Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 6th May 2011 22:13 UTC
Apple We've had an immense hubbub about the delay in the source code release of Honeycomb, which led to a storm of critique being sent Google's way. Turns out there's another company withholding source code, and this time it's Apple. They have stopped releasing the LGPL source code for WebKit in iOS since iOS 4.3.0, released about 8 weeks ago. Turns out - this isn't the first time Apple has refused to release (L)GPL'd code. It took them six months to release the required GPL source code for iOS 4.1.
Thread beginning with comment 472348
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Getting back to the core
by sparkyERTW on Mon 9th May 2011 14:32 UTC
sparkyERTW
Member since:
2010-06-09

Okay, all of the other Google vs. Apple, Webkit vs. KHTML, etc. aside, the point that was being made is this:

1. LGPL and/or GPL-licensed code isn't being released as required (read the license text, there's no 'slack time'), which means
2. the licenses are being violated, which means,
3. the violated company should be taken to task for their violation.

Is Google in violation by not releasing Honeycomb source when Honeycomb products are being released? Yes.
Are licenses therefore being violated? Yes.
Are they being taken to task? Yes (though admittedly it's only taking the form of media scrutiny so far rather than litigation)

Is Apple in violation by not providing LGPL source material for iOS? Yes.
Are licenses therefore being violated? Yes.
Are they being taken to task? Not really, at least nowhere near what Google has experienced.

There's no need to debate which of the two is right and which is wrong: they're both wrong, and to roughly the same reasons and degree. What IS debatable is whether or not Apple is being treated with the same scrutiny.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Getting back to the core
by saynte on Mon 9th May 2011 20:11 in reply to "Getting back to the core"
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

Actually I believe that Google didn't violate any licenses.

They kept their own code back, which is perfectly legitimate, while still releasing the kernel modifications as required.

Reply Parent Score: 1

sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

Actually I believe that Google didn't violate any licenses.

They kept their own code back, which is perfectly legitimate, while still releasing the kernel modifications as required.


Hmmm... that may be, it's been a while since I last read up on it and I might be forgetting details. If you're right, then we're seeing Google being bashed for a far less serious offense while Apple is getting off relatively scot-free.

Reply Parent Score: 1