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 472591
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

You are right, they are not harming. They just don't provide benefits. My moral values are a little different than yours though. To me, this is still not acceptable. Apple rides on the work of a lot of people. They monopolize a large amount of resources. It does not cost them to release the code to the public. They can give that back to us for zero cost. At least they can explain why they don't want to open the code. It costs nothing. I believe they owe that to us.

Edited 2011-05-10 19:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

cmchittom Member since:
2011-03-18

You are right, they are not harming. They just don't provide benefits. My moral values are a little different than yours though. To me, this is still not acceptable. Apple rides on the work of a lot of people. They monopolize a large amount of resources. It does not cost them to release the code to the public. They can give that back to us for zero cost. At least they can explain why they don't want to open the code. It costs nothing. I believe they owe that to us.


Why do they owe it to us? Why is it not acceptable? Why does the fact that they can do something mean that they should? These are not a rhetorical questions; I'm trying to discern your reasoning.

From my perspective, Apple does, as you say ride on the work of a lot of people. But those people all agreed to have their work be used in accordance with the license they chose. If Apple complies with the license, and thus lives up to its commitment to the people who did the work they're riding on, why should it do more?

Reply Parent Score: 1

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Because they use the work of the community. Even if the law did not force them to comply with the license, it's morally right to give back what you are given, especially when it does not cost you. That is my moral anyway, maybe not yours, I don't know.
Let me try an anology. Let's say I am a very poor child and the red cross provides me food and clothing that allows me to grow. Later I become a billionaire and the red cross asks me if they can cross my land to get to someone in need of help. It costs nothing to accept. Refusing would be morally wrong according to my morals. If I refuse because I have a good reason (let's say the land in question is plagged with dangerous radioactive material), I have the moral duty to inform them why I refuse, because I owe them something, as a member of society, and more so as someone who they helped. It's the nice thing to do.

Edited 2011-05-10 21:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2