Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Aug 2006 19:38 UTC, submitted by proclus
Mac OS X 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.
Thread beginning with comment 151329
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Apple and OSS
by TechGeek on Fri 11th Aug 2006 02:52 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apple and OSS
by bryanv on Fri 11th Aug 2006 03:32 in reply to "Apple and OSS"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Apple and OSS
by r_a_trip on Fri 11th Aug 2006 18:39 in reply to "RE: Apple and OSS"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2