8 ms·

Another reason to go BSD over GPL unless you really do care about the GNU project more than shipping code & solutions.

by alanh 16y ago

sedachv 16y ago
I drew exactly the opposite conclusion. Go with BSD if you want Apple to steal your code and contribute back nothing to the community (how much have they given back to Free/NetBSD?).
- alanh 16y ago
  Darwin? How is it stealing if it's open source, and the end result is the best desktop OS ever created? Sheesh And Apple's work on open source Clang/LLVM and WebKit has been quite significant has it not?
  - morphir 16y ago
    it has. But I think its important to point out that freebsd and the bsd-stack is not in any way in competition with osx. Apple develops products, and earns money by creating products that average joe can operate with ease. This means that Apple is able to commoditize off open source, by taking and contributing back to their projects of interest. Free Software Foundation have their understanding of what freedom is. Unfortunately the fight for freedom has resulted in a rather complicated GPL v3 opposed to BSD-licenses which demand that your respect copyright and by that restricts you less than the GPLish licenses. It's ironic, but BSD offers more freedom than GPL. Also, it's a shame that VLC - being the most kick-ass videoplayer today - is hindered by legal issues. As a funny sidenote, one could say that if you choose GPL you need to consult your legal-department. But if you choose BSD you don't even need a legal-department.
  - ajross 16y ago
    WebKit is a descendant of KHTML, and thus LGPL by requirement. I have a hard time believing Apple would have ever opened this technology had they developed it internally.
    - alextgordon 16y ago
      That seems a little unfair and speculative. Maybe they would have, maybe they wouldn't've. All we can say for sure is they did.
    - protomyth 16y ago
      Clang? OpenCL? I think there are counter examples.
  - sedachv 16y ago
    "Open source" is a misleading term, please stop using it: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h... As pointed out in other replies, Apple is working on clang because it doesn't want to deal with the GPL (unless you own Apple stock, you're the one losing because of this decision), and WebKit because it's derived from LGPL code. How much work is Apple putting into making Darwin a usable Free Software OS? Versus how much work have Red Hat, Canonical, Novell, IBM etc. have put into making Linux available in a number of different, free distributions? The reason all has to do with GPL and copyleft. There is very little incentive for companies to invest in BSD code, and no disincentive for them to steal it. If Linux wasn't GPLed, it wouldn't be where it is today. There's nothing wrong with what Apple is doing. However, if you think that somehow Apple releasing some of their code under the BSD justifies restricting their end-users to their locked-in App Store and their fight against the GPL, there is something morally off with your thinking. Claiming that this makes the BSD a better choice than the GPL shows that you don't understand that Apple doesn't care about you and your open source; they'll take whatever is convenient. You're the one losing out, and you're justifying it to yourself as a good thing.
    - alain94040 16y ago
      Apple will take whatever is convenient. You're the one losing out I know it's a strawman argument, but if you feel superior to Apple, how come you didn't come up with the iPhone innovation? Saying Apple doesn't care about me when they obsess about designing amazing products that blow away anything that existed before is a little big disingenuous.
      - buster 16y ago
        Uhm.. How does it feel to be trapped in Job's Reality Distortion Bubble?
        alain94040 16y ago
        In your reality, do all smartphones have touch interfaces? That's pretty much the definition of a revolution: when you can clearly point to a before and an after.
- X-Istence 16y ago
  This keeps being brought up, the whole apple not contributing back to FreeBSD, but I would urge you to please look through FreeBSD's CVS history to find all of the places that Apple HAS indeed contributed back (I've made several comments with links to such sources on HN before). Apple also has an entire website dedicated to the various pieces of source code for their OS, and other tools, and are actively developing clang/llvm (they hired the creator) which is under a BSD license ... WebKit is also a thriving open source implementation of a rendering engine for a browser and is actively used by various different projects. Your comment brings absolutely nothing to this discussion other than unsubstantiated claims and misinformation.
  - saurik 16y ago
    As somebody who actually has to use Apple's "open source" website, you have to realize that the code for the projects listed there is often: a) out of date or unrealized (for which they are entitled to do with BSD code, but when it comes to GPL I file complaints) b) redacted and uncompilable (they purposely remove source code for specific targets that is still listed in the build environment, or hold back critical header files for dependent libraries) c) limited in scope (they release WebCore, because it is LGPL, but they actually /don't/ release a lot of WebKit) Also, it is quite clear to everyone involved that the reason that they are actively developing Clang/LLVM is so that they can avoid gcc 4.3+, when it went GPLv3. It was hard enough for them before: gcc was the one place they have been unable to redact and hoard their ARM contributions, but with GPLv3 the situation becomes untenable for them. So, since then, Apple's Xcode compiler has rapidly slipped out of date, and now they are forced to take over development of a BSD project just to stay competitive. Frankly, this is actually a /win/ for the GPL: despite Apple's claims, Clang/LLVM is still very very far behind GCC in terms of correctness and compliance (certainly with recent specifications, like C++0x), which has made Apple's less-free choices result in an increasingly "dispreferred" deployment target for many projects.
    - vasi 16y ago
      I mostly agree with you, but you're incorrect about WebCore/WebKit. For the first couple of years of WebKit development, Apple did indeed only release WebCore, but since 2005 all of WebKit has been released. Otherwise, how could Gnome (Epiphany), KDE (rekonq), Chromium, etc be using it?
- sad 16y ago
  llvm, clang, webkit... Directly benefiting FreeBSD: http://wiki.freebsd.org/BuildingFreeBSDWithClang http://wiki.freebsd.org/BuildingFreeBSDWithClang They've contributed infinitely more than "nothing" back. Literally...
  - buster 16y ago
    Because they have no choice..
    - jsz0 16y ago
      Read the BSD license. They definitely have a choice.
      - buster 16y ago
        Fine for my downvotes. So many fanboys here, it's sickening. If you would have read the thread you may have guessed that i meant: - Webkit = LGPL = No Choice - LLVM because gcc is a no go (GPL) Now, here some downvotes too, because i insulted your oh so holy Apple company, boohoo..
- redial 16y ago
  These may be old, but help to get some perspective. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat/2004-July/002483.html http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat/2004-July/00... http://www.trollaxor.com/2004/02/thank-apple-for-freebsd.html http://www.trollaxor.com/2004/02/thank-apple-for-freebsd.htm... As mentioned in the first link by Paul Robinson, "If FreeBSD wanted more than attribution, perhaps the choice of BSD license was a bad idea. :-)"
- cperciva 16y ago
  FreeBSD developer here. Apple contributes back lots. We're very happy that the BSD license has allowed Apple to use our code.
mcantelon 16y ago
It's not about advancing the GNU project as much as advancing the values expressed in the GPL: allowing your software to be built on by those who agree to return the favor. There's nothing wrong with reciprocity.
- hrabago 16y ago
  The issue isn't about being able to build on top of what you built. This can still be done by open sourcing your app. The issue is distribution. Those people may not be able to redistribute the app, but they can still contribute code.
- tbrownaw 16y ago
  > values expressed in the GPL: allowing your software to be built on by those who agree to return the favor. GPL3 has gone far beyond that; instead of just requiring that the software be usable as a starting point and building block for new work, it now also mandates that it be user-serviceable. You don't just need to be allowed to modify the tivo software to make your own dvr, now you also need to be able to modify the software in-place on your existing device.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > don't just need to be allowed to modify the tivo software to make your own dvr If you can't do that to your TiVo, is it really yours?
    - tbrownaw 16y ago
      The part you quoted isn't about doing things to your tivo. For the part that is, are all of my gadgets that are built with non-standard screws also "not really mine"?
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        With a TiVo (as with an iPod, a VCR, a PlayStation) you are either pretty much happy with what it does or royally screwed (with non-standard screws). If you are happy with your TiVo, then good for you. If you are not, you cannot bend it to your will. It would be much better if users could do that, but, unfortunately, we are not that lucky. You can always sell your TiVo and build your own DVR.
rbanffy 16y ago
> Another reason to go BSD over GPL Great. This way you take away freedoms from the users. > unless you really do care about the GNU project more than shipping code & solutions. No. You chose GPL when you really care about the freedoms your users deserve.
- Stormbringer 16y ago
  The GPL does not give a rat's patootie about users. The GPL is designed to ensure the maximum freedoms of developers.
Stormbringer 16y ago
If you really want to get on your high horse about companies not contributing back to open source, you need to stop ignoring the elephant in the room (Google) and you need a bigger horse. But, this is just another prime example of the bizarre logic of Apple bashing. Never mind that Apple does more to give back to open source community than most, lets ignore the facts and bash Apple. Let me give you some more: Greenpeace bashing Apple even though Apple was actually doing more to reduce environmental impact than any of the beige box companies. Greenpeace's logic was that even though the beige box companies were worse, they had promised to at some distant future unspecified point in time take unspecified steps to at that point be better than what Apple was today... Apple of course said no such thing about their future plans... so Greenpeace was puffing on the vaporware announcement, and bashing the company that was actually taking real steps. Incredible. Adobe bashing Apple for not putting flash onto their phone - when no other smart phone in the world ran flash... and it would be 3 years before a serious full implementation would come out from a competitor (and lo and behold it was an awful user experience and it killed battery life). --- Frankly, as a developer there are an absolute truckload of things to complain about Apple that get ignored, but the ones people pick to focus on are just bizarre.

Another reason to go BSD over GPL unless you really do care about the GNU project more than shipping code & solutions.

by alanh 16y ago

Another reason to go BSD over GPL unless you really do care about the GNU project more than shipping code & solutions.

I drew exactly the opposite conclusion. Go with BSD if you want Apple to steal your code and contribute back nothing to the community (how much have they given back to Free/NetBSD?).

alanh 16y ago
Darwin? How is it stealing if it's open source, and the end result is the best desktop OS ever created? Sheesh And Apple's work on open source Clang/LLVM and WebKit has been quite significant has it not?
- morphir 16y ago
  it has. But I think its important to point out that freebsd and the bsd-stack is not in any way in competition with osx. Apple develops products, and earns money by creating products that average joe can operate with ease. This means that Apple is able to commoditize off open source, by taking and contributing back to their projects of interest. Free Software Foundation have their understanding of what freedom is. Unfortunately the fight for freedom has resulted in a rather complicated GPL v3 opposed to BSD-licenses which demand that your respect copyright and by that restricts you less than the GPLish licenses. It's ironic, but BSD offers more freedom than GPL. Also, it's a shame that VLC - being the most kick-ass videoplayer today - is hindered by legal issues. As a funny sidenote, one could say that if you choose GPL you need to consult your legal-department. But if you choose BSD you don't even need a legal-department.
- ajross 16y ago
  WebKit is a descendant of KHTML, and thus LGPL by requirement. I have a hard time believing Apple would have ever opened this technology had they developed it internally.
  - alextgordon 16y ago
    That seems a little unfair and speculative. Maybe they would have, maybe they wouldn't've. All we can say for sure is they did.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    Clang? OpenCL? I think there are counter examples.
- sedachv 16y ago
  "Open source" is a misleading term, please stop using it: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h... As pointed out in other replies, Apple is working on clang because it doesn't want to deal with the GPL (unless you own Apple stock, you're the one losing because of this decision), and WebKit because it's derived from LGPL code. How much work is Apple putting into making Darwin a usable Free Software OS? Versus how much work have Red Hat, Canonical, Novell, IBM etc. have put into making Linux available in a number of different, free distributions? The reason all has to do with GPL and copyleft. There is very little incentive for companies to invest in BSD code, and no disincentive for them to steal it. If Linux wasn't GPLed, it wouldn't be where it is today. There's nothing wrong with what Apple is doing. However, if you think that somehow Apple releasing some of their code under the BSD justifies restricting their end-users to their locked-in App Store and their fight against the GPL, there is something morally off with your thinking. Claiming that this makes the BSD a better choice than the GPL shows that you don't understand that Apple doesn't care about you and your open source; they'll take whatever is convenient. You're the one losing out, and you're justifying it to yourself as a good thing.
  - alain94040 16y ago
    Apple will take whatever is convenient. You're the one losing out I know it's a strawman argument, but if you feel superior to Apple, how come you didn't come up with the iPhone innovation? Saying Apple doesn't care about me when they obsess about designing amazing products that blow away anything that existed before is a little big disingenuous.
    - buster 16y ago
      Uhm.. How does it feel to be trapped in Job's Reality Distortion Bubble?
      - alain94040 16y ago
        In your reality, do all smartphones have touch interfaces? That's pretty much the definition of a revolution: when you can clearly point to a before and an after.
X-Istence 16y ago
This keeps being brought up, the whole apple not contributing back to FreeBSD, but I would urge you to please look through FreeBSD's CVS history to find all of the places that Apple HAS indeed contributed back (I've made several comments with links to such sources on HN before). Apple also has an entire website dedicated to the various pieces of source code for their OS, and other tools, and are actively developing clang/llvm (they hired the creator) which is under a BSD license ... WebKit is also a thriving open source implementation of a rendering engine for a browser and is actively used by various different projects. Your comment brings absolutely nothing to this discussion other than unsubstantiated claims and misinformation.
- saurik 16y ago
  As somebody who actually has to use Apple's "open source" website, you have to realize that the code for the projects listed there is often: a) out of date or unrealized (for which they are entitled to do with BSD code, but when it comes to GPL I file complaints) b) redacted and uncompilable (they purposely remove source code for specific targets that is still listed in the build environment, or hold back critical header files for dependent libraries) c) limited in scope (they release WebCore, because it is LGPL, but they actually /don't/ release a lot of WebKit) Also, it is quite clear to everyone involved that the reason that they are actively developing Clang/LLVM is so that they can avoid gcc 4.3+, when it went GPLv3. It was hard enough for them before: gcc was the one place they have been unable to redact and hoard their ARM contributions, but with GPLv3 the situation becomes untenable for them. So, since then, Apple's Xcode compiler has rapidly slipped out of date, and now they are forced to take over development of a BSD project just to stay competitive. Frankly, this is actually a /win/ for the GPL: despite Apple's claims, Clang/LLVM is still very very far behind GCC in terms of correctness and compliance (certainly with recent specifications, like C++0x), which has made Apple's less-free choices result in an increasingly "dispreferred" deployment target for many projects.
  - vasi 16y ago
    I mostly agree with you, but you're incorrect about WebCore/WebKit. For the first couple of years of WebKit development, Apple did indeed only release WebCore, but since 2005 all of WebKit has been released. Otherwise, how could Gnome (Epiphany), KDE (rekonq), Chromium, etc be using it?
sad 16y ago
llvm, clang, webkit... Directly benefiting FreeBSD: http://wiki.freebsd.org/BuildingFreeBSDWithClang http://wiki.freebsd.org/BuildingFreeBSDWithClang They've contributed infinitely more than "nothing" back. Literally...
- buster 16y ago
  Because they have no choice..
  - jsz0 16y ago
    Read the BSD license. They definitely have a choice.
    - buster 16y ago
      Fine for my downvotes. So many fanboys here, it's sickening. If you would have read the thread you may have guessed that i meant: - Webkit = LGPL = No Choice - LLVM because gcc is a no go (GPL) Now, here some downvotes too, because i insulted your oh so holy Apple company, boohoo..
redial 16y ago
These may be old, but help to get some perspective. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat/2004-July/002483.html http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat/2004-July/00... http://www.trollaxor.com/2004/02/thank-apple-for-freebsd.html http://www.trollaxor.com/2004/02/thank-apple-for-freebsd.htm... As mentioned in the first link by Paul Robinson, "If FreeBSD wanted more than attribution, perhaps the choice of BSD license was a bad idea. :-)"
cperciva 16y ago
FreeBSD developer here. Apple contributes back lots. We're very happy that the BSD license has allowed Apple to use our code.

mcantelon 16y ago

It's not about advancing the GNU project as much as advancing the values expressed in the GPL: allowing your software to be built on by those who agree to return the favor. There's nothing wrong with reciprocity.

hrabago 16y ago
The issue isn't about being able to build on top of what you built. This can still be done by open sourcing your app. The issue is distribution. Those people may not be able to redistribute the app, but they can still contribute code.
tbrownaw 16y ago
> values expressed in the GPL: allowing your software to be built on by those who agree to return the favor. GPL3 has gone far beyond that; instead of just requiring that the software be usable as a starting point and building block for new work, it now also mandates that it be user-serviceable. You don't just need to be allowed to modify the tivo software to make your own dvr, now you also need to be able to modify the software in-place on your existing device.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > don't just need to be allowed to modify the tivo software to make your own dvr If you can't do that to your TiVo, is it really yours?
  - tbrownaw 16y ago
    The part you quoted isn't about doing things to your tivo. For the part that is, are all of my gadgets that are built with non-standard screws also "not really mine"?
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      With a TiVo (as with an iPod, a VCR, a PlayStation) you are either pretty much happy with what it does or royally screwed (with non-standard screws). If you are happy with your TiVo, then good for you. If you are not, you cannot bend it to your will. It would be much better if users could do that, but, unfortunately, we are not that lucky. You can always sell your TiVo and build your own DVR.

rbanffy 16y ago

> Another reason to go BSD over GPL Great. This way you take away freedoms from the users. > unless you really do care about the GNU project more than shipping code & solutions. No. You chose GPL when you really care about the freedoms your users deserve.

Stormbringer 16y ago
The GPL does not give a rat's patootie about users. The GPL is designed to ensure the maximum freedoms of developers.

Stormbringer 16y ago

If you really want to get on your high horse about companies not contributing back to open source, you need to stop ignoring the elephant in the room (Google) and you need a bigger horse. But, this is just another prime example of the bizarre logic of Apple bashing. Never mind that Apple does more to give back to open source community than most, lets ignore the facts and bash Apple. Let me give you some more: Greenpeace bashing Apple even though Apple was actually doing more to reduce environmental impact than any of the beige box companies. Greenpeace's logic was that even though the beige box companies were worse, they had promised to at some distant future unspecified point in time take unspecified steps to at that point be better than what Apple was today... Apple of course said no such thing about their future plans... so Greenpeace was puffing on the vaporware announcement, and bashing the company that was actually taking real steps. Incredible. Adobe bashing Apple for not putting flash onto their phone - when no other smart phone in the world ran flash... and it would be 3 years before a serious full implementation would come out from a competitor (and lo and behold it was an awful user experience and it killed battery life). --- Frankly, as a developer there are an absolute truckload of things to complain about Apple that get ignored, but the ones people pick to focus on are just bizarre.