Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 9th May 2011 21:46 UTC
Apple 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.
Thread beginning with comment 472512
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Perspective
by henderson101 on Tue 10th May 2011 10:48 UTC
henderson101
Member since:
2006-05-30

Firstly - why is this a side article when the previous story made the main page?

Secondly - perspective... I'm not going to apologise for either Google or Apple, but let's put this in perspective: Apple does not have an open mobile OS. I can't build my own image (legally) and I can't really get much of the OS source code. This is a completely transparent situation - Apple have never allowed this and have made it clear that this is the way they want to play the game. On the other hand, Google has always called their mobile OS "open". I can rebuild the OS from source. Except, the source was missing. That is pretty bad.

So, on a scale of "you aren't supposed to be able to do that" to "go wild", Google are far more "bad" than Apple on this one.

Really, if you had the source for the iOS 4.3 build of WebKit, what would you do with it? Really? I guess some people might hack it in to something useful, but as plenty of other mobile browsers exist without using this source (Nokia's, RIM's, Google's) - what advantage does it give?

Finally - this needs to be taken in to account, also:

http://www.bgr.com/2011/05/09/internal-emails-from-google-manager-s...

I await the accusations Thom will level at me, because obviously I am an Apple fanboy and not standing on the sidelines with a big cynical pile of "no story here" on both the Apple vs Google open source blood war.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Perspective
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 10th May 2011 11:54 in reply to "Perspective"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

A lot of words, but it don't change shit. You MUST comply by the licenses of the code you're (re)distributing. Google is complying. Apple is not.

There isn't more to it.


----

However, as I have said on numerous occasions, despite Google complying with the licenses, I am NOT happy with them withholding Honeycomb's code. Apple's actions, however, are far worse: they are actively and wilfully NOT complying with the LGPL right now, and have, in the past, NOT complied with the GPL (iOS 4.1's code being withheld for six months).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Perspective
by spiderman on Tue 10th May 2011 13:27 in reply to "Perspective"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Wait a minute, this is not about Apple vs Google, is it? I uderstood it was about Apple violating a license.
Anyway, being clear about being opaque does not mean you are transparent. You got tricked there. When they openly say that they are closed, it means they are closed, not open. Don't be confused. iOS is closed.

Reply Parent Score: 2