3 ms·

Love to know how/ why this got pushed out. If it's a rogue engineer, a mistake, or what exactly. Regardless, you can't put the cat back in the bag.

drvdevd 6y ago
Sounds like Apple wants to promote or enable development on its new platform (even of 3rd party kernels), but can’t just distribute source due to some ARM licensing agreements or other legal/contractual restrictions. This is probably a middle ground through legal.
manwe150 6y ago
IANAL, but I think they could retroactively claim the code in the archive was not legally their right to push under that license. That is the same principle that stops me from going further, say, and copying their APSL code into a GPL program, and then claiming the whole XNU source is now completely free and no-take-backs. So it depends on whether they owned the copyright to the original source, and also that the published bundle was authorized by Apple to provide that content. Absent timely clarification from any party, however, I think we can assume it is out in the open.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  They aren't/ can't use the code in any case. They can use it to see how it was done and create an alternate implementation without using any of the original code/ binaries. Worse case, they can build a model of what is done and describe that to a third party who has never had access to the code in question. Essentially forming an information firewall.
- marcan_42 6y ago
  The code is theirs. All evidence points to this being about contractual obligations with ARM, but those would not be about copyright.
- scruffyherder 6y ago
  All the Darwin 0.1 and 0.3 stuff has effectively been wiped.. I only got lucky with people hoarding CD’s but there is no 0.2 stuff. The amount of stuff released was shrinking by the release so did they cancel the 1.0 and 1.1 license or do they just pretend it didn’t happen? This is a 4.4BSD so there was the shadow of the AT&T vs CSRG/BSDi I’ve received no CDL...

drvdevd 6y ago

Sounds like Apple wants to promote or enable development on its new platform (even of 3rd party kernels), but can’t just distribute source due to some ARM licensing agreements or other legal/contractual restrictions. This is probably a middle ground through legal.

manwe150 6y ago

IANAL, but I think they could retroactively claim the code in the archive was not legally their right to push under that license. That is the same principle that stops me from going further, say, and copying their APSL code into a GPL program, and then claiming the whole XNU source is now completely free and no-take-backs. So it depends on whether they owned the copyright to the original source, and also that the published bundle was authorized by Apple to provide that content. Absent timely clarification from any party, however, I think we can assume it is out in the open.

ogre_codes 6y ago
They aren't/ can't use the code in any case. They can use it to see how it was done and create an alternate implementation without using any of the original code/ binaries. Worse case, they can build a model of what is done and describe that to a third party who has never had access to the code in question. Essentially forming an information firewall.
marcan_42 6y ago
The code is theirs. All evidence points to this being about contractual obligations with ARM, but those would not be about copyright.
scruffyherder 6y ago
All the Darwin 0.1 and 0.3 stuff has effectively been wiped.. I only got lucky with people hoarding CD’s but there is no 0.2 stuff. The amount of stuff released was shrinking by the release so did they cancel the 1.0 and 1.1 license or do they just pretend it didn’t happen? This is a 4.4BSD so there was the shadow of the AT&T vs CSRG/BSDi I’ve received no CDL...