5 ms·

Can someone explain what this means? Does it benefit those working on Linux support for M1?

gpm 6y ago
> PowerManagement-1132.50.3 At least the name sounds promising. None of this is licensed such that they can use it directly, but having the source available can speed up the reverse engineering process such that they can rewrite their own version of the code that interacts with the hardware.
- arghwhat 6y ago
  Note that this requires a clean-room process - reading the original source code as inspiration usually taints any work derived from the observations. This is why open source developers actively avoid reading leaked sources from proprietary projects for example. "open source" code with too restrictive licenses is no different from closed source code.
  - gpm 6y ago
    The relevant developers are of the opinion (one that I agree with) that it does not require a clean room process. A clean room process is a gold standard for preventing accidental copyright infringment, but is not necessary and is enough work they don't consider it worthwhile. Reading (and even to the extent that it's compatible with the license modifying) the original source code to learn how the underlying hardware works is not copyright infringment and does not make future works you produce derivative works of the original. Source/explanation in their words instead of mine: https://asahilinux.org/copyright/ https://asahilinux.org/copyright/ (See: "Reverse engineering policy")
    - arghwhat 6y ago
      The policy of those developers does not mean much, and while the policy of upstream kernel developers that need to accept the code can be interesting, but ultimately only a lawyer's opinion have any meaning here. They might coincidentally be right of course, but their advice, policy and opinion in this legal matters mean as little as yours and mine.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  > None of this is licensed such that they can use it directly Not sure what you're referring to here?
  - gpm 6y ago
    All the interesting bits are Apple License [1], which isn't GPL compatible [2]. [1] https://opensource.apple.com/source/IOGraphics/IOGraphics-585/APPLE_LICENSE.auto.html https://opensource.apple.com/source/IOGraphics/IOGraphics-58... [2] https://asahilinux.org/copyright/ https://asahilinux.org/copyright/ - See "Referencing Other Open Source Code"
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      Interesting. I'm now doing some more Googling, and I can't seem to find a place that explains why the APSL isn't GPL compatible. (But it's almost certainly not, given that lots of authoritative sources including GNU[1] say as much. They just don't say why.) 1: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.en.html
      - ghaff 6y ago
        Probably (I haven't studied it) because of what the FSF says here "It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary." So it's apparently file-based copyleft, which is in the same vein as CDDL. (Which is also generally considered GPL-incompatible for that reason.)
specto 6y ago
Just a release of their use of GPL code which the would be required to provide if requested anyways. It does not have any impact on Linux support.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  Quite a bit of this is sourced from within Apple under Apple's license. There might be some useful things in there. If they released the code/ patches in an easier to review way. As it is, it's fairly difficult to see if anything
- jki275 6y ago
  Apple in general doesn’t use gpl code. The vast majority of their work is BSD or BSD-like license.
- specto 6y ago
  It's interesting that because I said GPL instead of open source, my bad, I'm downvoted to -4. Shit.
pvg 6y ago
Not really, this is done for every OS release. It's a completely routine nothingburger with an iffy HN title.
- toyg 6y ago
  Yeah, the real title should be “Apple abides to the letter of opensource licenses, like every year, while largely continuing to ignore the spirit of them”.
  - trasz 6y ago
    You’re confusing Open Source and copyleft, I think.
    - klelatti 6y ago
      Some of this is Apple Public Source Licensed I think which is at (partial) copyleft - at least accoding to the FSF.
    - ninkendo 6y ago
      Apple had no problem including "copyleft" code in their OS for the longest time... but GPLv3 is a no-go due to the closed nature of their other platforms (iOS). GPLv3 adds the requirement that code for derived works not only be released, but that someone should be able to build their own modifications on that platform for free, won't work with the way the the iOS developer agreement works ($99 a year.) And it wasn't worth the complexity of having different software for each of their OS's, so they just banned all GPLv3 software from the OS. Apple's use of open source could have totally worked with "copyleft", but only the GPLv2 usage of the word. GPLv3, not so much.
      - tzs 6y ago
        > GPLv3 adds the requirement that code for derived works not only be released, but that someone should be able to build their own modifications on that platform for free, won't work with the way the the iOS developer agreement works ($99 a year.) I don't see anything in GPLv3 about people having to be able to build derived works for no cost. What GPLv3 adds is a requirement that your provide "Installation Information" to allow you to install and run the code once you build it. Installation information is things like keys to sign the code if the platform it is for only runs signed code. The installation information requirement only applies when the object code was conveyed "as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized)". A "User Product" is "either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling". GPLv3 object code that is not conveyed as part of a change of possession of a User Product is not subject to the installation information requirement. This requirement was added to GPLv3 specifically to stop what TiVo was doing--shipping GPL code on their boxes that could not be replaced by the user--and it was narrowly drafted to only cover that situation.
DCKing 6y ago
It doesn't have much significance. Apple does this for all (major) macOS releases. macOS and iOS are built off of open source components, for which Apple releases the source code now and then. It's a courtesy for the most part - most of these are BSD licensed and therefore don't strictly require source code to be released. These notably don't include much of mac/iOS proprietary user interface components, drivers, or system frameworks - basically everything that makes macOS/iOS remotely interesting. The source code drops are helpful for the creation of other Unix-like operating systems based on the open source macOS kernel (see also the defunct Open/PureDarwin projects), and the released apps are sometimes ported (e.g. the GnuStep project has some older version of Chess.app and others ported over). There's some off and on efforts in the FreeBSD community to port Apple's open source launchd init system [1]. All in all though, there's really not all that much interest in reusing the code from these code drops by the open source community and any efforts seem to lack staying power. The released source most practical value is most likely derived by researchers investigating macOS/iOS internals and being able to inspect the source code for some of it. As a curiosity it looks like you're able to build and run your own XNU kernel on macOS [2] (what is this, Linux?), but I can't personally attest to the process. [1]: e.g. https://github.com/freebsd/openlaunchd https://github.com/freebsd/openlaunchd [2]: https://kernelshaman.blogspot.com/2018/12/building-xnu-for-macos-mojave-10141.html https://kernelshaman.blogspot.com/2018/12/building-xnu-for-m...
- zoobab 6y ago
  "BSD licensed and therefore don't strictly require source code to be released" Broken promises of liberal freedom.
  - colonwqbang 6y ago
    What? The BSD license is 30 years old, it has never required the release of source code of derived works. What kind of promise do you feel you have been given?
rconti 6y ago
It means the people who were breathlessly jumping the gun a few weeks back, saying Apple would never release open source Big Sur stuff may have been a bit over-excited.

gpm 6y ago

> PowerManagement-1132.50.3 At least the name sounds promising. None of this is licensed such that they can use it directly, but having the source available can speed up the reverse engineering process such that they can rewrite their own version of the code that interacts with the hardware.

arghwhat 6y ago
Note that this requires a clean-room process - reading the original source code as inspiration usually taints any work derived from the observations. This is why open source developers actively avoid reading leaked sources from proprietary projects for example. "open source" code with too restrictive licenses is no different from closed source code.
- gpm 6y ago
  The relevant developers are of the opinion (one that I agree with) that it does not require a clean room process. A clean room process is a gold standard for preventing accidental copyright infringment, but is not necessary and is enough work they don't consider it worthwhile. Reading (and even to the extent that it's compatible with the license modifying) the original source code to learn how the underlying hardware works is not copyright infringment and does not make future works you produce derivative works of the original. Source/explanation in their words instead of mine: https://asahilinux.org/copyright/ https://asahilinux.org/copyright/ (See: "Reverse engineering policy")
  - arghwhat 6y ago
    The policy of those developers does not mean much, and while the policy of upstream kernel developers that need to accept the code can be interesting, but ultimately only a lawyer's opinion have any meaning here. They might coincidentally be right of course, but their advice, policy and opinion in this legal matters mean as little as yours and mine.
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
> None of this is licensed such that they can use it directly Not sure what you're referring to here?
- gpm 6y ago
  All the interesting bits are Apple License [1], which isn't GPL compatible [2]. [1] https://opensource.apple.com/source/IOGraphics/IOGraphics-585/APPLE_LICENSE.auto.html https://opensource.apple.com/source/IOGraphics/IOGraphics-58... [2] https://asahilinux.org/copyright/ https://asahilinux.org/copyright/ - See "Referencing Other Open Source Code"
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    Interesting. I'm now doing some more Googling, and I can't seem to find a place that explains why the APSL isn't GPL compatible. (But it's almost certainly not, given that lots of authoritative sources including GNU[1] say as much. They just don't say why.) 1: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.en.html
    - ghaff 6y ago
      Probably (I haven't studied it) because of what the FSF says here "It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary." So it's apparently file-based copyleft, which is in the same vein as CDDL. (Which is also generally considered GPL-incompatible for that reason.)

specto 6y ago

Just a release of their use of GPL code which the would be required to provide if requested anyways. It does not have any impact on Linux support.

ogre_codes 6y ago
Quite a bit of this is sourced from within Apple under Apple's license. There might be some useful things in there. If they released the code/ patches in an easier to review way. As it is, it's fairly difficult to see if anything
jki275 6y ago
Apple in general doesn’t use gpl code. The vast majority of their work is BSD or BSD-like license.
specto 6y ago
It's interesting that because I said GPL instead of open source, my bad, I'm downvoted to -4. Shit.

pvg 6y ago

Not really, this is done for every OS release. It's a completely routine nothingburger with an iffy HN title.

toyg 6y ago
Yeah, the real title should be “Apple abides to the letter of opensource licenses, like every year, while largely continuing to ignore the spirit of them”.
- trasz 6y ago
  You’re confusing Open Source and copyleft, I think.
  - klelatti 6y ago
    Some of this is Apple Public Source Licensed I think which is at (partial) copyleft - at least accoding to the FSF.
  - ninkendo 6y ago
    Apple had no problem including "copyleft" code in their OS for the longest time... but GPLv3 is a no-go due to the closed nature of their other platforms (iOS). GPLv3 adds the requirement that code for derived works not only be released, but that someone should be able to build their own modifications on that platform for free, won't work with the way the the iOS developer agreement works ($99 a year.) And it wasn't worth the complexity of having different software for each of their OS's, so they just banned all GPLv3 software from the OS. Apple's use of open source could have totally worked with "copyleft", but only the GPLv2 usage of the word. GPLv3, not so much.
    - tzs 6y ago
      > GPLv3 adds the requirement that code for derived works not only be released, but that someone should be able to build their own modifications on that platform for free, won't work with the way the the iOS developer agreement works ($99 a year.) I don't see anything in GPLv3 about people having to be able to build derived works for no cost. What GPLv3 adds is a requirement that your provide "Installation Information" to allow you to install and run the code once you build it. Installation information is things like keys to sign the code if the platform it is for only runs signed code. The installation information requirement only applies when the object code was conveyed "as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized)". A "User Product" is "either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling". GPLv3 object code that is not conveyed as part of a change of possession of a User Product is not subject to the installation information requirement. This requirement was added to GPLv3 specifically to stop what TiVo was doing--shipping GPL code on their boxes that could not be replaced by the user--and it was narrowly drafted to only cover that situation.

DCKing 6y ago

It doesn't have much significance. Apple does this for all (major) macOS releases. macOS and iOS are built off of open source components, for which Apple releases the source code now and then. It's a courtesy for the most part - most of these are BSD licensed and therefore don't strictly require source code to be released. These notably don't include much of mac/iOS proprietary user interface components, drivers, or system frameworks - basically everything that makes macOS/iOS remotely interesting. The source code drops are helpful for the creation of other Unix-like operating systems based on the open source macOS kernel (see also the defunct Open/PureDarwin projects), and the released apps are sometimes ported (e.g. the GnuStep project has some older version of Chess.app and others ported over). There's some off and on efforts in the FreeBSD community to port Apple's open source launchd init system [1]. All in all though, there's really not all that much interest in reusing the code from these code drops by the open source community and any efforts seem to lack staying power. The released source most practical value is most likely derived by researchers investigating macOS/iOS internals and being able to inspect the source code for some of it. As a curiosity it looks like you're able to build and run your own XNU kernel on macOS [2] (what is this, Linux?), but I can't personally attest to the process. [1]: e.g. https://github.com/freebsd/openlaunchd https://github.com/freebsd/openlaunchd [2]: https://kernelshaman.blogspot.com/2018/12/building-xnu-for-macos-mojave-10141.html https://kernelshaman.blogspot.com/2018/12/building-xnu-for-m...

zoobab 6y ago
"BSD licensed and therefore don't strictly require source code to be released" Broken promises of liberal freedom.
- colonwqbang 6y ago
  What? The BSD license is 30 years old, it has never required the release of source code of derived works. What kind of promise do you feel you have been given?

rconti 6y ago

It means the people who were breathlessly jumping the gun a few weeks back, saying Apple would never release open source Big Sur stuff may have been a bit over-excited.