3 ms·

I don't know much about Wasabit Systems or BSDi. But gosh, get your Apple facts right. a) Apple's kernel is open source: having used GPL would not have made an

by nanairo 16y ago

I don't know much about Wasabit Systems or BSDi. But gosh, get your Apple facts right. a) Apple's kernel is open source: having used GPL would not have made any difference here b) The other BSDs have openly stated that Apple contributed back and thanked them for it. Not only that, there are a lot of open source technologies that Apple has contributed to or is the main company behind it. In fact to find an example you didn't need to go any further than LLVM (discussed in this article). Apple is the company most strongly behind LLVM: they could continue in house without contributing any of the source, but they don't (and why should they? What advantage would it give them?). Finally and I think the most important thing, is to ask: had those technologies been GPLed, would the companies have contributed back (as you seem to expect), dumped it all on their website, or simply have refused to use that code? (edited for grammar)

danieldk 16y ago
"a) Apple's kernel is open source: having used GPL would not have made any difference here" Except for a necessary parts to make it useful. From someone close to the source (the last paragraph pretty much wraps it up): http://www.synack.net/~bbraun/writing/oshistory.html http://www.synack.net/~bbraun/writing/oshistory.html "b) The other BSDs have openly stated that Apple contributed back and thanked them for it." Yes, see the <s>huge amount of code</s> that Apple contributed to the NetBSD kernel: http://nxr.netbsd.org/source/search?q=apple&project=/src&path=/src/sys http://nxr.netbsd.org/source/search?q=apple&project=/src... "Finally and I think the most important thing, is to ask: had those technologies been GPLed, [...], or simply have refused to use that code?" Yes, who would use (L)GPL code in their systems? $ gcc -v gcc version 4.2.1 (Apple Inc. build 5664) $ make -v GNU Make 3.81 Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. [...] This program built for i386-apple-darwin10.0 $ troff -v GNU troff (groff) version 1.19.2 It's true that LLVM and Webkit (based on KHTML, which was LGPL) are exceptions. However, it remains to be seen what they contribute back to LLVM in the future. Probably just those bits that will give them the tools edge.
- X-Istence 16y ago
  LLVM is being developed by someone that Apple hired, why would they keep contributing back? Why wouldn't they have closed the doors on that back before the project got bigger? It is not in their best interest to do so. The OpenBSM implementation in FreeBSD is based on the BSM code in Darwin. Submitted by Apple to FreeBSD (apple.com email addresses) http://freshbsd.org/?branch=&project=freebsd&committer=&module=src&q=apple.com http://freshbsd.org/?branch=&project=freebsd&committ... http://freshbsd.org/?branch=&project=freebsd&committer=&module=src&q=apple+dot+com http://freshbsd.org/?branch=&project=freebsd&committ... Apple, Inc: http://freshbsd.org/?branch=&project=freebsd&committer=&module=src&q=Apple%2C+Inc http://freshbsd.org/?branch=&project=freebsd&committ... Also, since all of this is BSD code, and those of us who developed under the BSD license agree to the fact that the code may be taken and used, and that works for us. Companies that know what is ultimately good for them will contribute back, maybe not all of their secret sauce so that they can continue to make money but at least part of it.
- nanairo 16y ago
  "Except for a necessary parts to make it useful. From someone close to the source (the last paragraph pretty much wraps it up)" I am not sure what you are referring to. I'll try to reply to a few of the points raised in the article (but I have only skimmed it, so if I missed your point feel free to point it out). Darwin is still being updated. Back in 2006 Apple didn't release the x86 code straight away, but I think they did so after a while. DarwinBuild still exists and (apparently from their webpage) it is still being updated. This is a project supported by Apple whose only purpose is to build Darwin As for Apple not including some of the drivers code in Darwin I can't say I am surprised. By looking at the fights between kernel people and drivers developers on Linux it seems a lot of companies (e.g NVidia) simply would not accept their secret sauce to be open sourced for fear it will reveal secrets of their architecture. Though correct me if I am wrong. Finally the article you linked to asks why should people contribute to Darwin if Apple is less than helpful. Here I agree with you. Apple could do much more to help and encourage Darwin. But I don't see how this would be any different if the code were GPL. And incidentally Android uses the same technique (keep development closed and open source the final version once it's being used) but everybody praises Android for being open source. (which is true, since they did open source _everything_ and Apple keeps things like Aqua closed source, but my point is that you don't hear quite the complains about Android's development model, as you do for Darwin's). As for your second point, I think X-instance replied better than I could.
  - danieldk 16y ago
    You prove my point: both companies, Apple with Darwin/OS X, and Google with Android are not really trying to develop a healthy ecosystem around these systems. But at the very least Google needs to provide the source to GPL'ed software (kernel modifications, etc.). If you have to publish changes anyway, at some point it becomes more attractive to work with upstream, since you cannot differentiate your product via that software. We still have to see if this happens, but there is a long of history of companies that did not contribute much initially, but are now working with kernel.org much more reliably. (E.g. many big-iron vendors.)
    - nanairo 16y ago

by nanairo 16y ago

danieldk 16y ago

"a) Apple's kernel is open source: having used GPL would not have made any difference here" Except for a necessary parts to make it useful. From someone close to the source (the last paragraph pretty much wraps it up): http://www.synack.net/~bbraun/writing/oshistory.html http://www.synack.net/~bbraun/writing/oshistory.html "b) The other BSDs have openly stated that Apple contributed back and thanked them for it." Yes, see the <s>huge amount of code</s> that Apple contributed to the NetBSD kernel: http://nxr.netbsd.org/source/search?q=apple&project=/src&path=/src/sys http://nxr.netbsd.org/source/search?q=apple&project=/src... "Finally and I think the most important thing, is to ask: had those technologies been GPLed, [...], or simply have refused to use that code?" Yes, who would use (L)GPL code in their systems? $ gcc -v gcc version 4.2.1 (Apple Inc. build 5664) $ make -v GNU Make 3.81 Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. [...] This program built for i386-apple-darwin10.0 $ troff -v GNU troff (groff) version 1.19.2 It's true that LLVM and Webkit (based on KHTML, which was LGPL) are exceptions. However, it remains to be seen what they contribute back to LLVM in the future. Probably just those bits that will give them the tools edge.

X-Istence 16y ago
LLVM is being developed by someone that Apple hired, why would they keep contributing back? Why wouldn't they have closed the doors on that back before the project got bigger? It is not in their best interest to do so. The OpenBSM implementation in FreeBSD is based on the BSM code in Darwin. Submitted by Apple to FreeBSD (apple.com email addresses) http://freshbsd.org/?branch=&project=freebsd&committer=&module=src&q=apple.com http://freshbsd.org/?branch=&project=freebsd&committ... http://freshbsd.org/?branch=&project=freebsd&committer=&module=src&q=apple+dot+com http://freshbsd.org/?branch=&project=freebsd&committ... Apple, Inc: http://freshbsd.org/?branch=&project=freebsd&committer=&module=src&q=Apple%2C+Inc http://freshbsd.org/?branch=&project=freebsd&committ... Also, since all of this is BSD code, and those of us who developed under the BSD license agree to the fact that the code may be taken and used, and that works for us. Companies that know what is ultimately good for them will contribute back, maybe not all of their secret sauce so that they can continue to make money but at least part of it.
nanairo 16y ago
"Except for a necessary parts to make it useful. From someone close to the source (the last paragraph pretty much wraps it up)" I am not sure what you are referring to. I'll try to reply to a few of the points raised in the article (but I have only skimmed it, so if I missed your point feel free to point it out). Darwin is still being updated. Back in 2006 Apple didn't release the x86 code straight away, but I think they did so after a while. DarwinBuild still exists and (apparently from their webpage) it is still being updated. This is a project supported by Apple whose only purpose is to build Darwin As for Apple not including some of the drivers code in Darwin I can't say I am surprised. By looking at the fights between kernel people and drivers developers on Linux it seems a lot of companies (e.g NVidia) simply would not accept their secret sauce to be open sourced for fear it will reveal secrets of their architecture. Though correct me if I am wrong. Finally the article you linked to asks why should people contribute to Darwin if Apple is less than helpful. Here I agree with you. Apple could do much more to help and encourage Darwin. But I don't see how this would be any different if the code were GPL. And incidentally Android uses the same technique (keep development closed and open source the final version once it's being used) but everybody praises Android for being open source. (which is true, since they did open source _everything_ and Apple keeps things like Aqua closed source, but my point is that you don't hear quite the complains about Android's development model, as you do for Darwin's). As for your second point, I think X-instance replied better than I could.
- danieldk 16y ago
  You prove my point: both companies, Apple with Darwin/OS X, and Google with Android are not really trying to develop a healthy ecosystem around these systems. But at the very least Google needs to provide the source to GPL'ed software (kernel modifications, etc.). If you have to publish changes anyway, at some point it becomes more attractive to work with upstream, since you cannot differentiate your product via that software. We still have to see if this happens, but there is a long of history of companies that did not contribute much initially, but are now working with kernel.org much more reliably. (E.g. many big-iron vendors.)
  - nanairo 16y ago