6 ms·

Anyone else find this to be a bit over-dramatic? They have released every other version and just haven't released the 4.3.x one yet. There is no indication tha

Anyone else find this to be a bit over-dramatic? They have released every other version and just haven't released the 4.3.x one yet. There is no indication that they refuse to release it ever, the site still says "Coming Soon" and it has still been < 2 months since 4.3 was released. Yes, I understand that under the GPL they're supposed to release it simultaneously with the launch, which they failed to do, but is this really front page news?

docgnome 15y ago
Yes. I take license violation very seriously. Imagine if Apple was violating a Microsoft license in this way. They'd be sued in a heart beat. Companies need to realize the (L)GPL is serious. It's not something you can just ignore because it's convenient.
- msbarnett 15y ago
  But surely openness is a spectrum, and if they've released versions in the past, and they claim they will be releasing this one, then that still counts as being "open"?
  - rimantas 15y ago
    Anything related to Apple is always a good source for some sensationalist piece.
    - Hov 15y ago
      Wait, how is someone stating facts sensationalist?
  - Macha 15y ago
    But the conditions of the (L)GPL is that they are _required_ to do so when they release the source at the same time. Releasing it later is more open than not releasing it, but it's still not allowed with the (L)GPL.
  - bricestacey 15y ago
    It's not about being "open". Its about following the terms of the license. And I believe the only way to enforce a license is through litigation so a lawsuit should be expected.
- rimantas 15y ago
  I don't know what situation is now, but Apple used to be the main contributor to Webkit. Who should sue Apple?
  - jrockway 15y ago
    The other contributers whose copyrighted code they are distributing illegally.
    - rimantas 15y ago
      Wow. I am pretty sure anyone with this kind of attitude would not work on any project together with guys from Apple.
      - jrockway 15y ago
        Apple forked Webkit from KHTML. Google contributes to Webkit. Should the original KHTML and the contributors from Google be deprived of the rights that the LGPL gives them, simply because Apple "owns" the project? If Apple wants to own Webkit, then answer is simple: require a copyright assignment letter with each patch. Then they can relicense the code whenever they want.
        rimantas 15y ago
        Apple forked Webkit from KHTML. Google contributes to Webkit. So? I don't get, why this "forked form KHTML" comes up so often, and how is it relevant. Did Apple ever claim to invent Webkit? Not to my knowledge. What I do know, that a few years ago when Google had no Android and no Chrome Apple was already making Webkit the best rendering engine out there. But that's completely besides the point. I just cannot imagine someone working on the same project and ready to sue fellow developer's company just because they did not release the source on the same day. Then they can relicense the code whenever they want. If other comments are right, LGPL does not say they must release the source together with a product.
        15y ago
- rimantas 15y ago
  Just curious, is source code for Webkit used in Honeycomb available?
  - georgemcbay 15y ago
    Yes. While Google hasn't open sourced much of the Apache licensed bits of Honeycomb, they have posted all of the GPL/LGPL code as required by the licenses: http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/browse_thread/thread/b732d8cd82695ce1 http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/browse_threa...
- edw 15y ago
  If you take license violations very seriously, then I imagine that an audit of your computer would reveal no movies, songs, fonts, or applications that are not properly licensed, right? Is Apple out of compliance with the license? Perhaps. Is this on my list of the ten thousand things I'm most concerned about? No. And as for your assertion about Microsoft suing Apple in a heartbeat over a similar compliance issue, I think you don't know what you're talking about. Microsoft, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't sued anyone over the hundreds of MS patents they claim Linux violates. It took Apple a few years to get around to suing Samsung. In other words, Companies' legal teams are usually subject to adult supervision by their CxOs. They don't just go around suing willy-nilly. Many lawyers see conflicts that lead to lawsuits as failures. Reality is so surprisingly messy.
  - FxChiP 15y ago
    If an audit of his computer revealed unlicensed movies, songs, fonts and applications, I (and probably he) would fully expect him to be litigated against -- such discoveries and resulting lawsuits are quite commonplace nowadays, it seems like. That doesn't make it right for anyone, even a large corporation, to violate intellectual property law. To put another way: if I were found to be pirating Mac OS X, Apple would be in the right to sue me for intellectual property violation. If I found them to be using my code outside of the license I provided it to them (and the rest of the world) with, I should be in the right to sue them for intellectual property violation. Is this not correct? (EDIT: fixed problematic grammar)
  - daxelrod 15y ago
    Microsoft sued TomTom in 2009 for patent infringement[1]. One aspect of the suit concerned infringement in the implementation of the FAT filesystem in TomTom's Linux-based GPS navigation devices. The two parties eventually settled[2]. [1] http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/microsoft-sues-tomtom-over-fat-patents-in-linux-based-device.ars http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/microsoft-sues... [2] http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03/microsoft-and-tomtom-settle-patent-dispute.ars http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03/microsoft-and-...
    - 15y ago
icefox 15y ago
Actually no, under the GPL they don't have to put the source code on the web. They just have to make it accessible when you request it. If no one requests it then they really don't have to put anything on the web. From a community karma perspective it is good to put up the source when new binaries go out.
- bad_user 15y ago
  Slightly wrong, when distributing the binaries you either have to: (a) distribute the source code immediately, along with the binary (b) provide a written offer in which you promise to distribute the source-code to anyone who asks in a timely manner (b) is important because if you fail to provide that written offer as soon as you start distributing the binary, then you're not complying with the GPL. I'm not in the know if Apple provided such offer, HTC on the other hand ... And I'm pretty sure somebody requested it by now -- it's not like they are the only contributers to WebKit that would want to merge Apple's changes in master. In the case of a lawsuit you also have to explain what took you so long to release the source-code -- timely manner is very relative, and in software when things move so fast a couple of months is not soon enough. I do feel that Apple is somewhat morally justified and should be granted benefit of the doubt, in this particular case, since they invested in WebKit so much. But WebKit got so valuable precisely because it is open-source such that it can be a defacto standard for mobiles. Apple is also not the sole contributer, and they benefited from the work of others, so I don't see why they aren't playing nice. Also, lots of double standards floating around -- I'm seeing some people that cried wolf on Google's actions regarding postponing the release of Android 3.0, although they are complying with the licenses involved and although they had perfectly understandable business reasons for doing so -- those people are actually trying to justify Apple's actions right now. I don't know why we treat these stories like some kind of sport, in which everyone cheers for their favorite, but we do, although there isn't anything to gain unless you're a shareholder.
  - Someone 15y ago
    I'm not in the know if Apple provided such offer They do. In settings, General -> Legal one finds: The WebKit, WebCore and JavaScriptCore software is open source software [...] You may obtain a complete machine-readable copy of the source code for the LGPL-licensed portions under the terms of LGPL, without charge except for the cost of media, shipping, and handling, upon written request to Apple.

docgnome 15y ago

Yes. I take license violation very seriously. Imagine if Apple was violating a Microsoft license in this way. They'd be sued in a heart beat. Companies need to realize the (L)GPL is serious. It's not something you can just ignore because it's convenient.

msbarnett 15y ago
But surely openness is a spectrum, and if they've released versions in the past, and they claim they will be releasing this one, then that still counts as being "open"?
- rimantas 15y ago
  Anything related to Apple is always a good source for some sensationalist piece.
  - Hov 15y ago
    Wait, how is someone stating facts sensationalist?
- Macha 15y ago
  But the conditions of the (L)GPL is that they are _required_ to do so when they release the source at the same time. Releasing it later is more open than not releasing it, but it's still not allowed with the (L)GPL.
- bricestacey 15y ago
  It's not about being "open". Its about following the terms of the license. And I believe the only way to enforce a license is through litigation so a lawsuit should be expected.
rimantas 15y ago
I don't know what situation is now, but Apple used to be the main contributor to Webkit. Who should sue Apple?
- jrockway 15y ago
  The other contributers whose copyrighted code they are distributing illegally.
  - rimantas 15y ago
    Wow. I am pretty sure anyone with this kind of attitude would not work on any project together with guys from Apple.
    - jrockway 15y ago
      Apple forked Webkit from KHTML. Google contributes to Webkit. Should the original KHTML and the contributors from Google be deprived of the rights that the LGPL gives them, simply because Apple "owns" the project? If Apple wants to own Webkit, then answer is simple: require a copyright assignment letter with each patch. Then they can relicense the code whenever they want.
      - rimantas 15y ago
        Apple forked Webkit from KHTML. Google contributes to Webkit. So? I don't get, why this "forked form KHTML" comes up so often, and how is it relevant. Did Apple ever claim to invent Webkit? Not to my knowledge. What I do know, that a few years ago when Google had no Android and no Chrome Apple was already making Webkit the best rendering engine out there. But that's completely besides the point. I just cannot imagine someone working on the same project and ready to sue fellow developer's company just because they did not release the source on the same day. Then they can relicense the code whenever they want. If other comments are right, LGPL does not say they must release the source together with a product.
        15y ago
rimantas 15y ago
Just curious, is source code for Webkit used in Honeycomb available?
- georgemcbay 15y ago
  Yes. While Google hasn't open sourced much of the Apache licensed bits of Honeycomb, they have posted all of the GPL/LGPL code as required by the licenses: http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/browse_thread/thread/b732d8cd82695ce1 http://groups.google.com/group/android-building/browse_threa...
edw 15y ago
If you take license violations very seriously, then I imagine that an audit of your computer would reveal no movies, songs, fonts, or applications that are not properly licensed, right? Is Apple out of compliance with the license? Perhaps. Is this on my list of the ten thousand things I'm most concerned about? No. And as for your assertion about Microsoft suing Apple in a heartbeat over a similar compliance issue, I think you don't know what you're talking about. Microsoft, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't sued anyone over the hundreds of MS patents they claim Linux violates. It took Apple a few years to get around to suing Samsung. In other words, Companies' legal teams are usually subject to adult supervision by their CxOs. They don't just go around suing willy-nilly. Many lawyers see conflicts that lead to lawsuits as failures. Reality is so surprisingly messy.
- FxChiP 15y ago
  If an audit of his computer revealed unlicensed movies, songs, fonts and applications, I (and probably he) would fully expect him to be litigated against -- such discoveries and resulting lawsuits are quite commonplace nowadays, it seems like. That doesn't make it right for anyone, even a large corporation, to violate intellectual property law. To put another way: if I were found to be pirating Mac OS X, Apple would be in the right to sue me for intellectual property violation. If I found them to be using my code outside of the license I provided it to them (and the rest of the world) with, I should be in the right to sue them for intellectual property violation. Is this not correct? (EDIT: fixed problematic grammar)
- daxelrod 15y ago
  Microsoft sued TomTom in 2009 for patent infringement[1]. One aspect of the suit concerned infringement in the implementation of the FAT filesystem in TomTom's Linux-based GPS navigation devices. The two parties eventually settled[2]. [1] http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/microsoft-sues-tomtom-over-fat-patents-in-linux-based-device.ars http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/microsoft-sues... [2] http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03/microsoft-and-tomtom-settle-patent-dispute.ars http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03/microsoft-and-...
  - 15y ago

icefox 15y ago

Actually no, under the GPL they don't have to put the source code on the web. They just have to make it accessible when you request it. If no one requests it then they really don't have to put anything on the web. From a community karma perspective it is good to put up the source when new binaries go out.

bad_user 15y ago
Slightly wrong, when distributing the binaries you either have to: (a) distribute the source code immediately, along with the binary (b) provide a written offer in which you promise to distribute the source-code to anyone who asks in a timely manner (b) is important because if you fail to provide that written offer as soon as you start distributing the binary, then you're not complying with the GPL. I'm not in the know if Apple provided such offer, HTC on the other hand ... And I'm pretty sure somebody requested it by now -- it's not like they are the only contributers to WebKit that would want to merge Apple's changes in master. In the case of a lawsuit you also have to explain what took you so long to release the source-code -- timely manner is very relative, and in software when things move so fast a couple of months is not soon enough. I do feel that Apple is somewhat morally justified and should be granted benefit of the doubt, in this particular case, since they invested in WebKit so much. But WebKit got so valuable precisely because it is open-source such that it can be a defacto standard for mobiles. Apple is also not the sole contributer, and they benefited from the work of others, so I don't see why they aren't playing nice. Also, lots of double standards floating around -- I'm seeing some people that cried wolf on Google's actions regarding postponing the release of Android 3.0, although they are complying with the licenses involved and although they had perfectly understandable business reasons for doing so -- those people are actually trying to justify Apple's actions right now. I don't know why we treat these stories like some kind of sport, in which everyone cheers for their favorite, but we do, although there isn't anything to gain unless you're a shareholder.
- Someone 15y ago
  I'm not in the know if Apple provided such offer They do. In settings, General -> Legal one finds: The WebKit, WebCore and JavaScriptCore software is open source software [...] You may obtain a complete machine-readable copy of the source code for the LGPL-licensed portions under the terms of LGPL, without charge except for the cost of media, shipping, and handling, upon written request to Apple.