4 ms·

More likely it was that Mach was a fully functional free OS. Next only had to slap a GUI toolkit on top of to have their own OS. Also as it was a teaching OS, s

More likely it was that Mach was a fully functional free OS. Next only had to slap a GUI toolkit on top of to have their own OS. Also as it was a teaching OS, so it was easy to find reference material + developers. Microsoft more or less did the same thing with OpenBSD and NT kernel. Several kernel sections started out as BSD code (the networking stack for example). Don't forget Jobs attempted to steal NeXt's fork of the GCC with Obj-C extensions. The FSF had to sue NeXt to get them to release their modifications. Stealing Free Software is cheap from a business perspective.

sedachv 10y ago
> Don't forget Jobs attempted to steal NeXt's fork of the GCC with Obj-C extensions. The FSF had to sue NeXt to get them to release their modifications. Actually there was no lawsuit. NeXT released the patches after a warning: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/talks/LinuxTag-2011/compliance.html http://ebb.org/bkuhn/talks/LinuxTag-2011/compliance.html > Stealing Free Software is cheap from a business perspective. This is why I recommend everyone use AGPLv3 whenever possible (and consider changing the license on your old Free Software - you can do this if all of the contributors consent). Apple has been removing all GPLv3 software from Mac OS X over the past several years because v3 is incompatible with their goals of totalitarian computing: http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/ http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/
- pjmlp 10y ago
  Google is on the same path. Brillo and Fuchsia have almost no GPL or LGPL licensed code. They also are in the process of kicking GCC out of the Android NDK. Only a few feature parity issues are preventing it for the time being.