3 ms·

I don't know what situation is now, but Apple used to be the main contributor to Webkit. Who should sue Apple?

by rimantas 16y ago

jrockway 16y ago
The other contributers whose copyrighted code they are distributing illegally.
- rimantas 16y ago
  Wow. I am pretty sure anyone with this kind of attitude would not work on any project together with guys from Apple.
  - jrockway 16y 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 16y 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.
      - jrockway 16y ago
        What I'm saying is that the people who wrote KHTML have copyright over Webkit. They released their code under the LGPL, and its Apple's obligation to honor this license until they remove all the original code or get contributers to sign a copyright assignment form. That's how open source projects work: either all the code is owned by some central entity, or the code is owned by the various contributers. When the code is owned by the contributers, your patch is considered a derivative work (for the purpose of copyright) of the other copyright holders' work, so you have to follow the license. On the flip side, if every patch has documentation saying that the central authority (the FSF, the Apache Foundation, etc.) has copyright, then that central authority can relicense however they want. For example, Emacs is now GPLv3, even though most of the code was written well before the GPLv3 existed. In the case of Webkit, Apple does not require copyright assignment. The code was not originally theirs - their version of Webkit is a fork of KHTML, and so the copyright from KHTML is in force. They have to follow the LGPL, because otherwise they have no legal right to use the code in their products. That's all I'm saying: the question was "who has a legal claim over Webkit", and my answer was "everyone who's contributed". The LGPL allows Apple to keep the rest of their stack that links against Webkit proprietary. However, they have to release their changes to Webkit. Here is the exact wording from the LGPL v2: These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Library, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Library, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
        nikcub 16y ago
        >That's how open source projects work Just to clarify, that is how GPL licensed software works. There are a lot of different open source licenses that do not require anything.
        16y ago
tvon 16y ago
Without looking I think Google is probably the #1 contributor at this point, with Apple being #2.
- alanh 16y ago
  Curious why you say that, as Chrome is definitely a different project than WebKit (obviously they use it, but they defer rendering issues to the main WebKit tracker), and I’m not sure how much Google throws at WebKit. Also, do you me currently, or cumulatively?
  - bzbarsky 16y ago
    If you measure by number of commits (whatever that's worth), data is at http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2010/02/webkit-commits.html http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2010/02/webkit-... So the answers for "currently" and "cumulatively" differ at least by this metric. And the metric itself is questionable, as the blog post says.

I don't know what situation is now, but Apple used to be the main contributor to Webkit. Who should sue Apple?

jrockway 16y ago

The other contributers whose copyrighted code they are distributing illegally.

rimantas 16y ago
Wow. I am pretty sure anyone with this kind of attitude would not work on any project together with guys from Apple.
- jrockway 16y 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 16y 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.
    - jrockway 16y ago
      What I'm saying is that the people who wrote KHTML have copyright over Webkit. They released their code under the LGPL, and its Apple's obligation to honor this license until they remove all the original code or get contributers to sign a copyright assignment form. That's how open source projects work: either all the code is owned by some central entity, or the code is owned by the various contributers. When the code is owned by the contributers, your patch is considered a derivative work (for the purpose of copyright) of the other copyright holders' work, so you have to follow the license. On the flip side, if every patch has documentation saying that the central authority (the FSF, the Apache Foundation, etc.) has copyright, then that central authority can relicense however they want. For example, Emacs is now GPLv3, even though most of the code was written well before the GPLv3 existed. In the case of Webkit, Apple does not require copyright assignment. The code was not originally theirs - their version of Webkit is a fork of KHTML, and so the copyright from KHTML is in force. They have to follow the LGPL, because otherwise they have no legal right to use the code in their products. That's all I'm saying: the question was "who has a legal claim over Webkit", and my answer was "everyone who's contributed". The LGPL allows Apple to keep the rest of their stack that links against Webkit proprietary. However, they have to release their changes to Webkit. Here is the exact wording from the LGPL v2: These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Library, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Library, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
      - nikcub 16y ago
        >That's how open source projects work Just to clarify, that is how GPL licensed software works. There are a lot of different open source licenses that do not require anything.
        16y ago

tvon 16y ago

Without looking I think Google is probably the #1 contributor at this point, with Apple being #2.

alanh 16y ago
Curious why you say that, as Chrome is definitely a different project than WebKit (obviously they use it, but they defer rendering issues to the main WebKit tracker), and I’m not sure how much Google throws at WebKit. Also, do you me currently, or cumulatively?
- bzbarsky 16y ago
  If you measure by number of commits (whatever that's worth), data is at http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2010/02/webkit-commits.html http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2010/02/webkit-... So the answers for "currently" and "cumulatively" differ at least by this metric. And the metric itself is questionable, as the blog post says.