Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 25th Feb 2006 07:36 UTC
BSD and Darwin derivatives "With the release of Mac OS X for x86 processors, Apple has chosen to not release source to key components of the OS, such as the kernel and all drivers. This means Darwin/x86 is dead in the water; Darwin/ppc has many closed source components and is a deprecated architecture." Read more here.
Thread beginning with comment 99005
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I've been saying it.
by MysterMask on Sat 25th Feb 2006 11:15 UTC in reply to "I've been saying it."
Member since:

They've stood on the shoulders of giants to get their translucent, animated desktop up and running

That sound's like a lot of envy (taking into account that there are several OSS projects trying to get a "translucent, animated desktop" like OSX).

While I think that OSS is something good, I really don't like "OSS preachers" like you who try to impose their will and world view on others.
Funny how people claiming that diversity is a good thing all of a sudden get narrow minded and claiming only "one true way" when it comes to things like using "the right OS", "the right desktop", "the right licence", etc..

People releasing code under a BSD licence obviously don't mind that their code is used in that way. They sure don't do it by mistake so your conclusion that people are exploited and everybody should use the GPL instead is just silly.

If you write software and you'd like to put it under GPL - fine, do it! But don't tell others what they should or should not do!

Reply Parent Score: 5

v RE[2]: I've been saying it.
by Moulinneuf on Sat 25th Feb 2006 15:23 in reply to "RE: I've been saying it."
RE[2]: I've been saying it.
by on Sun 26th Feb 2006 00:42 in reply to "RE: I've been saying it." Member since:

I think the point that the OP was trying to make (as I interpret it), is that Rob Braun hasn't really got a moral high-ground from which to bitch about Apple, since he released his code under the BSD license.

Sure, Rob can gripe about how Apple have treated external developers, he's welcome to do that as much as he likes, but he wrote his code under the BSD license, so Apple are (legally; morally could be seen as a different issue) within their rights to do what they have done. That may not fit the historical examples of how BSD-licensed code is treated (often in a more GPL-ish way, if not entirely GPL-ish), but if you provide code to Apple (or any third party) under a BSD or BSD-style license, and then expect to get immediate visibility of their changes to that code, then you do not have a realistic understanding of the BSD license.

I have full sympathy for Rob and other developers who have helped Apple on a "gentleman's agreement" that Apple will provide CVS access and other features to approved external developers, but the BSD license requires no such thing, and if Rob took it on assumption that Apple would always stay that way, then he has now found out that he was wrong.

Of course, there's no alternative - since Apple chose the BSD-licensed BSD codebase as their starting point, he couldn't have said "I'll give my code, but only under the GPL" as Apple wouldn't have been able to accept the code under those terms anyway, so the deal has always been "BSD or nothing" ... if what Apple originally made available was "BSD plus some access to CVS for certain external developers", and gradually pulled the "plus" stuff, then they've not done anything (legally) wrong.

My personal take is that Apple have taken the piss out of some generous individuals, but that is why I dislike the BSD license for most serious applications (for trivia, like textbook examples, etc, I think that the BSD license is the only sensible way to avoid frivolous lawsuits, though). It's also why I wouldn't personally be inclined to put major effort into BSD-licensed code - why bother, if someone can take it, and (without even saying "Thanks!" any more) claim it as their own.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: I've been saying it.
by Chreo on Sun 26th Feb 2006 19:43 in reply to "RE[2]: I've been saying it."
Chreo Member since:

It's also why I wouldn't personally be inclined to put major effort into BSD-licensed code - why bother, if someone can take it, and (without even saying "Thanks!" any more) claim it as their own.

This is completely wrong and another myth that keeps being believed by the GPL proponents.

- You can NOT change the license of BSD licensed code. Not possible in any way. The only party that can change the license is the owner of the copywright (the author/company usually).

- You can NOT claim the code as your own. You must still retain the copywrith notice of the original code or you break the license.

- The only thing you can do is to keep any modifications to the original code under any license that you see fit BUT you cannot change the license of the original code. You also do not have to distribute any of those changes.

Thus, the original code remains forever under the BSD license. If you try to claim it as your own or try to change the license you break the license and are liable for copyright infringement.

The only thing that you are correct about is that they do not have to say "thanks". But they do need to let people know they are using your sourcecode.

Reply Parent Score: 1