4 ms·

After watching some of the video footage, I noticed that Engadget's transcription is often highly paraphrased. So I transcribed directly from one of the D8 vide

After watching some of the video footage, I noticed that Engadget's transcription is often highly paraphrased. So I transcribed directly from one of the D8 videos: Steve: We took a tiny little open source project, and we created what's called "WebKit" out there, and we did an interesting thing for Apple: we put it in open source. So it turns out that he did say they "created" WebKit, but he also points out that it was created using an existing open source project. Turns out this thread was a lot of hubbub over nothing, as I suspected. Unless someone wants to gripe about KHTML being described as "tiny little".

nailer 16y ago
> and we created what's called "WebKit" out there, and we did an interesting thing for Apple: we put it in open source. He's acting like Apple had a choice about the licensing of someone else's work.
- dieterrams 16y ago
  When you choose to build off a LGPLed project, you are choosing to open source the work you put into it. They could have easily chosen not to build off a LGPLed project. Stop fishing for perceived slights. This is petty, and a waste of the internet.
  - nailer 16y ago
    When you chose to use an OSS project, you choose to follow the license, sure. But what Jobs said - 'we put it in open source' - implies that it KHTML wasn't already OSS.
    - dieterrams 16y ago
      Dear god, did you completely fail to read the first part of the quote? How can he imply that KHTML wasn't already open source when he specifically refers to it as open source? The "interesting thing for Apple" is that they chose to put their efforts into an open source project in the first place. Apple, the company that likes to control its software as much as possible. This is all he's saying. Don't read anything more into it than that.
      - nailer 16y ago
        Yes I did. The full quote is: > Steve: We took a tiny little open source project, and we created what's called "WebKit" out there, and we did an interesting thing for Apple: we put it in open source. which doesn't serve any value beyond simply saying: "We took a tiny little open source project, and worked on it." Steve adding 'we created what's called "WebKit" out there, and we did an interesting thing for Apple: we put it in open source' makes no sense - it's either: - redundant (KHTML was already LGPLed, so obviously Apple's patches would be) - implying Webkit was something 'created' by Apple that Apple had choice over their licensing with. To me it seems the latter, which is somewhat disingenuous. You obviously disagree. Invoking spiritual beings is unnecessary.
        dieterrams 16y ago
        I refer you to my previous comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1397514 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1397514 Let me break it down a bit further. WebKit is an Apple-initiated project. It is the web counterpart to Apple's native UIKit framework. If they wanted to, they could have made WebKit closed source, eschewing the use of KHTML entirely. They were in no way obligated to use KHTML as a starting point. And for a company like Apple, you can be sure the decision to tie themselves to the LGPL was not undertaken lightly. In choosing to use the LGPLed KHTML project as the basis for WebKit, they chose to put WebKit in open source. They did exactly what Steve Jobs said they did, no disingenuity required. Sure, maybe he could have ordered his phrases more clearly, but he's speaking off the cuff here.
        nailer 16y ago
        > If they wanted to, they could have made WebKit closed source, eschewing the use of KHTML entirely. Yes, I understand what you're saying - Apple made a choice about what product to use and was aware of the licensing implications. Apple got to make one choice: use KHTML or something else. As soon as they chose KHTML, the choice of licensing was made for them. Saying 'we open sourced it' implies Apple made the choice to open source it. They did not. They were obligated to by the fact the people who made the code licensed it that way. Linksys got to make one choice: use Linux or something else. As soon as they chose Linux, the choice was made for them. Job's already mentioned that Apple chose to use an OSS app. Saying they 'chose the licensing for it' is wrong: they didn't, someone in the KDE project made that decision. Apple abided by the rules, they didn't create them.

nailer 16y ago

> and we created what's called "WebKit" out there, and we did an interesting thing for Apple: we put it in open source. He's acting like Apple had a choice about the licensing of someone else's work.

dieterrams 16y ago
When you choose to build off a LGPLed project, you are choosing to open source the work you put into it. They could have easily chosen not to build off a LGPLed project. Stop fishing for perceived slights. This is petty, and a waste of the internet.
- nailer 16y ago
  When you chose to use an OSS project, you choose to follow the license, sure. But what Jobs said - 'we put it in open source' - implies that it KHTML wasn't already OSS.
  - dieterrams 16y ago
    Dear god, did you completely fail to read the first part of the quote? How can he imply that KHTML wasn't already open source when he specifically refers to it as open source? The "interesting thing for Apple" is that they chose to put their efforts into an open source project in the first place. Apple, the company that likes to control its software as much as possible. This is all he's saying. Don't read anything more into it than that.
    - nailer 16y ago
      Yes I did. The full quote is: > Steve: We took a tiny little open source project, and we created what's called "WebKit" out there, and we did an interesting thing for Apple: we put it in open source. which doesn't serve any value beyond simply saying: "We took a tiny little open source project, and worked on it." Steve adding 'we created what's called "WebKit" out there, and we did an interesting thing for Apple: we put it in open source' makes no sense - it's either: - redundant (KHTML was already LGPLed, so obviously Apple's patches would be) - implying Webkit was something 'created' by Apple that Apple had choice over their licensing with. To me it seems the latter, which is somewhat disingenuous. You obviously disagree. Invoking spiritual beings is unnecessary.
      - dieterrams 16y ago
        I refer you to my previous comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1397514 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1397514 Let me break it down a bit further. WebKit is an Apple-initiated project. It is the web counterpart to Apple's native UIKit framework. If they wanted to, they could have made WebKit closed source, eschewing the use of KHTML entirely. They were in no way obligated to use KHTML as a starting point. And for a company like Apple, you can be sure the decision to tie themselves to the LGPL was not undertaken lightly. In choosing to use the LGPLed KHTML project as the basis for WebKit, they chose to put WebKit in open source. They did exactly what Steve Jobs said they did, no disingenuity required. Sure, maybe he could have ordered his phrases more clearly, but he's speaking off the cuff here.
        nailer 16y ago
        > If they wanted to, they could have made WebKit closed source, eschewing the use of KHTML entirely. Yes, I understand what you're saying - Apple made a choice about what product to use and was aware of the licensing implications. Apple got to make one choice: use KHTML or something else. As soon as they chose KHTML, the choice of licensing was made for them. Saying 'we open sourced it' implies Apple made the choice to open source it. They did not. They were obligated to by the fact the people who made the code licensed it that way. Linksys got to make one choice: use Linux or something else. As soon as they chose Linux, the choice was made for them. Job's already mentioned that Apple chose to use an OSS app. Saying they 'chose the licensing for it' is wrong: they didn't, someone in the KDE project made that decision. Apple abided by the rules, they didn't create them.