The article goes on to paint a doomsday scenario about how there will be an older version and a newer version of Linux floating around, and how such a division will split and ultimately weaken the Linux operating system.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-10
"I think that you proved my point here. Open Darwin was discontinued from a lack of interest from the community. Apple had no obligation to release any sources (and the FreeBSD devs never required this). It was an experimental Apple 'open source' project that failed. Not an issue."
Ummmm, if you actually read the Opendarwin page I think you will see that the lack of interest came from the lack of help that Apple gave. And if so many people love the BSD license then why do so many people cry that Apple is not giving back??? Why would a project like OpenDarwin have been started in the first place? Its was started by BSD developers! ??
Member since:2006-04-25
Ummmm, if you actually read the Opendarwin page I think you will see that the lack of interest came from the lack of help that Apple gave. And if so many people love the BSD license then why do so many people cry that Apple is not giving back??? Why would a project like OpenDarwin have been started in the first place? Its was started by BSD developers! ??
Where do you get the impression that "so many people cry that Apple is not giving back"? The few people that took an interest in Open Darwin might be sore about it, but as far as I can tell the *BSD developers didn't really care.
How many people do you think were actually involved in Open Darwin development? From their website it looks like there were about 3 (http://opendarwin.org/en/coreteam.html)
It appears that the Open Darwin team was better at marketing their cause rather than coding.
Member since:
2006-04-25
It's funny that people keep going back to Google. yes Google is making money off of GPL code, but that is one company
That's the biggest example. I myself have modified GPL software for businesses and have released nothing back to 'the community'. It happens all of the time.
You can't even count on 2 hands and 2 feet how many companies have done the same with BSD code!
There's no problem with that. That's exactly what the authors of BSD licenced software want.
Re: OpenDarwin Actually you are wrong on that. If you read the news posting you will see ..... a lack of interest from the community
I think that you proved my point here. Open Darwin was discontinued from a lack of interest from the community. Apple had no obligation to release any sources (and the FreeBSD devs never required this). It was an experimental Apple 'open source' project that failed. Not an issue.
You've veared off course with your arguments here. This discussion started off on the premise that BSD developers get exploited because there code can be modified with no contribution, and that using the GPL avoids this. Well, as pointed out, this is simply not true.
Even the single premise that BSD developers are getting explited is false. If you spent any time reading a BSD mailing list you would find that they don't want the code to any 'enhancements' made by Apple, MS, etc. They would argue that it would add 'bloat' to their well engineered software. They are happy that Apple has used their code, because previously Apple's OS offering SUCKED (from a security & stability stand point).