false. "

No because the majority of mac user are in : Education , graphic design and computer web programming.

" I would say that if thats how it looks to you.. get glasses. "

You say a lot of things.

"You are not seeing things clearly."

Actually , I do.

"Mach is released under a berkley -style license.."

What as the license to do with access to source code that they provided before and now stopped ? They removed a Freedom , they did not change the license wich is APSL and there EULA btw.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X

"where does that leave your statements Mr. Stallman?"

I am worst then Stallman ;-)

"Like what..reading my email?"

Yes , they can decide to make it pay per email ...

"Riding my bicycle?"

You ride your bicyle on a Mac , I sur would love to see that.

"You use the "slippery slope" argument"

No , I use the they are removing something that they use to give before under false pretense among other things , because you personnaly and your friends who think like you let them , because you dont use it and dont give a rats ass.

"that assumes that if they do A than they will do B necessarily."

No , with Apple its not assuming , its just a question of when.

"Sorry.. fallacy. It implies no such thing other than from the squirming mass of your paranoia mind."

Yes my mind concoted how Apple act towards open Source code and what they do normally with it. If my mind had that much impact I would get myself brainwashed to do things the way I write about.

" You than continue ... the Darwin community. "

Its nothing personnal I dont give a rats Ass about people who dont care about other people when they are not affected by it.

"What kind of 37334ist arrogance gives you the right to doubt my compassion? "

The I dont give a rats ass , why should I give a rats ass about your right , wants or anything else ? NOTHING , I do to you what you did to me.

"after I apologize for sounding like flaming you that i am not an ass.."

Your an ass , but not for your comment , for your actions , approval of Apple conduct in this affair.

"I'll take stupid compared to your arrogance."

Its not really your choice to make. What you call arrogance is more rage of having something more taken away from me because real thief who dont care dont pay and do whatever they whant are used as an excuse.

"Being a professional chef"

One would think that you woul ddo a parralel between source code and recipe , but no , you must have all original recipe ...

Until I hear an official quote from inside the loop, this is just rubbish!

If this is rubbish, than why is one unable to download the sources for the Intel version of OSX, from the day it came out?

Mmm? Oh, and using caps does not magically turn this into speculation.

> Mmm? Oh, and using caps does not magically turn this into speculation.

Don't dismiss mattboy99's post too quickly just because of the caps - it IS pure speculation, the rant by the InfoWorld reporter points to only one source - Apple, and only two words coming from them: "in flux". That's all. No other sources of information, no "pirates", no "fear", and not a single word about a decision not to publish the source code.

I say wait and see, as already pointed out - Apple has had large delays in the past before posting sources.

Get a clue people. You don't need the source. And even if you had the source, what would you do with it?

Look further than your own nose-- there's this whole world beyond your own desk. OSX' kernel contains lots of desktop-specific stuff that performance freaks (i.e. scientists) will consider bloat. Previously, they were able to remove this bloat. Now they cannot anymore.

And those people will not like that.

Scientists use Mac OS X? Dude I ownded a Mac Mini and sold it as they anounced their switch to Intel. I'm amazed as to why a scientist would want Mac OS X? I don't see how proprietry software would ineterest a scientist.

And yes I am an Open Source fanatic, if you wanted I'm sure you could tell I use Linux?

( michael@valhalla :: ~ ) uname -a
Linux valhalla.pluto.co.za 2.6.16-1.2111_FC5 #1 Thu May 4 21:16:58 EDT 2006 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
( michael@valhalla :: ~ )

I just don't see what all the ooh-ing and aah-ing is about. They are a proprietry company just Like Microsoft. It was bound to happen someday.

Edited 2006-05-17 16:13

Why would a scientist insist on open source OSes? O_o

why a scientist would want Mac OS X?

Because it's easy to use (not all scientists are computer geeks) and it can run many Unix apps used by scientists. I personally run Linux too, but I know of many labs using MacOS X.

"Look further than your own nose-- there's this whole world beyond your own desk. OSX' kernel contains lots of desktop-specific stuff that performance freaks (i.e. scientists) will consider bloat. Previously, they were able to remove this bloat. Now they cannot anymore.

And those people will not like that."

Valid point, with the exception of one thing. People in the scientific community rarely use OS X. Instead they use one of the other Unixes which they do not have the source code to anyway, or if they need the source use one of the BSD's or Linux. OS X, as Apple has always been, is geared towards the graphics designer, not the hobbyist, not the home user. There is a reason why thier market share is so low. This is not a slam or a troll, is just a fact.

and what in the world makes it geared towards graphic designers?

seriously, what does os x contain that doesn't aid the overall experience of all users, but only graphic designers?

There is a good example of why an open source Mac OS X kernel would be useful. Xen requires patching an OS to work with the paravirtualization. This needs to be done for both the guest and host kernels. The copy protection in Mac OS X may prevent it for ever being a guest, but it would work as a host for virtualizaing other OSes. The XNU kernel isn't open source on Intel, which means only Apple can do the modifications.

Similarly, making Mac OS X work well with VMware or true virtualization requires writing drivers for the virtualized devices. This is much harder when the source is not available.

While Mac OS X has good support for the hardware included in the Intel Macs, its hardware support for other hardware is weak. This will be important when the desktop Intel Macs are released and people can put addon cards in them. If the source was available, it would be easier for people to write drivers or fix buggy ones.

Yes which I understand. But this is Apple and that's not what they want to do. That's not where they see the future of Mac OS X going clearly. Being a proprietry company they don't care about projects like Xen, they have Boot Camp now.

even if you had the source, what would you do with it?

Some of us got skills.

"Some of us got skills."

/*
Lol
*/

Oh my... Which is why Apple would do this. Don't you realise that your supa-dupa kernel is just right for your Intel Mac? So unless you are a pirate and intend to make your own rip-off or write your own device drivers then clearly you are against Apple's way of business.

it all started when my mac didn't come with a hard disk formatting tool...

Scientists? I thought scientists were people who asked questions about how the universe worked, not performance freaks?

Yes, and how did you think they answered those questions? By using abacusses?

actually, most answers to "questions about the universe" are absolute guesses ... "how did the universe begin" ... "how old is the earth" ... etc.

Scientists simply have theories about these questions. Not answers.

actually, most answers to "questions about the universe" are absolute guesses ... "how did the universe begin" ... "how old is the earth" ... etc.

Scientists simply have theories about these questions. Not answers.

True, but at least their theories are formed by looking at the evidence and trying to find a model that fits that evidence. That's how science works.

It makes a lot more sense than believing that the world was created in six days, just because that's what someone wrote down 3000 years ago.

But that's a whole other debate...

actually, it doesn't make any more sense at all ... science, also, has had 3,000 years to come up with answers ... and so far, nothing but theories.

Sigh. "Science" is a relatively recent invention, probably not much more than 400 years old.

And yes, scientists have more than theories.

Quantum Mechanics is a "theory", without which we wouldn't have modern electronics. It can give you some very precise answers, which is why we can stuff a billion transistors on a small piece of silicon and get a working computer.

You must not be familiar with Alexandria (est. 332 B.C.) - the world capital of mathematics, science, and engineering. Also, Egyptian alchemy is considered to be as much as 6000 years old.

400 years is only representative of Early Modern science, not science as a whole.

I'm familiar with Alexandria. I'm not familiar with anyone aware of Chinese or Arabic history calling it the "world capital" of mathematics, science, or engineering.

Philosophers of science tend to agree that what is commonly called "science" did not begin with the Greeks, but had to wait for the decline of introspection and the rise of observation.

In the West, that would coincide with the renaiassance.

Mathematics, by the way, is, contrary to common belief, not a science.

True, but at least their theories are formed by looking at the evidence and trying to find a model that fits that evidence. That's how science works.

No, despite what we teach undergraduates, that's not how science works, although some parts of it, sometimes, work that way.

Someone is even reporting that they saw a flying pig yesterday.

Open source is the excuse of the piracy.
This is the real excuse. :-)

That irritated me too. It's sort of like "I'm about to kill you because you stole my wife from me." No, you're about to kill him because you desire to kill him; you desire to kill him because you're angry with him over stealing your wife.

So here. What Apple means to say is:
"We're not letting you build your own kernel for OS X because if we did pirates could use that ability to run it on top of non-Apple hardware. And people would do it because we don't have a particularly good kernel anyway, it's everything on top they want!"

Pirates raid ships in the Caribbean; they don't do anything with violating intellectual property.

Edited 2006-05-17 22:29

It's a shim sham.

Um, no, it's not.

Closing the code with this excuse is stupid, as it does nothing to kill the pirated copies out there or prevent people folding code from the Darwin project into it.

Closing source code would never completely eliminate piracy. But Apple doesn't need to be absolutely effective in order to be practically effective.

Mac OS is simply because Apple don't have the developers and resources

I billionary company doesn't have the resources?

Now I laugh at your face,

I billionary company doesn't have the resources?

Now I laugh at your face,

An 'I billionary company'? I don't know what one of those is. Mind you, I laugh at your face all the time.

Developing your own version of every bit of software you'll need in your own OS is an incredibly complex and time consuming business. Microsoft just about manage it, but they throw incredible amounts of resources at it no one has and they have a serious 'not invented here' syndrome. Even then, there have been bits of BSD code liberally sprinkled around.

Apple uses open source software because they don't have the resources to spare and because they can't be bothered to come up with something of their own that's equally good compared to Samba and Cups. They are huge bits of software. No other explanation.

typo read "A billionary company".

Apple uses open source software because they don't have the resources to spare and because they can't be bothered to come up with something of their own that's equally good compared to Samba and Cups. They are huge bits of software. No other explanation.

oh, but they do have the resources to invest in iPod and all the hardware and software they made but they can't work in a printing engine, try harder please.

Apple uses open source software because they don't have the resources to spare and because they can't be bothered to come up with something of their own that's equally good compared to Samba and Cups. They are huge bits of software. No other explanation.
...
oh, but they do have the resources to invest in iPod and all the hardware and software they made but they can't work in a printing engine, try harder please.

its more about putting your money where it will be maximized. the money put into the ipod generates huge profits. why would it be a sound investment to spend x dollars to write a printing engine from the ground up when there's a free one to do exactly what you want? same with samba.

Then the reason is not te lack of resources.

Edited 2006-05-17 21:10

oh, but they do have the resources to invest in iPod and all the hardware and software they made but they can't work in a printing engine

Well, the iPod makes money - directly.

It's not just a printing engine though - it's integration into Windows Networks (Samba), networking, integration, testing and replicating an awful lot of stuff already done. A huge amount of work that's just not feasible, because given where their revenue comes from it's a wasted effort.

try harder please.

Don't need to. That's the way it is.

Could be true but your statement has another failure, you argu that Apple doesn't have the resources but neather CUPS nor SAMBA had the resources at the beginning to be build (and actually they still doesn't have the resources Apple have), so is not about the resources, but again, there is no worse blind man that the one who doesn't want to see, nice but try harder.

Now Kady, what were you saying about feeding the troll... hmmm?

Now Kady, what were you saying about feeding the troll... hmmm?

Did I reply directly to Mollinneuf? No. Had I wished to reply directly to his posts, I would have done so.

I just took an example of his prose and showed how it missed some basic components of english grammar and syntax and illustrated for all of us how this makes things unclear and the importance of paying attention to such matters when we try to express our points on this forum.

I also reccomended for anybody interested in the matter a very easy to use and comprehensive guide to English grammar.

Actually, as a non-native speaker, I appreciate the tips and the book recommendation. I do need to improve my English skills anyway. :-)

So many posts.

So many emotions.

Well, it is Apple they're discussing! Throw the words 'proprietary' and 'open source' in there and - woooahhh.....

The BSD license allows another license such as the ASPL to be layered over it.

That is, you can obtain BSD code, and so long as you abide by the terms of the BSD licence (which is little more than displaying the appropriate copyright notice) you can do whatever the hell you like with the code.

Seriously, boot your mac into single user mode and you will see the required copyright notice. Look at XNU and you will see the required copyright notice because XNU is a BSD derivative.

The reason Apple released XNU under the ASPL is because the BSD license allows for this.

The BSD license is like the super-sculpty of licenses.

There seems to be a misconception that the BSD license allows you to take your code and run home with it, but this just isn't the case.

Uh, no, that is the case ... so long as you abide by the terms of the BSD license. (Which is so easy to stay on the right side of that you'd have to be incredibly frelling stupid to violate it.)

"The BSD license allows another license such as the ASPL to be layered over it.

That is, you can obtain BSD code, and so long as you abide by the terms of the BSD licence (which is little more than displaying the appropriate copyright notice) you can do whatever the hell you like with the code."

All very true, except there is very little BSD code in XNU

"Seriously, boot your mac into single user mode and you will see the required copyright notice. Look at XNU and you will see the required copyright notice because XNU is a BSD derivative."

I don't have a mac and most likely never will, although I'm sure you would see the BSD copyrights. That is why they exist.

"The reason Apple released XNU under the ASPL is because the BSD license allows for this."

OK

"The BSD license is like the super-sculpty of licenses."

Yeah, whatever that means.

"There seems to be a misconception that the BSD license allows you to take your code and run home with it, but this just isn't the case."

"Uh, no, that is the case ... so long as you abide by the terms of the BSD license. (Which is so easy to stay on the right side of that you'd have to be incredibly frelling stupid to violate it.)"

And here is where you went terribly wrong. How does Apple not posting the source for the next version of XNU automatically make the previously released code dissapear? Why do some open source advocates these days assume that just because software is released under an open license, they have some god given right to every future patch for that software that might come along?

Edited 2006-05-18 02:45

"I'm really surprised that this causes such an uproar. It's not like any of previous versions of MacOS (OS7,8,9) were opensource."

its not like macos 7/8/9 was based on an opensource kernel that made them a shitload of money without them returning anything to the opensource community - thats what is happening now.

apple is so much worse than ex microsoft when it comes to suing randomly, "protecting" their investments, "borrowing" from opensource ect.

at the very least they should have the decency and return contributions to darwin when they based their entire operatingsystem on it.

/stone

First, they contributed back and this is true no matter if they plan to continue contribution or not.

Next, the writers of the originate software decided themselves to forgo return contributions, otherwise they would've used another license.

Typical of the osnews.com spammers - when you hate an opinion, no matter how valid or well thought out, points are removed; little wonder some of the best contributors to this site no longer frequent it.

Yer, it's sad. People have opposing opinions (and cntroversial ones), yes, and providing they all try and come up with something itemised and explain why they think the way they do, and then other people come in and quote and say why they think that's wrong, you have a heated but healthy discussion because there's something in it

Unfortunately, when you get on to what seems to be a sensitive subject for some people (and Apple definitely seems to be right up there) everything becomes a mess. You even get comments modded down without anyone even replying to them simply because some people just don't like what's being written and don't know how to reply to it. Sad. Very sad.

On to your comment, I agree in many ways. Bad communication and trying to protect their products even further is what this is about. Unfortunately, Apple don't seem to realise that open source projects have helped them out in a lot of ways with Mach, Darwin, Cups, GCC, Samba and KHTML and Webcore. Apple don't seem to realise that they need to contribute back to keep that process going, and not just because a license obligates them to. They depend on that software. What happens when Apple needs to change direction again, there's an open source project that's perfect but people are just not inclined to help them in any way? You can't benefit on the one hand and not contribute on the other.

You can't benefit on the one hand and not contribute on the other.

Why not? if the license allow it.