4 ms·

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 sou

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.
adsr 16y ago
That might be, but I don't see the logic in that. Everything Apple does is not open source. The closed source or patented stuff can't be used regardless if someone is part of the open source community. No one gets sued for using the open-source stuff, if I got this right. I don't take any sides here, just pointing out, that as far as I can see open source has nothing to do with this.
- thwarted 16y ago
  The closed source or patented stuff can't be used regardless if someone is part of the open source community. No one gets sued for using the open-source stuff, if I got this right. (IANAL) Patented stuff can be used as long as the owner of the patent doesn't seek to enforce their patent. Unlike trademarks, the owner of a patent doesn't lose it if they don't enforce it, and also unlike patents, the patent holder can choose to selectively enforce/seek damages from infringing parties. Does a company with as much market penetration and power as Apple really feel threatened by open source projects such that they need to threaten them with lawsuits, meanwhile not feeling threatened enough by them to use open source software? Patent holders, including Apple, could take the high road and say "While we own these patents, we're not going to attack or threaten open source products that use our patents because 1) we benefit from open source 2) we still have the advantage even if our competitors use the open source product that is using our patented technology". But they don't, I suspect because it's cheaper to set a precedent for the validity of their patent by attacking someone who can't fight back.
  - thwarted 16y ago
    Sorry, I meant s/and also unlike patents/and also unlike trademarks/.

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.

adsr 16y ago

That might be, but I don't see the logic in that. Everything Apple does is not open source. The closed source or patented stuff can't be used regardless if someone is part of the open source community. No one gets sued for using the open-source stuff, if I got this right. I don't take any sides here, just pointing out, that as far as I can see open source has nothing to do with this.

thwarted 16y ago
The closed source or patented stuff can't be used regardless if someone is part of the open source community. No one gets sued for using the open-source stuff, if I got this right. (IANAL) Patented stuff can be used as long as the owner of the patent doesn't seek to enforce their patent. Unlike trademarks, the owner of a patent doesn't lose it if they don't enforce it, and also unlike patents, the patent holder can choose to selectively enforce/seek damages from infringing parties. Does a company with as much market penetration and power as Apple really feel threatened by open source projects such that they need to threaten them with lawsuits, meanwhile not feeling threatened enough by them to use open source software? Patent holders, including Apple, could take the high road and say "While we own these patents, we're not going to attack or threaten open source products that use our patents because 1) we benefit from open source 2) we still have the advantage even if our competitors use the open source product that is using our patented technology". But they don't, I suspect because it's cheaper to set a precedent for the validity of their patent by attacking someone who can't fight back.
- thwarted 16y ago
  Sorry, I meant s/and also unlike patents/and also unlike trademarks/.