4 ms·

There is some precedent at Apple: WebKit is also developed in the open.

by panic 11y ago

bsimpson 11y ago
Didn't it have to be because of KHTML?
- panic 11y ago
  No, originally Apple just provided huge patch sets. Here is some history from 2005, a few months before WebKit moved to a public CVS repo: https://blogs.kde.org/2005/05/13/webcore-khtml-firefox-know-your-facts https://blogs.kde.org/2005/05/13/webcore-khtml-firefox-know-...
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Good example! And yes, KHTML's license requires Apple to release the source code for their changes, but it doesn't require them to do so in anything like a nice fashion. You can comply with the (L)GPL with tarballs and silence-implying-raised-middle-fingers rather than public repositories and bug trackers.
    - tzs 11y ago
      It goes even farther than that. They could have separated most of their work out into separate modules that linked with the LGPL code from KHTML, and all they would have to do to comply with LGPL is provide a way for the user to replace the LGPL code. They would not have had to release the source for their modules. LGPL is quite friendly to proprietary code.
      - rsynnott 11y ago
        > They could have separated most of their work out into separate modules that linked with the LGPL code from KHTML, and all they would have to do to comply with LGPL is provide a way for the user to replace the LGPL code. And indeed, they _do_ do this, I think; a lot of WebKit is BSD license.
    - tadfisher 11y ago
      You can also comply by sending CDs in the mail. You can require postage and reimbursement for the CD as well.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        Good point. Have any companies actually tried this as their open source license compliance strategy?
    - reidrac 11y ago
      I may be wrong but I have the feeling that KHTML case is a good exception. Apple traditional way of complying with OSS licenses is not that nice (tarball + patches and there you are). See for example: http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/os-x-1011/ http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/os-x-1011/
zimbatm 11y ago
WebKit was open from the start because they forked KHTML which was licensed under the LGPL.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

There is some precedent at Apple: WebKit is also developed in the open.

by panic 11y ago

There is some precedent at Apple: WebKit is also developed in the open.

bsimpson 11y ago

Didn't it have to be because of KHTML?

panic 11y ago
No, originally Apple just provided huge patch sets. Here is some history from 2005, a few months before WebKit moved to a public CVS repo: https://blogs.kde.org/2005/05/13/webcore-khtml-firefox-know-your-facts https://blogs.kde.org/2005/05/13/webcore-khtml-firefox-know-...
- mikeash 11y ago
  Good example! And yes, KHTML's license requires Apple to release the source code for their changes, but it doesn't require them to do so in anything like a nice fashion. You can comply with the (L)GPL with tarballs and silence-implying-raised-middle-fingers rather than public repositories and bug trackers.
  - tzs 11y ago
    It goes even farther than that. They could have separated most of their work out into separate modules that linked with the LGPL code from KHTML, and all they would have to do to comply with LGPL is provide a way for the user to replace the LGPL code. They would not have had to release the source for their modules. LGPL is quite friendly to proprietary code.
    - rsynnott 11y ago
      > They could have separated most of their work out into separate modules that linked with the LGPL code from KHTML, and all they would have to do to comply with LGPL is provide a way for the user to replace the LGPL code. And indeed, they _do_ do this, I think; a lot of WebKit is BSD license.
  - tadfisher 11y ago
    You can also comply by sending CDs in the mail. You can require postage and reimbursement for the CD as well.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Good point. Have any companies actually tried this as their open source license compliance strategy?
  - reidrac 11y ago
    I may be wrong but I have the feeling that KHTML case is a good exception. Apple traditional way of complying with OSS licenses is not that nice (tarball + patches and there you are). See for example: http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/os-x-1011/ http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/os-x-1011/

zimbatm 11y ago

WebKit was open from the start because they forked KHTML which was licensed under the LGPL.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]