Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 24th Dec 2017 23:56 UTC
Apple

Apple will be releasing the code of the operating system and applications of the Apple Lisa.

Just wanted to let everyone know the sources to the OS and applications were recovered, I converted them to Unix end of line conventions and space for Pascal tabs after the files using Disk Image Chef, and they are with Apple for review. After that's done, the Computer History Museum will do a CHM blog post about the historical significance of the software and the code that is cleared for release by Apple will be made available in 2018. The only thing I saw that probably won't be able to be released is the American Heritage dictionary for the spell checker in LisaWrite.

Merry Christmas everybody.

Thread beginning with comment 652380
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
jockm
Member since:
2012-12-22

They have made the source public, but I am not sure it counts as "Open Source" in the way we typically think of it. If you look at the license on other software at the CHM it allows for non-commercial use only and restricts your ability to post it elsewhere.

Still very exciting and I plan to spend some time reading through it

Reply Score: 6

Hayoo! Member since:
2013-04-13

It's open source alright, but not completely free. That's why we have such thing as free and open source software (FOSS) licensing model. Open and free (as in libre) are related, but not same.

Reply Parent Score: 6

Andre Member since:
2005-07-06

Wouldn't this be called Shared Source rather then Open Source?

Reply Parent Score: 5

s-peter Member since:
2006-01-29

You're right that open source and free software is not the same, but this is completely irrelevant here, as what we are discussing neither fits the definition of open source [1] nor free software [2]. Both require that the software is available for any purpose (not only non-commercial).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

Reply Parent Score: 2

jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

Open Source, at least in the parts of the internet where I hang out conforms to this definition:

Open source licenses are licenses that comply with the Open Source Definition — in brief, they allow software to be freely used, modified, and shared. To be approved by the Open Source Initiative (also known as the OSI), a license must go through the Open Source Initiative's license review process.

(Source: https://opensource.org/licenses)

Source available at the computer history museum has restrictions on use and how it can be shared such that I don't think it qualifies as Open Source.

We need a different term for what the CHM is doing. Call it Shared Source, or maybe Public Source, or whatever; but from where I sit it isn't Open Source

Reply Parent Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

They have made the source public, but I am not sure it counts as "Open Source" in the way we typically think of it. If you look at the license on other software at the CHM it allows for non-commercial use only and restricts your ability to post it elsewhere.

At least when the software enters public domain, the source to match will be available... (like it should be for all software in this http://www.osnews.com/permalink?648933 proposal of mine)

Reply Parent Score: 3

jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

And should that day ever come, it will indeed be useful.

I am not complaining, I am just saying that Thom in his enthusiasm to publish some very cool news, used the wrong terminology

Reply Parent Score: 2

Odwalla Member since:
2006-02-01

Well those companies that have been waiting to release commercial software based on 3 1/2 decade old 68000 PASCAL sources are just crap out of luck, then!

Reply Parent Score: 1