Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Sat 25th Feb 2006 07:36 UTC
"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 99422
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
Since IANAL, wouldn't it be possible to take the BSD code and GPL (or any other license, please don't take literally the word) it, so that it could be a bit "safer" against this kind of behaviour?
That would make you liable for copyright infringment. Why would you need to do this? The original code will forever be BSD licensed.
I don't think there is any space for complaining: whoever released code to darwin under the BSD license (or whatever license Apple enforced) knew this could happen.
Nope, the only ones complaining are those that think GPL is better. This is what Scott Long (from FreeBSD) had to say about similar issue: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2006-February/00482...
...snip...A good example is my work with the UDF filesystem in FreeBSD. Shortly after I checked it in, I was contacted by SGI about them wanting to incorporate it into IRIX. Since it was BSD licensed, they we allowed to. Over a few months they fed back a few comments that resulted in bug fixes, but they never sent in code or patches, and they didn't share any of the new features that they had added. But that's ok, my had no expectations that they owed me anything in return, I was simply happy to share and pleased that they found my work good enough to reuse for themselves. But, it's a personal choice. I could have just as easily GPL'd the code before checking it in (which would have still been allowed) and then demanded that anyone working on it share. In the end, SGI probably would have looked elsewhere. There are pros and cons to both approaches...snip