6 ms·

The problem is, most open-source developers don't have their own patent arsenal.

by skymt 16y ago

joe_the_user 16y ago
Well if the only allowing you to create software is a patent arsenal, there is trouble indeed... Plus Red Hat did get sued eventually anyway by a troll claiming a patent on more or less any kind of GUI. Sure, flinch against the patent mafia if you don't have a patent arsenal. Just don't be surprised if another troll walks through the door in five minutes asking for more money and/or more GUI crippling... Edit: The most frustrating thing about all this is it difficult to determine if this is what has kept Linux GUIs lame or not; Information on the various decisions involved is spread in dribs and drabs around the web. You would think anti-patent organizers would at least keep a list of these actions.
gst 16y ago
That's the ugly part about the whole thing: Apple takes quite a lot from the open-source community, starting at the kernel, continuing with the user-space utilities, up to the HTML rendering engine. And at the same time they threaten open-source developers with lawsuites and/or leave patent situations deliberately unclarified (such as in the case of the patents against Freetype).
- berntb 16y ago
  I'm not that knowledgeable about Apple and open source, but: http://www.apple.com/opensource/ http://www.apple.com/opensource/ >>Apple takes ... HTML rendering engine From the Apple page: "Apple uses software created by the Open Source community, such as the HTML rendering engine for Safari, and returns its enhancements to the community." Similar with contributions to the kernel, afaik? Didn't Apple buy CUPS, hire the main developer -- and let it continue be open source? And so on. Corporations, like countries, are a bit above (or, if you want, below) the concepts of good/evil. But Apple is hardly Microsoft. Edit: I checked, the HTML rendering is under LGPL/BSD licenses! A bit ridiculous to complain about that, since it now is used by direct competitors of Apple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit "WebKit was originally derived by Apple Inc. from the Konqueror browser’s KHTML software library for use as the engine of Mac OS X’s Safari web browser and has now been further developed by individuals from the KDE project, Apple Inc., Nokia, Google, Bitstream, Torch Mobile and others.[4]"
  - thwarted 16y ago
    I think gst's point was not that Apple contributes back to the open source community or not in terms of code, it's that Apple reaps the benefits of the open source software and community and then attacks open source projects and contributors with patent threats. While they are good citizens on the code contribution front, they are not all around good citizens on the plays-wells-with-others front.
    - statictype 16y ago
      What Open Source projects did Apple threaten with lawsuits?
      - Kylekramer 16y ago
        There is a handy reference link to one at the top of the page.
        berntb 16y ago
        Well, no one will see this anymore, but... :-) The direct quote in the reference was that they'd be sued if they "moved forward to commercialize it". To me, that doesn't imply that they'd sue if the project was kept open source? Sure, I might be missing something (I've been writing stupid error checking code most of the night.)
        ZeroGravitas 16y ago
        "Commercial" is not the opposite of "open source" or "free software", "proprietary" is. And "proprietary" software can be sold or given away in a non-commercial, or non-profit making manner just like FLOSS. The two issues are almost entirely orthogonal.
        statictype 16y ago
        You mean the Sun project? Ok, I guess I was thinking of open source projects that were not initiated by a large corporation.
- wriq 16y ago
  I don't think it's open-source projects specifically, but anyone that threatens there "innovations" in user experience - open-source and commercial alike. Saying it's an attack against open-source developers doesn't fit considering how much they backed open projects which are heavily utilized by the competition such as WebKit and LLVM.
- nika 16y ago
  The android operating system and UI is a direct ripoff of the iPhone. Before the iPhone was announced, Android was a blackberry styled UI. Apple contributes very significantly to the open source community. Yet for doing so they are constantly accused of "taking" from the community and never recognized for contributing. For instance, you claim they "took" the kernel, but the reality is the kernel was developed by them based on easrly university research, and they gave the kernel to the community. Meanwhile, Google steals Apple's work, makes it "open source", steals Sun's work, and you don't care about this theft, because they released it as "open source". Open source is a two way street, and it is hypocritical to talk about apple "taking" when they've contributed a hell of a lot more than they've received, and then ignore the theft by google, simply because after stealing the goods they "shared" them by making them open source. This is why I don't contribute to open source project. So many of the advocates of open source disrespect anyone using open source code who also sells proprietary code. (Except google, who gets a pass for some reason) When the open source community starts giving the respect for rights that they demand from others, then you'll find you get a lot more support. This is also why Apache 2.0 is on the rise and GPL is in decline, though unfortunately, people seem to steal code from Apache products and then put it in GPL products. (Another example of not respecting the very rights you demand others respect on your code.)
  - bad_user 16y ago
    The android operating system and UI is a direct ripoff of the iPhone. Because having shortcuts on the main screen and a toolbar was never, ever, ever done before on the desktop. Also, what will happen when iOS will add screen widgets? Will that be a ripoff of Android? Adding virtual screens in OS X, was that a ripoff of XWindows, Gnome, KDE? Apple contributes very significantly to the open source community. I love them for WebKit; but that wasn't even original work, as it's a fork of KHTML. It's also debatable if they would have released it if KHTML wasn't LGPL. It is an achievement nobody can take away from them, but often in big companies the right hand is not aware of what the left hand does, and this release had benefits for them much bigger than for you or me. you claim they "took" the kernel, but the reality is the kernel was developed by them based on easrly university research, While Darwin is based on XNU, it is also dependent on critical pieces taken from BSD / various BSD libraries. Not a bad thing, but you're making a broad statement there that's not accurate. Google .... steals Sun's work, and you don't care about this theft, because they released it as "open source". It is not theft. Unless you mean that implementing a supposedly "open standard" is theft; or that reverse-engineering (which is perfectly legal) is theft; or that Java is in fact not a standard and Sun just lied about it and we, like "Ovis aries", believe anything instead of reading the fine-print. I dare you to make a complete analysis of the claims made by Oracle, and tell me what Google stole. This is why I don't contribute to open source project. So many of the advocates of open source disrespect anyone ... Loud mouths don't contribute in general. The people actually working on open-source aren't the same people that bitch about other people's usage of said open-source software. When the open source community starts giving the respect for rights that they demand from others, then you'll find you get a lot more support. I always look forward to such pieces of insight. Brightens up my Tuesday morning. people seem to steal code from Apache products and then put it in GPL products You can't make such claims without providing citations. PS: I have nothing against Apple's usage of open-source, that's what open-source should be about: the freedom to use it / modify it. I also don't like GPL and prefer (such as yourself and Google) Apache 2.0. I also think the parent's remarks are way off mark. That's not the point of my post.

The problem is, most open-source developers don't have their own patent arsenal.

by skymt 16y ago

The problem is, most open-source developers don't have their own patent arsenal.

Well if the only allowing you to create software is a patent arsenal, there is trouble indeed... Plus Red Hat did get sued eventually anyway by a troll claiming a patent on more or less any kind of GUI. Sure, flinch against the patent mafia if you don't have a patent arsenal. Just don't be surprised if another troll walks through the door in five minutes asking for more money and/or more GUI crippling... Edit: The most frustrating thing about all this is it difficult to determine if this is what has kept Linux GUIs lame or not; Information on the various decisions involved is spread in dribs and drabs around the web. You would think anti-patent organizers would at least keep a list of these actions.

gst 16y ago

That's the ugly part about the whole thing: Apple takes quite a lot from the open-source community, starting at the kernel, continuing with the user-space utilities, up to the HTML rendering engine. And at the same time they threaten open-source developers with lawsuites and/or leave patent situations deliberately unclarified (such as in the case of the patents against Freetype).

berntb 16y ago
I'm not that knowledgeable about Apple and open source, but: http://www.apple.com/opensource/ http://www.apple.com/opensource/ >>Apple takes ... HTML rendering engine From the Apple page: "Apple uses software created by the Open Source community, such as the HTML rendering engine for Safari, and returns its enhancements to the community." Similar with contributions to the kernel, afaik? Didn't Apple buy CUPS, hire the main developer -- and let it continue be open source? And so on. Corporations, like countries, are a bit above (or, if you want, below) the concepts of good/evil. But Apple is hardly Microsoft. Edit: I checked, the HTML rendering is under LGPL/BSD licenses! A bit ridiculous to complain about that, since it now is used by direct competitors of Apple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit "WebKit was originally derived by Apple Inc. from the Konqueror browser’s KHTML software library for use as the engine of Mac OS X’s Safari web browser and has now been further developed by individuals from the KDE project, Apple Inc., Nokia, Google, Bitstream, Torch Mobile and others.[4]"
- thwarted 16y ago
  I think gst's point was not that Apple contributes back to the open source community or not in terms of code, it's that Apple reaps the benefits of the open source software and community and then attacks open source projects and contributors with patent threats. While they are good citizens on the code contribution front, they are not all around good citizens on the plays-wells-with-others front.
  - statictype 16y ago
    What Open Source projects did Apple threaten with lawsuits?
    - Kylekramer 16y ago
      There is a handy reference link to one at the top of the page.
      - berntb 16y ago
        Well, no one will see this anymore, but... :-) The direct quote in the reference was that they'd be sued if they "moved forward to commercialize it". To me, that doesn't imply that they'd sue if the project was kept open source? Sure, I might be missing something (I've been writing stupid error checking code most of the night.)
        ZeroGravitas 16y ago
        "Commercial" is not the opposite of "open source" or "free software", "proprietary" is. And "proprietary" software can be sold or given away in a non-commercial, or non-profit making manner just like FLOSS. The two issues are almost entirely orthogonal.
      - statictype 16y ago
        You mean the Sun project? Ok, I guess I was thinking of open source projects that were not initiated by a large corporation.
wriq 16y ago
I don't think it's open-source projects specifically, but anyone that threatens there "innovations" in user experience - open-source and commercial alike. Saying it's an attack against open-source developers doesn't fit considering how much they backed open projects which are heavily utilized by the competition such as WebKit and LLVM.
nika 16y ago
The android operating system and UI is a direct ripoff of the iPhone. Before the iPhone was announced, Android was a blackberry styled UI. Apple contributes very significantly to the open source community. Yet for doing so they are constantly accused of "taking" from the community and never recognized for contributing. For instance, you claim they "took" the kernel, but the reality is the kernel was developed by them based on easrly university research, and they gave the kernel to the community. Meanwhile, Google steals Apple's work, makes it "open source", steals Sun's work, and you don't care about this theft, because they released it as "open source". Open source is a two way street, and it is hypocritical to talk about apple "taking" when they've contributed a hell of a lot more than they've received, and then ignore the theft by google, simply because after stealing the goods they "shared" them by making them open source. This is why I don't contribute to open source project. So many of the advocates of open source disrespect anyone using open source code who also sells proprietary code. (Except google, who gets a pass for some reason) When the open source community starts giving the respect for rights that they demand from others, then you'll find you get a lot more support. This is also why Apache 2.0 is on the rise and GPL is in decline, though unfortunately, people seem to steal code from Apache products and then put it in GPL products. (Another example of not respecting the very rights you demand others respect on your code.)
- bad_user 16y ago
  The android operating system and UI is a direct ripoff of the iPhone. Because having shortcuts on the main screen and a toolbar was never, ever, ever done before on the desktop. Also, what will happen when iOS will add screen widgets? Will that be a ripoff of Android? Adding virtual screens in OS X, was that a ripoff of XWindows, Gnome, KDE? Apple contributes very significantly to the open source community. I love them for WebKit; but that wasn't even original work, as it's a fork of KHTML. It's also debatable if they would have released it if KHTML wasn't LGPL. It is an achievement nobody can take away from them, but often in big companies the right hand is not aware of what the left hand does, and this release had benefits for them much bigger than for you or me. you claim they "took" the kernel, but the reality is the kernel was developed by them based on easrly university research, While Darwin is based on XNU, it is also dependent on critical pieces taken from BSD / various BSD libraries. Not a bad thing, but you're making a broad statement there that's not accurate. Google .... steals Sun's work, and you don't care about this theft, because they released it as "open source". It is not theft. Unless you mean that implementing a supposedly "open standard" is theft; or that reverse-engineering (which is perfectly legal) is theft; or that Java is in fact not a standard and Sun just lied about it and we, like "Ovis aries", believe anything instead of reading the fine-print. I dare you to make a complete analysis of the claims made by Oracle, and tell me what Google stole. This is why I don't contribute to open source project. So many of the advocates of open source disrespect anyone ... Loud mouths don't contribute in general. The people actually working on open-source aren't the same people that bitch about other people's usage of said open-source software. When the open source community starts giving the respect for rights that they demand from others, then you'll find you get a lot more support. I always look forward to such pieces of insight. Brightens up my Tuesday morning. people seem to steal code from Apache products and then put it in GPL products You can't make such claims without providing citations. PS: I have nothing against Apple's usage of open-source, that's what open-source should be about: the freedom to use it / modify it. I also don't like GPL and prefer (such as yourself and Google) Apache 2.0. I also think the parent's remarks are way off mark. That's not the point of my post.