4 ms·

That article gives Apple way to much credit. KHTML is LGPL licensed They had to release source. Blocks in GCC had to release source. The only thing he gets r

That article gives Apple way to much credit. KHTML is LGPL licensed They had to release source. Blocks in GCC had to release source. The only thing he gets right is that Apple contributes to BSD licensed LLVM, but then he calls it Apple's technology. The project was around a long time before Apple showed up to contribute. So on the whole I'd say Apple doesn't care if its technology is open or not as long as they are in control. Note the KHTML guys have said that Apple has dorked up the source so much that they basically can't use anything Apple has done, pretty much the same for GCC. LLVM is the only project where they seem to be playing nice and I don't see that lasting past the point where Apple starts using it heavily.

scott_s 17y ago
It's worth noting that Apple's chief compiler architect is Chris Lattner, who started LLVM as part of his Master's Thesis. I think "playing nice" has more to do with hiring the founder and lead of the project than with any Apple policy. Although, yes, I found it odd that Gruber implied it was Apple's technology. edit: Lattner's page with publications and projects: http://www.nondot.org/sabre/ http://www.nondot.org/sabre/
- wmf 17y ago
  Apple didn't invent LLVM, but they certainly control it now that they employ all the core developers.
wtallis 17y ago
Apple doesn't care whether the technology is open, so long as nobody else has sole control. Supporting open web standards is the only way Apple can provide a decent web experience without constantly playing catch-up to whatever Microsoft implements in IE. Creating OpenCL as an open standard was the only way they could provide GPU computing that wasn't totally controlled by NVidia, but would still get support from GPU vendors. Unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn't have the resources to maintain their own proprietary GPU computing language. Killing Flash is the only way Apple can give their users access to dynamic web content with good performance, because Adobe clearly doesn't have the motivation to do it for them. libdispatch is Apple's way of trying to make multithreaded programming easier, and open-sourcing it is the only way that it will become popular enough for most programmers to bother to learn it. Apple wants third-party software on their systems to be multithreaded so that it won't make their system seem slow. Similar things can be said about some of their other open-source projects, like launchd. Overall, it feels like open-source is one of Apple's tools for avoiding the influence of monopolies. When Apple weakens existing monopolies or prevents the formation of new ones, it has the side effect of helping all the other little guys, too.
- stonemetal 17y ago
  Oh I agree open standards and open source has saved their bacon and will again in the future. To bad they seem intent to go the embrace and extend route.
  - wtallis 17y ago
    Where do you think Apple is doing an "embrace, extend, extinguish"? Can you point to an open standard that they have added proprietary extensions to? Apple definitely mixes open and proprietary components in their own systems, but I don't see how that hurts any of the open parts, since the closed parts serve different purposes.
    - stonemetal 17y ago
      They took free bsd made their own OS. Have they given back to BSD? Not in any major way. Sure they released Darwin but now they started keeping parts back to stop hackintoshes. They took KHTML for webkit sure they release source as required but they don't contribute upstream. So they embrace and extend but so far they have only taken from places that are so impoverished that their is no point to extinguish(desktop freebsd, KHTML user share?)
      - GHFigs 17y ago
        You're using a very strange definition of embrace, extend, extinguish.
      - blasdel 17y ago
        With KHTML they became the de facto upstream very quickly, though it took a few years for the KDE people to play along, become downstream, and make it de jure. Apple has employed a bunch of the FreeBSD developers, but there's really not that much relevant code there, much less contributable code. The non-mac-specific patches to the userland utilities does make it upstream. You are correct in that most of the FOSS projects that Apple picks up were playing for relative tiddlywinks before they came along with piles of money (excepting GCC and maybe CUPS). They're one of the only companies that has done this kind of thing with any success.
ubernostrum 17y ago
KHTML is LGPL licensed They had to release source. And then they also opened up (BSD license) a bunch of other stuff they didn't have to. "Apple only open-sources when a license holds a gun to their head" is, unfortunately for many commenters here, a myth.
- ellyagg 17y ago
  Yes, this is one of those times when the voting distribution in the discussion absurdly contradicts the facts.
nzmsv 17y ago
There's also CUPS. Even though Apple bought the rights to it, they kept it open. Also, the KHTML-Apple relationship appears to have been fixed (according to Wikipedia, anyway).

scott_s 17y ago

It's worth noting that Apple's chief compiler architect is Chris Lattner, who started LLVM as part of his Master's Thesis. I think "playing nice" has more to do with hiring the founder and lead of the project than with any Apple policy. Although, yes, I found it odd that Gruber implied it was Apple's technology. edit: Lattner's page with publications and projects: http://www.nondot.org/sabre/ http://www.nondot.org/sabre/

wmf 17y ago
Apple didn't invent LLVM, but they certainly control it now that they employ all the core developers.

wtallis 17y ago

Apple doesn't care whether the technology is open, so long as nobody else has sole control. Supporting open web standards is the only way Apple can provide a decent web experience without constantly playing catch-up to whatever Microsoft implements in IE. Creating OpenCL as an open standard was the only way they could provide GPU computing that wasn't totally controlled by NVidia, but would still get support from GPU vendors. Unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn't have the resources to maintain their own proprietary GPU computing language. Killing Flash is the only way Apple can give their users access to dynamic web content with good performance, because Adobe clearly doesn't have the motivation to do it for them. libdispatch is Apple's way of trying to make multithreaded programming easier, and open-sourcing it is the only way that it will become popular enough for most programmers to bother to learn it. Apple wants third-party software on their systems to be multithreaded so that it won't make their system seem slow. Similar things can be said about some of their other open-source projects, like launchd. Overall, it feels like open-source is one of Apple's tools for avoiding the influence of monopolies. When Apple weakens existing monopolies or prevents the formation of new ones, it has the side effect of helping all the other little guys, too.

stonemetal 17y ago
Oh I agree open standards and open source has saved their bacon and will again in the future. To bad they seem intent to go the embrace and extend route.
- wtallis 17y ago
  Where do you think Apple is doing an "embrace, extend, extinguish"? Can you point to an open standard that they have added proprietary extensions to? Apple definitely mixes open and proprietary components in their own systems, but I don't see how that hurts any of the open parts, since the closed parts serve different purposes.
  - stonemetal 17y ago
    They took free bsd made their own OS. Have they given back to BSD? Not in any major way. Sure they released Darwin but now they started keeping parts back to stop hackintoshes. They took KHTML for webkit sure they release source as required but they don't contribute upstream. So they embrace and extend but so far they have only taken from places that are so impoverished that their is no point to extinguish(desktop freebsd, KHTML user share?)
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      You're using a very strange definition of embrace, extend, extinguish.
    - blasdel 17y ago
      With KHTML they became the de facto upstream very quickly, though it took a few years for the KDE people to play along, become downstream, and make it de jure. Apple has employed a bunch of the FreeBSD developers, but there's really not that much relevant code there, much less contributable code. The non-mac-specific patches to the userland utilities does make it upstream. You are correct in that most of the FOSS projects that Apple picks up were playing for relative tiddlywinks before they came along with piles of money (excepting GCC and maybe CUPS). They're one of the only companies that has done this kind of thing with any success.

ubernostrum 17y ago

KHTML is LGPL licensed They had to release source. And then they also opened up (BSD license) a bunch of other stuff they didn't have to. "Apple only open-sources when a license holds a gun to their head" is, unfortunately for many commenters here, a myth.

ellyagg 17y ago
Yes, this is one of those times when the voting distribution in the discussion absurdly contradicts the facts.

nzmsv 17y ago

There's also CUPS. Even though Apple bought the rights to it, they kept it open. Also, the KHTML-Apple relationship appears to have been fixed (according to Wikipedia, anyway).