Apple is stonewalling open-source developers despite the company’s recent release of much of the Mac OS X Tiger kernel source code, according to Proclus, administrator of the GNU-Darwin Distribution. “In order to have a free and open source system, two things are necessary. First, all the necessary source code must be obtainable by anyone, and second the system must obviously be bootable in order to use it,” Proclus told MacNN. “Darwin OS is not bootable without the AppleACPIPlatform driver, which is closed source [and proprietary] at this time.” On a related note, a slew of unannounced features have been posted to the web, found in the developer preview of Leopard.
Oh man, system-wide grammar check is enough to get me to upgrade.
Fantastic!
Is that sarcasm or do Mac users seriously need a grammar checker system wide?
This “developer” needs to get over himself.
First off, how many respectable people in FOSS use their “handle” to petition a company? How many notable developers actually use a “handle”? Nothing says whiny bitch like hiding behind a handle.
Secondly, Apple (by terms of the Darwin license) is not required to release this driver’s source. They release the driver. You _can_ boot the code. You cannot boot the code without their driver. The only reason this guy is complaining is because he’s either a GPL nazi or a _flaming idiot_.
This non-bootable thing is a non issue. Apple is releaseing the code to their operating system, and has provided a binary means of booting the results of that code. This means, *gasp* you CAN compile a custom verson of the kernel, and run it. OH MY GOD. THEY’RE ACTUALLY ABIDING BY THEIR OWN LICENSE!
This “developer” Proclus needs to get over himself. Seriously.
If he had any balls at all, he’d put his name to his senseless bitching.
Edited: The real story here is the unannounced features that developers are stumbling across. This was expected, but it’s still the real story.
-Bryan Varner
Edited 2006-08-10 20:29
I don’t care about OS X in the slightest, but he does have a point. Apple tries to sell themselves as an open source ally, and yet they are withholding key elements of the OS from being open. Yes, you can boot the code with their binary driver, but thats not really the point. What if 6 months from now they decide that they dont want you using open darwin anymore and stop distributing that binary code? Then all the work that developers have done kind of becomes pointless doesn’t it?
Off topic, who cares if he uses a handle? Most major sites have staff that use aliases during their posts. Check out arstechnica or slashdot or digg. Its the exception I think to see people using their real name on the web.
“Apple tries to sell themselves as an open source ally”
Apple tries to sell their products. (shocking?)
Does “open source ally” mean one should not use/produce any closed source softwares anymore?
Does everything have to be black or white?
How many have been infected with this “either you’re with us or against us” virus?
Can we just accept that open source is not the only ethical way to develop software?
TechGeek, I am just very tired of this “for” or “against” open-source discussion.
I also find it irritating when the free software community reacts negatively to progress. When Google, released Picasa for Linux, for example, people had a problem with the method they used to port the application, even though it was released under a free software license. But this is a different matter.
Apple’s committment to open source has regressed as a result of their switch to Intel. On the PPC970 architecture, OpenDarwin had access to all of the code they needed to boot the system. After the switch, the community lost this capability. Apple has made “progress” in the sense that now the free software community has a much more complete codebase for Intel hardware than they did before. But, compared to our fully-booting system on PPC, the current situation falls short.
The free software community is hell-bent on ridding the world of proprietary, binary-only kernelspace drivers such as Apple’s ACPI driver. There are as many pragmatic reasons as idealistic justifications for wanting open access to kernel sources. Without open drivers, the community cannot help audit and improve code that is critical to the stability and security of our systems.
In this sense, I do believe that open source is the only ethical way to _distribute_ kernel code. Community development models are, of course, optional, but we must have the opportunity to use our distributed code review capacity to find and report bugs in security-critical code. If we can’t trust the system, then it is useless to us.
Free software operating systems already have mature ACPI support for Intel architectures. I can’t imagine that Apple cannot open this driver because of Intel’s IP rights. I really wish Apple could provide a reason for why they can’t open this code, because only then can the community figure out whether the goal of an open Darwin-based system is feasible.
You see, it’s not so much that the community is demanding anything from Apple. We’re saying that their substantial code release is a waste of their resources if they can’t provide the sources for a bootable system. If they can’t, that’s fine. The community has plenty of other open kernels that run the GNU stack, we’ll just have to live without Darwin.
AFAIK, It was not released under a free software license…
From the EULA:
Intellectual Property
You acknowledge that Google, its subsidiaries and affiliates, and/or third parties own all right, title and interest in and to the Picasa Software, portions thereof, and any software or other materials (not including user photos or message text) provided through or in conjunction with the Picasa Software, including without limitation all intellectual property rights. You agree not to modify, adapt, translate, prepare derivative works from, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble or otherwise attempt to derive source code from the Picasa Software. You also agree to not remove, obscure, or alter Google’s or any third party’s copyright notice, trademarks, or other proprietary rights notices affixed to or contained within or accessed in conjunction with or through the Picasa Software.
While I agree people should take or leave Picasa on Linux – it is another company creating a Linux App anyway – this is IN NO WAY a free software license! It uses Gecko and Wine heavily – that’s about it.
Eh, I stand corrected on the Picasa issue. I thought they released the source for that, but I guess they didn’t. Anyways, this is application software, and, as you said, people can take it or leave it. Your OS kernel is a different story.
When the Linux Kernel source can reduce its bugs and security vulnerabilities down to these proprietary drivers alone then I imagine the FOSS community will have a stronger case in having these corporations open up their driver sources, on a bug/security vulnerability, basis.
>In this sense, I do believe that open source is the
>only ethical way to _distribute_ kernel code.
>Community development models are, of course,
>optional, but we must have the opportunity to use
>our distributed code review capacity to find and
>report bugs in security-critical code. If we can’t
>trust the system, then it is useless to us.
I disagree.
I accept that for code review then it can be beneficial for you (rather: a concerned MacOS licensee) to have access to the code. We might argue about whether you *need* absolutely *all* of it, but what you do NOT *need* is an ability to give the code to anyone who doesn’t have a license to it from Apple, nor do you *need* it to be free (as in beer).
Unfortunately the zealots have destroyed the practical availability of source to customers with a requirement that anyone who pleases can have the right to compete with the vendor – and for what?
James
Anyone’s more than welcome to mix their closed source and open source software as long as they follow licensing properly. However, there is an implied agreement that even though the software is free as in price, it still comes at a cost. If a large company like Apple wants to use open source software in their closed source products, they have an obligation to contribute back to the community and not just be a mooch.
Anyone’s more than welcome to mix their closed source and open source software as long as they follow licensing properly. However, there is an implied agreement that even though the software is free as in price, it still comes at a cost. If a large company like Apple wants to use open source software in their closed source products, they have an obligation to contribute back to the community and not just be a mooch.
Apple has no obligation, moral, ethical or otherwise. Absolutely nothing is implied. The developers gave up the right to complain when they chose a BSD license. If they had any expectations beyond the satisfaction of knowing their code is being used successfully, then they chose the wrong license. And as for the “community” of non-developers that have contributed nothing to BSD but still expect Apple to open up, they have less right to complain than the devs.
Is Apple leaching? Certainly they are. The amount of money they saved on R&D by choosing OSS as a base for OS X is probably measured in tens of millions of dollars, maybe more. But they’re doing nothing wrong. If that’s an issue, then maybe team BSD should take a longer, harder look at team GPL. It amazes me that people will slag the GPL as being viral and then complain when people don’t contribute back to BSD. It’s idealism vs realism.
Is Apple leaching? Certainly they are. The amount of money they saved on R&D by choosing OSS as a base for OS X is probably measured in tens of millions of dollars, maybe more. But they’re doing nothing wrong. If that’s an issue, then maybe team BSD should take a longer, harder look at team GPL. It amazes me that people will slag the GPL as being viral and then complain when people don’t contribute back to BSD. It’s idealism vs realism.
What’s really stupid is that IT IS NOT an issue with the BSD people. The GPL zealots are the ones bitching, and it really makes no sense. The BSD license allows Apple to take what it wants with no obligations. The BSD folks who are being “used” (and tongue is firmly in cheek there) are NOT crying.
The world has not been and will not be taken over by GPL software. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Some people like to give stuff away with no strings attached. That’s no one’s business but those who have given it away.
Commercial software is not evil.
I agree that the BSD style license is innappropriate for serious open source software, as just like you stated, users of the code are not required to contribute back in any form or fashion… however, to say that there’s not even a moral or ethical reason just because it’s not in the license is a little short sighted don’t you think? Really, Apple could look at it from a purely business perspective and still have incentive. What happens if they continue mooching off BSD licensed projects and then those projects die b/c not enough people contributed back? Now all of the sudden Apple has a large portion of their OS that they have to go back to supporting all by their selves and end up losing all the benefits that had before from it…
I think the most annoying thing about Apple’s Open Source games with Darwin is the confusion it has created in the minds of their customers, I’m sure a lot of less well informed OSX users would quite happily sit there and tell you that OSX is UNIX, OSX is Open Source and therefore it’s the same as Linux only better because apple charge for it. These people don’t even begin to understand the differences between Free Software and Open Source Software or what Apple’s Public License actually permits you to do with their code.
With Linux we have the right to make it run on any hardware that we wish, with Linux apple couldn’t take our code and start using it without contributing changes back to the community, with OSX Apple restricts your ability to do so and with Darwin it holds back the one piece of software which might make it easier to do and encourages you to code under a license which gives Apple a free lunch.
Clearly if the driver contained open-sourceable code, Apple would open-source it. What you GNU kiddies don’t understand is that in the real world, a company can’t just decide “We’re going to release this to the public!” when that code is partially or completely proprietary/patented by other companies. Your dream-like utopia just isn’t realistic.
In this case, Intel probably has some hooks in said driver. Apple has already done you a great service by releasing the Intel OS X kernel source. Take it or leave it.
As predicted, a few angry fanboys have to scream that it’s not enough, and that they want more. And you wonder why companies are hesitant to open-source their stuff?
<blockquote>Clearly if the driver contained open-sourceable code, Apple would open-source it. What you GNU kiddies don’t understand is that in the real world, a company can’t just decide “We’re going to release this to the public!” when that code is partially or completely proprietary/patented by other companies. Your dream-like utopia just isn’t realistic. </blockquote>
While it’s true that large pieces of proprietary software almost always contain code licensed from a 3rd party and , as such, often couldn’t be released as opensource even if that were desirable(see the early days of OpenOffice 6 when sun were busy removing all foreign code for an example), I seriously doubt that this is the case with Apple, wouldn’t access to the sources for this module make hacking OSX about to run on commodity hardware one hell of a lot easier? If so then you can see the primary reason for not releasing the sources.
Apple haven’t done anyone a great service in releasing the sources they have, they aren’t there for our benefit but rather to allow Apple to continue to slap an Open Source core sticker on their product, remember the Apple Public Source license isn’t designed to ensure the availability of code to you but to ensure that you will allow Apple to use your contributed code without question. Apple only release the source because it suits them and their PR machine to do so.
I think you’re missing the point.
The open-source code you have now will not stop working down the road. It’s already out there.
You are not thinking of open source, where code is given for oversight, contribution, and modification. You are thinking of free product, and that’s a totally different objective.
Read the license, and tell me where what they’re doing is in violation of that.
This isn’t a matter of Apple pissing in the face of open source. This is a matter of a bunch of liberals with a hose up their ass getting all pissed off that someone switched their coffee enema to foldgers crystals. The end result is the same : they get their caffeine rush, but the method in which it’s done has different terms, and it irritates them.
Get over yourselves. The world does not revolve around Richard Stallman and his freak-ass “share the software” acid trip.
Babe, you do realise that the ACPI code is actually opensource and available via Intel under the BSD licence; the very same code which FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and Linux all rely on.
Oh, and in regards to the ‘contributions’ there have been no ‘contributions to Darwin by any opensource developer, hence there were questions as to the whole point of actually having Darwin opensourced in the first place!
I hardly blame Apple considering there is next to no contributions being made by the so-called ‘feel good’ opensource community – given the terrible performance of XNU at server tasks, was expecting *atleast* a dozen or two to start working on the XNU core to improve scalability and performance, but no one has taken that task on board.
So much for the ‘scratching the itch’ which proponents of opensourcing Darwin would have allowed.
Edited 2006-08-11 06:57
Oh, and in regards to the ‘contributions’ there have been no ‘contributions to Darwin by any opensource developer, hence there were questions as to the whole point of actually having Darwin opensourced in the first place!
Well, the APSL, Apples way of interacting with sister projects (KHTML / Webkit) and the partial nature of Darwin, which is a freaky hybrid *Nix, may have pushed serious developers towards pure BSD. BSD doesn’t have weird corporate hoops to jump through.
If he had any balls at all, he’d put his name to his senseless bitching.
Given how zealous the Mac community has become lately, I don’t blame him for going by a handle instead of his real name.
When are people going to learn that Apple’s just jerking around the open source community. They’re not better than Microsoft, hell they’re possibly worse as at least you can use other company’s hardware under Winblows
By my knowledge Apple is now the first to FINALLY implement multiple copy&paste on an OS level.
I hereby declare Windows, KDE and Gnome owned.
Sorry for the juvenile language, but this is such a productivity-enhancing feature, and so obvious, that I truly don’t understand why noone had implemented it yet.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
just so you know the BeOS had that in 1999 with ClipUP so now youre owned due to your ignorance =)
just so you know the BeOS had that in 1999 with ClipUP so now youre owned due to your ignorance =)
It *is* systemwide, but not implemented by the OS makers, so I’m only half-owned
You mean r3nt3d?
I wonder, is this multiple selections at once, or sort of a clipboard stack? It sounds like the former, which would be pretty nifty.
Edited 2006-08-11 01:17
Why not link to the original post on AeroXp instead of AppleInsider’s rehash? Web pages that add no value deserve no links.
“First, all the necessary source code must be obtainable by anyone”
NOT going to happen. Ever. Apple will hold onto their proprietary pieces and never open them up. Perhaps they could be kind enough to suggest a replacement chunk of code, perhaps pulled from another OS… but why SHOULD they openSource their “secrets”?
Because ethically and morally, a true friend of free software would release code that is compilable and in the case of an OS, bootable. Apple has benefited greatly by the use of free software in creation of their operating system, and while there is no legal obligation to release their source code, there is an ethical one.
…like I said.
Corporations are out to make a buck, not friends.
There is no ethical obligation for Apple to release the source code for applications that they thought up, implemented, tested, and have improved over time — all nearly 100% on their own. Were they using an open-source base for iPhoto or iTunes, then I would agree with you … but come on.
Why would Apple want all the raging open-source zealots to rush in and take everything that they’ve invested so much time and money in creating?
If you believe that keeping source code proprietary is not a way to dominate your userbase, and consequently, unethical, then, no, Apple is under no obligation to open source its software.
However, whether closed-source software is unethical or not, I expect the people and companies I deal with to live up to their promises. I no longer deal with Microsoft as a customer because they have, from the beginning of my involvement with them to this day, been full of nothing but hot air (such as the promises of stability and innovation in Win9x) and incompetence (such as WGA penalizing legitimate users of Windows).
If Apple doesn’t want to open source things, then it should stop painting itself as being in favour of open source.
They’ve done a lot to improve open-source, and given back their changes.
If you think that the fruits of hard work and money should be given away for free, when there is nothing to gain from doing so, then so be it. Apple is under no obligation to open source all of its software. Users are making the choice to go Apple in droves anyway.
Think software innovation and the world would dry up without open source? Think again. I, as a Mac user, do not give a damn that iPhoto is not open source. I use iPhoto. It works. I enjoy it. It makes my life easier. The same applies to every other piece of proprietary software that I have on my Mac.
Ideology does not make the application.
I, as a Mac user, do not give a damn that iPhoto is not open source. I use iPhoto.
Most people don’t give a damn about democracy, either, until something happens to make them appreciate it. Typically, it’s when they’re about to lose a democratic freedom they’d always enjoyed. “I don’t care” is not the same as “it’s not important”.
Okay — allow me to rephrase.
To the typical computer user, source code is not important, nor will it ever be. It has always been that way, and always will be.
Do you honestly think that the FSF/GNU have changed anything? People continue to use proprietary operating systems and software, and they like it.
Go preach somewhere else.
To the typical computer user, source code is not important, nor will it ever be. It has always been that way, and always will be.
Never said it was important “to the typical computer user”. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t important.
If IBM had not chosen an open architecture for its PC, we would still all be running PC’s made by them, and they would still be in the kilobuck range. I think most people would prefer to have cheap PC’s than be beholden to IBM. The same goes for software. I might add, proprietary hardware companies, including IBM, which were around in the early PC area, stood around navel-gazing, wondering whether a company could buy off the shelf parts instead of controlling its own hardware, and still be successful. Meanwhile the PC OEM market started obliterating them.
That won’t happen as fast in this case, since the market is basically saturated with proprietary software vendors already. But if, in ten years, open-source software companies don’t account for at least 30% of software companies globally, I’ll eat my dog.
Edited 2006-08-11 01:39
IBM *didn’t* choose an open architecture for its PC. The BIOS was reverse-engineered in a clean-room environment, and then the flood of clones started.
Learn your history before you try to use it as an example of why open source can/will/should succeed.
OK, then, they chose a /mostly/ open architecture. Any history of IBM will tell you, it was a big departure for them. The point still stands that if IBM were the only company making IBM compatible PC’s, due to lack of competition they’d still be a lot more expensive than they in fact are.
Is Open Source as important as Freedom and Democracy?
Think about it before you’re going to die for.
To me, open souce is not even as important as Free Market, let along Freedom.
To me, it’s unethical to bad-mouth a software company simply because its close-sourced product, even when they actually produce better software for the market, which means customers (those who don’t need source code) will have better choice.
To me, it’s unethical to take the design and creative ideas from a close-souced product, re-implement in the open-source form, then turn around bad-mouth the creator, suggest the close-soured one should die because there’s now an open-sourced alternative.
Contrary to what you might think of me after read so far, I prefer open-sourced software if the end product offers comparable value to the close-sourced alternative, because I am a developer.
It’s just that I absolutely hate a company or a person being judged by open v.s. close alone.
There are two separate issues here. One is open-source vs closed source. The one I was addressing above was “adherence to licensing agreements”. If Apple sign a licence agreement, whether open or closed, they should stick to it or be prepared to be taken to court and lose.
If Apple sign a licence agreement, whether open or closed, they should stick to it or be prepared to be taken to court and lose.
WTF are you talking about?
He’s jumping the shark, because he can’t win this.
Let’s just leave him alone.
Actually some people sleep at night. As for what-the-f–k I’m talking about, it’s as plain as the nose on my face for all to see.
The one I was addressing above was “adherence to licensing agreements”.
Your posts didn’t come out as that.
If Apple sign a licence agreement, whether open or closed, they should stick to it or be prepared to be taken to court and lose.
Sure. Is Apple breaking any license agreement?
It is bootable.
Use the driver, Luke.
DUHHHHH
*curses idiots*
Indeed, most of the open source ACPI implementations are in fact based on Intel’s reference acpica library. I’m hazarding a guess that Apple’s driver is more than just ACPI and likely ties into the TPM on the logic board or something related along those lines, in an attempt to fend off efforts to use the kernel source to simplify getting OSX working on non-Mac x86 boxes. The latter’s purely conjecture on my part though, but it seems like the only logical reason they’d not be willing/able to open source an ACPI driver that I can see.
I dont really care whether Apple wants to be open or not. Its their choice. But for a company that says they are friends with the OSS community, they do a piss poor job of it. Sure, its not against the law. But it is morality issue. And while most don’t think that morality has any place in business, I think your wrong. I think its more profitable to do the right thing by your customers in the long run. This recent article is only the beginning. Look at Safari. Based on GPL’d software, yet ask the Konquerer devs how easy Apple has made it to back port changes. It doesn’t have to be black vs. white, open vs closed. But you do need to be consistant. Otherwise you look like a liar.
They are under no obligation to make it “easy” to backport changes.
In fact, they don’t even have to make them something that can be backported.
They just have to make the source they use that’s under GPL available.
Which last time I checked, they do.
If the Konq people want to bitch, let them. Apple is merely abiding by the license. If the Konq people don’t like it, then they obviously picked a poor license. That’s THEIR OWN FAULT / TOUGH POO.
The issue here is not that Apple is doing anything “wrong” or “immoral” or “naughty”. The issue is self-righteous people who refuse to believe that there could possibly be anything wrong with their license. Everyone is all pissed because someone figured out that they 1.) Don’t have to use GPL for everything, and 2.) GPL (WebKit, anyone) got pwned by their own terms.
Eat it folks.
If these GPL nuts were reallyl concerned about things being free (as in speech) they’d be using BSD. Fact of the matter is, they’re not interested in giving things away to help people. They want to get rich / famous / hired. Their “free” software is totally rooted in “greed” and they get all prissy when they’re not directly benefiting from there faux benevolence.
People like this piss me off so much it’s not funny.
It’s when I read utter garbage like this, I wish all proprietary companies would go fully proprietary again.
Apple’s source dumps don’t add one speck to this world. It only creates controversy and it forces the idiots out of the woodwork, who feel the need to defend companies that coopt a pure ideology for PR reasons.
There are a lot of simpletons out there who pat Apple on the back for “doing Open Source”. It’s just that Apple does Open Source the same way as I could be doing you.
Darwin as Open Source Software is an utter disgrace. Apples hot air about having Open Source underpinnings is just flag waving and then the flag isn’t even theirs.
“To me, open souce is not even as important as Free Market,”
What Free Market?
Personally I’d say free,open and patent unencumbered standards are “more” important than free software.
stunned even.
How dare they release their code under license agreeable to them. If they’re going to hold anything back then they should just hold it all back. Close it down entirely! Bastards.
It probably would save a lot of people a lot of time. Since Apple releases Darwin as a playtoy and not as free technology, any serious development on that shaky base is a waste of time. Except for Apple ofcourse.
Is it me or is it true that some anti-FOSS zealots are all over.
No don’t press the button to vote me down. In doing so you will only prove that I am correct.
It’s probably you, but it depends on what you mean by anti-FOSS zealot. In my experience there is a lot more zealotry displayed by the FOSS proponents than by anyone else.
zealot (n). 2: …, a fanatical partisan
partisan (n). 1: a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
Expressing an opinion that does not strongly support the political goals of the GNU Project and Free Software Foundation or other FOSS champions does not equate to being opposed to free and open source software. To state that the only software that’s acceptable is “FOSS” is about as fanatical (see above) an opinion as one could have on the matter. Not everyone who doesn’t take that extreme position is anti-FOSS.
moderate (adj). 1 a : avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits
I’d agree with the grand parent, Apple Zealots and others with Anti-FOSS sentiment do seem rather prevalent at OSNews. Any criticism of apple will be immediately greeted with negative moderation.
fence sitter (NOUN): Informal. One who takes a position of neutrality or indecision, as in a controversial matter.
We can all play that game.
A common sentiment these days is that people can only be for Free and Open Source Software or against it. That sentiment is fundamentally and provably close minded but if people want to frame the issue that way for themselves that’s their choice.
Ignoring the fact that it is possible to support FOSS and closed-source software at the same time won’t make it untrue, no matter how hard you try.
I heartily agree that there are a lot of zealots about – I just disagree as to who the zealots are.
I have no problem with expression of opinion. But there has been a lot of name-calling in some of the threads that have been modded up for no apparent reason.
“But there has been a lot of name-calling in some of the threads that have been modded up for no apparent reason.”
Ah, you seem to have the delusion that modding has a relation to the quality of the comment.
You couldnt be more wrong, modding has NOTHING to do with how good or well-informed a comment is, it’s all about making a popular statement, right or wrong, uninformed or informed.
It seems to me parts of the OSS community is expecting Apple to play nice. Let’s be honest, Apple will spin that they’re part of the OSS community and that they are not against sharing.
Apple’s intentions are clear, they are playing the OSS community for what they are worth, and when they’re done, they’re throw them to the curve like a piece a meat. That is all they’re doing!
Mac zealots will say that Apple is simply protecting themselves but really, who are they really protecting? Apple can not have it both ways, it is either they open all of Darwin source code or they just close the door on the OSS and just say, it was good while it lasted!
Apple will never play fair, just like Microsoft, they’ll use you, and when they’re done(made their money), poof you’re gone!
Apple will never play fair, just like Microsoft, they’ll use you, and when they’re done(made their money), poof you’re gone!
Beautifully stated. It’s also why proprietary operating systems are complete anathema for me. With FL/OSS you have the source code available to use as a club, should your vendor decide it is time to screw you over.
Which is why source code should also be coveted by users who never compile for themselves. It puts you on equal footing with the vendor. As long as they care to provide what you need, you won’t use your equality against them.
1. Apple is a closed source company
2. Apple does not care about OSS at all …
3. … unless THEY can somehow benefit from it
4. Apple is about as bad as MS towards OSS
5. Apple instead of MS would be a total nightmare: software and hardware would be proprietary
6. Their marketing dep. works well and spreads the word about Apple being somehow a friend of OSS – a lie
7. Never, ever trust Apple – you’ll regret it too soon