Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Mar 2009 18:02 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Permalink for comment 354937
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-05-22
Apple's Darwin is a perfect example of how open source doesn't work. Yes, sources are available and the Darwin kernel is very similar (but not identical) to the Mac OS X kernel, but at the same time, Darwin's sources are read-only. Apple has proven many times to just ignore contributions.
If developers next to never can get their contributions into Mac OS X and into the machines of a wider audience, why would a person consider contributing something at all? As a result, contributions stalled and neither a GPL nor a BSD-style licence will help.
An example of where Apple does better is gcc. gcc is strong enough to exist independently of Apple's mercy.