Linked by David Adams on Tue 8th Apr 2008 16:33 UTC
BSD and Darwin derivatives "I am very happy about the direction in which the Mac OS X GUI is going, although sadly many Mac users aren't interested in (or don't know about) the "lower levels" of the Macintosh Operating System. Have you ever wondered why the Terminal greets you with the words "Welcome to Darwin"? Why do BSD and Mac OS share certain bits of code? Why does Wikipedia describe Mac OS X as a graphical operating system? Today we're going to take a look at the underlying open source technology which powers your fancy Leopard OS - the hidden core set of components, named Darwin."
Thread beginning with comment 308719
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: What BSD could have been
by Moulinneuf on Tue 8th Apr 2008 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE: What BSD could have been"
Member since:

Could have been??? more users use BSD (Darwin, FBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD...) on their desktop than any other open source OS.

1) Darwin is not real Open Source or real Free Software. (1) It's not under BSD either (2)
2) Gnu/Linux as far more user's. (3)

A) Apple as 24 million user's , FBSD , NetBSD,OpenBSD don't have 200 000 user's put togheter.

The BSD's are great operating systems, stable, fast and very useful.

That's why Zero server OEM ship it , that's why zero Desktop OEM ship it.

BSD protection clause???????? The BSD license is truly an open license. The BSD license is IMO the best OOL out there.

License give permission , the BSD protection clause give no permission at all.

" Anti-commercial??? again I think your views are AFU."

Only Apple sale and control it.

" Apple is a very commercial entity."

Yes , but I was talking about BSD. Apple is not BSD , BSD based yes , but not BSD licensed.

" The BSD is more commercial friendly then GPLx."

Even Apple is not BSD , so who is left that make a BSD commercial contender that rival and beat only Red hat? NO ONE , Against Novell ? No ONE , etc ...

" They both have their place but I'll stick to BSD licenses.

No , otherwise there would be a billion dollar BSD company , and Darwin is not under BSD ...


(1) I know that the OSI and FSF certify them as such.

But on record the OSI and FSF have problem explaining how it's impossible to find the last source , share the source , copy it for personnal use legally and make a copy to a friend or make a derivative to share or sale to other's.


License Apple Public Source License


Edited 2008-04-08 19:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1

nevali Member since:

I'm not sure why I'm replying to a Moulinneuf comment, but, for the benefit of everybody else reading these comments:

1a. Darwin most definitely is “real” Open Source according to the OSD (which, given that you capitalised Open Source, is obviously what you're referring to).

1b. Darwin, under the terms of the APSL 2, is released under a Free Software license (see It's not GPL-compatible, but GNU don't believe that detracts from software being classified as Free, and they most definitely know better than you or I, given they defined the term in the first place.

1c. Neither the OSI nor the FSF have any problem explaining how to find the source, share the source, copy it for personal use or make copies for a friend, make derivative work or sell it to other people because the license expressly permits those things. Are you perhaps thinking of the original APSL 1.0 or minorly-revised APSL 1.1?

2a. The source is available from

2b. Just because a version of Mac OS X has been released doesn't imply that a version of Darwin has been as well—the two are distinct products on slightly different release cycles.

3. Server OEMs may not ship FreeBSD, but plenty of hosting providers run FreeBSD. If you counted operating system usage by OEM sales, Linux wouldn't even register on most people's scales as existing, which is clearly a flawed methodology.

4. The BSD license was intended to be corporation-friendly. If any of the NetBSD, FreeBSD, or OpenBSD projects wanted to steer things differently, they could have done: they could have released their respective operating systems under the GPL if they wanted to (note that Linux and glibc, as well as numerous other pieces of GPL and LGPL code include snippets of BSD-licensed code, thanks to the non-advertising-clause BSD license being broadly compatible with many different licenses).

5. The very fact that Apple was able to release the commercial Mac OS X including portions of FreeBSD, NetBSD and CMU Mach (all of which are BSD-licensed) cements firmly the notion that the BSDs are more “commercial-friendly” (as touted). By definition, it can't possibly mean the reverse. The only thing that Apple's licensing of Darwin under the APSL indicates is that Apple didn't want to be quite as “commercial-friendly” with Darwin as the other BSD projects.

6a. Apple is “BSD”, because the operating systems they ship (the only operating systems they ship, and the operating systems people often buy their products for) are all demonstrably BSD-based, even if much of it is no longer licensed under the terms of the 3- or 4-clause BSD licenses. The code still has BSD lineage. Great big chunks of it.

6b. Apple is, by definition, a billion dollar BSD company.

Reply Parent Score: 9

Moulinneuf Member since:

1a. Lost cause to try and explain to you what **Real** means. You clearly show that you know only what someone else told you.

1b. Your actually agreeing with me when I said Darwin is not under the BSD but BSD based ...

1c. Actually that's where your wrong , but then that subject and discussion you where not part of until now and still are not asked to be consulted on.

2a. No , some source is availaible but it's incomplete.

2b. Just because your redefining everything , that don't mean reality and I have to agree with you , work on real Open Source project for a change and you have acess to Source code at all time. There is no original , derivative or other project in open source.

You know Real Free Software and Real open Source is not defined against GNU and the GPL nor by the FSF and OSI , it's pathetic to read people such as yourself who are ALWAYS comparing it to the GPL.

Case and point the GPL is not used by Darwin or Apple.

3. Two wrong as usual. GNU/Linux OEM sale register and due to your twisted comment I know you get it that I was talking about Both Service and OEM box witch are in decline for BSD.

4. Corporation friendly means : it create corporation , that use it and that contribute back to BSD. That is what mostly lacking in BSD ...

Also it's a trow away clause as in don't sue me , it's not even a license , License give written permission.

5. Apple is not BSD , BSD based yes , releasing , promoting fostering cooperating fully with BSD , NO.

Proprietary EULA

There NOT using BSD for there commercial Licensing ...

6a No , BSD based.

6b There not using BSD as is or contributing to any BSD projects be it financially , in code or development.


look , if Darwin was Open Source and BSD the other BSD would work perfectly on Apple hardware due to similar hardware support as they would be using the same code , they don't.

Also they would support ATI to the same degree that Mac OS X does as they would use the same code , they don't.

And a very long list of hardware that Mac OS X and Darwin support that other BSD simply don't.

But that's not all , Office and Adobe and other Apple Mac OS X software would also be supported natively on BSD as they would share the exact same code , they dont.

How do you explain that ? Not asking you at all , I know : You don't , you turn around it and redefine thing to fit your bushit !

Reply Parent Score: -1

TechniCookie Member since:

It would seem you are basing your arguments on the assumption that Darwin is not BSD. That is correct, however, neither are the other so called BSDs. BSD is a UNIX that ended distribution in 1995. The contemporary so called BSDs are all BSD derived, and them being licensed under the BSD license doesn't make them any more the BSD UNIX. This fact undermines your arguments as they are based on a false assumption.

Reply Parent Score: 3

ari-free Member since:

the usual misconception is that macosx is on top of freebsd.

Reply Parent Score: 2