Apple has released the source code for WebKit in iOS 4.3, which it had been withholding for eight weeks. However, according yo Jay 'saurik' Freeman, they are still not, and never have been, in compliance with the LGPL. "Apple's provided source code (which /is/ heavily modified for the iPhone) [...] isn't even complete enough to compile (it is missing a bunch of code for the WAK* classes), so Apple has simply never been in compliance with this license," Saurik writes. So, it would seem that Apple is still violating the LGPL, and has been doing so for a very long time. Funny how this never makes it to mainstream technology sites. I guess they find their pre-release review devices more important.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-06-12
Apple is doing much of the work to this day. Chrome have V8 and some commits and it's about it. Nokia have almost none, KDE and Gnome mostly try to port work rather than creating more.
If you read the licence, you don't have to supply all code as long as it is not required to make the application work. You can link LGPLed code to proprietary code, as they probably do.
"5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License. "
2. d) If a facility in the modified Library refers to a function or a table of data to be supplied by an application program that uses the facility, other than as an argument passed when the facility is invoked, then you must make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the event an application does not supply such function or table, the facility still operates, and performs whatever part of its purpose remains meaningful"
"6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications. "
So they -can- ship WebKit with some classes missing, as long as they are dynamically linked. They are not changing the licence of code that they don't own. They do own, so they can licence it at will in both direction. It can use the LGPL code and can be used by the LGPL code as long as its a separate .so
Member since:2008-10-23
I don't totally agree with that. Webkit is a library. If they implement a class that interprets or transport web code, they are actually extending the webkit library, and not merely using it, therefore their code must be LGPL'ed.
Anyway, even if that was legal, do you realize why Oracle is criticized so much? Oracle didn't do anything illegal. They are criticized for not commiting enough. When it's Oracle, they are bashed and they deserve it. When it's Apple, don't tell me they have the right to do it. That's double standard and that does not sound right.
Member since:2005-09-10
Google has more commiters to webkit than Apple. http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKit%2520Team&btnG=Search" rel="nofollow">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache:http://t...
Why does Google get so much credit in the technology industry? Why, despite the company's many obvious failings, do many geeks and enthusiasts still hold a somewhat positive view on the all-knowing technology giant? A specific talk at Google I/O this week provides the answer.
OSNews is a sponsor of this year's O'Reilly OSCON in Portland, Oregon, USA. A lucky OSNews reader will win a free three-day pass, including two tutorials days. To win the pass, post a comment on this story saying something about Open Source Software or OSCON. We'll pick a winner at random next week. If you don't have an OSNews account, you may email us your entry. Part of the conference is the 9th annual Open Source Awards, and today the 16th is the deadline for nominations. If you'd like to nominate an outstanding open source contributor, do it here. Read on for more information about OSCON. Update: The 20% discount code for OSNews readers is "OSN."
"Windows is indeed slower than other operating systems in many scenarios, and the gap is worsening." That's one way to start an insider explanation of why Windows' performance isn't up to snuff. Written by someone who actually contributes code to the Windows NT kernel, the comment on Hacker News, later deleted but reposted with permission on Marc Bevand's blog, paints a very dreary picture of the state of Windows development. The root issue? Think of how Linux is developed, and you'll know the answer.
This is one of those news items that's fun to write, fun to read, fun to comment on, and where no one will be able to say anything unkind. It's all just one big ball of awesome fluffiness. TuneTracker, the BeOS radio automation software, has just released something very special: TuneTracker System 5, the first version designed entirely and specifically for Haiku. In fact, it actually includes Haiku in the software package. Better yet, TuneTracker also unveiled several system-in-a-box products - which have Haiku and TuneTracker pre-installed.
Exactly twenty years ago, a document was published that played a huge role in establishing the web as we know it today. Twenty years later, and this simple and straightforward document is proof of an irrefutable fact: while closed technologies can change markets, open technologies can change the world.
Oh multitasking. That staple of computing that got thrown out the window with many modern smartphones. We got some rudimentary thing in its place - but even as multitasking on phone and tablets improves, its user-visible side remains cumbersome. Windows 8 has a neat implementation, and now it's time Android follows in it footsteps.They're here! Whether that excites you or not remains to be seen, but the Galaxy S4, which will most likely become the best selling Android smartphone of the year by a huge margin, has been reviewed by all the major sites, and there's lots of interesting conclusions in there - although I think most of you will get the gist.Nokia has posted its quarterly results for the first quarter of 2013, and just like the quarters that came before, there's not a whole lot of good news in there. The rise in Lumia sales still can't even dream of making up for the sales drop in Symbian phones, and when broken down in versions, the sales figures for Windows Phone 8 Lumias in particular are very disappointing. In North America, Nokia is getting slaughtered.The day has finally come: Google has started shipping Google Glass to the lucky few early adopters. Now that it's shipping, Google has also unveiled a lot more about the API and the specifications of the device itself. While the company had already given out substantial details at earlier occasions, there are still a few surprises here.
Almost exactly three years ago, I wrote about why OSNews was no longer OSNews: the alternative operating system scene had died, and OSNews, too, had to go with the times and move towards reporting on a new wave of operating systems - mobile, and all the repercussions that the explosion of smartphones and tablets have caused. Still, I was wondering something today: why aren't we seeing alternative operating systems on mobile?
Member since:
2010-12-22
It is great that you appreciate their work and that you do not begrudge them their actions but your opinion does not change the facts:
With the LGPL it is not simply enough that all code not owned by them is still available. What you are talking about is the BSD/MIT/X11 style licenses. That may be your preference (I am heading that way) but the license obligations laid down by the original code authors (of KHTML) hold legal and ethical weight. You do not have the personal authority to just waive that away.
"They don't -have- to commit it, they own the copyright...". Well, that is unless they want to distribute their code integrated with code written by other people under the LGPL. Since they do want to, they do in fact have to release (commit) their code. Anything else is distribution in violation of their license which means copyright violation.
I do not actually know but I would be extremely surprised if "most" of the WebKit code was authored by Apple. For one thing, WebKit is also the rendering engine used in Google Chrome. It is also the basis for a bunch of other browsers. Is Apple really carrying all those guys or are they contributing?
If there really is only a small amount of non-Apple code, I would expect them to simply replace that code and move on. The fact that they have not suggests that you are incorrect about the proportions.