4 ms·

Apple didn’t have to release WebKit as an open source project — they could have taken the BSD-licensed KHTML and kept their derivative rendering engine private.

Apple didn’t have to release WebKit as an open source project — they could have taken the BSD-licensed KHTML and kept their derivative rendering engine private. Yes, they did have to release it as open source, as KHTML is LGPL, not BSD licensed. I don't believe for a minute that Apple is any more open than they are legally required to be, and even then only after some arm-twisting.

ellyagg 17y ago
> I don't believe for a minute that Apple is any more open than they are legally required to be, and even then only after some arm-twisting. Too bad this was upvoted so highly because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Review the history of Apple's involvement in the project.
mikedouglas 17y ago
Why won't Apple want WebKit everywhere? The value of a html rendering engine is proportional to the number of clients running it (especially in 2003 when the project was announced). The fact that WebKit has become large enough that it can't be ignored (thanks to multiple vendors using it in their browsers) is a huge boon for Apple. LLVM, Clang, Darwin, libdispatch and many others are all liberally-licensed open source projects that Apple leads. More contributions are listed at http://www.apple.com/opensource/ http://www.apple.com/opensource/. This isn't because Apple cares about software freedom, it's a simple calculation: these are components of the system that need to be high quality, but don't differentiate the product. If using and contributing to open source software makes the systems programming simpler, the business case has been made.
simonw 17y ago
They released blocks.
- jws 17y ago
  Now if the gcc mainstream folks would just integrate it. I like gcc's non-standard nested functions for C, but blocks is superior. Sadly the gcc folks don't seem interested.
  - pavlov 17y ago
    GCC's non-standard extensions are typically compiler features, whereas Apple's "C blocks" involves a substantial addition to the runtime. IMHO the GCC folks have good reason to avoid runtime extensions. Apple does provide the source for their blocks environment... But it's the type of code that probably has subtle platform-specific ABI dependencies. Who is going to port and verify it on all the platforms GCC supports?
pchristensen 17y ago
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html - commoditize the browser, sell more devices.
ekiru 17y ago
If the copyleft portion of the LGPL applies to the parts of WebKit outside of WebCore, then how could WebKit be released under the BSD license?
- tfinniga 17y ago
  Good point, here's a block from the WebKit goals page. WebKit should remain freely usable for both open source and proprietary applications. To that end, we use BSD-style and LGPL licenses. Specifically, we aim for licensing compatible with LGPL 2.1+. We do not currently plan to move to LGPL 3. In addition, we strive to create a courteous, welcoming environment that feels approachable to newcomers. WebKit maintains a public IRC chat room and a public mailing list where the ideas of contributors both new and old are heard and discussed with equal weight.
ubernostrum 17y ago
I'm pretty sure the code coming out of Apple's WebKit team is more than what the LGPL legally requires -- remember, LGPL is much more lax about what you can do in terms of building on the work without having to open up your own stuff. Edit: And... yeah, they do go above and beyond, since there are bits in there that they've written and licensed BSD. If that code was encumbered by LGPL they wouldn't have been able to relicense it or claim original authorship.
GHFigs 17y ago
I don't believe for a minute that Apple is any more open than they are legally required to be... You would be right to point out that Gruber was mistaken in saying KHTML is BSD-licensed, but the rest is demonstrably false. They were legally required to open source WebCore, derived from KHTML, because it is LGPL. And they did so, as soon as Safari was announced. They were not legally required to release WebKit, which is BSD. That release came several years later, and is certainly a more significant project than KTHML or WebCore alone are.

ellyagg 17y ago

> I don't believe for a minute that Apple is any more open than they are legally required to be, and even then only after some arm-twisting. Too bad this was upvoted so highly because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Review the history of Apple's involvement in the project.

mikedouglas 17y ago

Why won't Apple want WebKit everywhere? The value of a html rendering engine is proportional to the number of clients running it (especially in 2003 when the project was announced). The fact that WebKit has become large enough that it can't be ignored (thanks to multiple vendors using it in their browsers) is a huge boon for Apple. LLVM, Clang, Darwin, libdispatch and many others are all liberally-licensed open source projects that Apple leads. More contributions are listed at http://www.apple.com/opensource/ http://www.apple.com/opensource/. This isn't because Apple cares about software freedom, it's a simple calculation: these are components of the system that need to be high quality, but don't differentiate the product. If using and contributing to open source software makes the systems programming simpler, the business case has been made.

simonw 17y ago

They released blocks.

jws 17y ago
Now if the gcc mainstream folks would just integrate it. I like gcc's non-standard nested functions for C, but blocks is superior. Sadly the gcc folks don't seem interested.
- pavlov 17y ago
  GCC's non-standard extensions are typically compiler features, whereas Apple's "C blocks" involves a substantial addition to the runtime. IMHO the GCC folks have good reason to avoid runtime extensions. Apple does provide the source for their blocks environment... But it's the type of code that probably has subtle platform-specific ABI dependencies. Who is going to port and verify it on all the platforms GCC supports?

pchristensen 17y ago

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html - commoditize the browser, sell more devices.

ekiru 17y ago

If the copyleft portion of the LGPL applies to the parts of WebKit outside of WebCore, then how could WebKit be released under the BSD license?

tfinniga 17y ago
Good point, here's a block from the WebKit goals page. WebKit should remain freely usable for both open source and proprietary applications. To that end, we use BSD-style and LGPL licenses. Specifically, we aim for licensing compatible with LGPL 2.1+. We do not currently plan to move to LGPL 3. In addition, we strive to create a courteous, welcoming environment that feels approachable to newcomers. WebKit maintains a public IRC chat room and a public mailing list where the ideas of contributors both new and old are heard and discussed with equal weight.

ubernostrum 17y ago

I'm pretty sure the code coming out of Apple's WebKit team is more than what the LGPL legally requires -- remember, LGPL is much more lax about what you can do in terms of building on the work without having to open up your own stuff. Edit: And... yeah, they do go above and beyond, since there are bits in there that they've written and licensed BSD. If that code was encumbered by LGPL they wouldn't have been able to relicense it or claim original authorship.

GHFigs 17y ago

I don't believe for a minute that Apple is any more open than they are legally required to be... You would be right to point out that Gruber was mistaken in saying KHTML is BSD-licensed, but the rest is demonstrably false. They were legally required to open source WebCore, derived from KHTML, because it is LGPL. And they did so, as soon as Safari was announced. They were not legally required to release WebKit, which is BSD. That release came several years later, and is certainly a more significant project than KTHML or WebCore alone are.