3 ms·

> But Google is one of the few companies that gives back to projects they use. Apple gives back to open source projects. Isn't Swift open source as well as LL

> But Google is one of the few companies that gives back to projects they use. Apple gives back to open source projects. Isn't Swift open source as well as LLVM and Webkit? Makes sense because they made them and a long time user of them.

ta988 6y ago
I didn't say some other companies don't give back either If you compare the number of companies using a project and how many contribute, you will likely only need one hand to count the later...
- yannoninator 6y ago
  I don't think this is a good thing in the long term, a conflict of interest can arise, then Google would pull out. But then again, I guess I have no choice to accept this future we've put ourselves in. At least I can as an individual give back to Kotlin, no wait...
arusahni 6y ago
WebKit has to be open source because it's a KHTML fork.
- cwzwarich 6y ago
  This isn't actually true. KHTML is LGPL 2.0, so you can release source code for the pieces you modified and binary blobs for the rest. WebKit proper (as opposed to WebCore, which was based on KHTML, and JavaScriptCore, which was based on KJS) was originally not open source.
  - arusahni 6y ago
    Interesting. Thanks for the correction!
nolok 6y ago
I'm not sure why the victim complex about Apple in your comment, he said too few companies do it and that remains true whether or not Apple is in that group. In fact that conversation has nothing to do with Apple.
- yannoninator 6y ago
  > I'm not sure why the victim complex about Apple in your comment, he said too few companies do it Sure it's all good when companies fund projects they use, but that does not mean they should instantly get a board seat. It makes sense why Jane Street sponsors OCaml, does not mean they instantly get a board seat. I don't see Jane Street sponsoring RISC-V and getting a board seat do I? And it doesn't make sense to do so. I find is suspicious for companies to join or create a foundation and get automatically propped up on the board, especially Google. It's going to be much harder to remove them if your values are not aligned with theirs or you dare criticise them.
  - no_wizard 6y ago
    Google is highly invested Kotlin and it’s success with Android and what I’m certain is the fact that they have huge Java code adds that I could see them having real value in slowly converting to kotlin and allowing Kotlin to be the first class choice where Java would be. Honestly I just don’t see it here. Google’s marketplace ambitions have not surfaced in these foundations. I would Love a real tangible counter example of Google leveraging their seat on a language committee to control the language in such a way it only furthers Googles interests. Even with the browser I don’t see them outright controlling tc39 or WHATWG/W3C or the CSS working group. Otherwise HTML imports would be a thing right now (and arguably they should be but that’s another debate) I don’t defend what they’re doing with Chrome the product but they so far have seemed to be pretty sane with standards bodies The thing about Google or any entity of their size is that they’re huge and lots of different types of people work there, and I’d wave most aren’t malicious That doesn’t handwave legitimate complaints here and I don’t like Google have arbitrary outsized influence either but I don’t think that’s the case with these commuters/foundations

ta988 6y ago

I didn't say some other companies don't give back either If you compare the number of companies using a project and how many contribute, you will likely only need one hand to count the later...

yannoninator 6y ago
I don't think this is a good thing in the long term, a conflict of interest can arise, then Google would pull out. But then again, I guess I have no choice to accept this future we've put ourselves in. At least I can as an individual give back to Kotlin, no wait...

arusahni 6y ago

WebKit has to be open source because it's a KHTML fork.

cwzwarich 6y ago
This isn't actually true. KHTML is LGPL 2.0, so you can release source code for the pieces you modified and binary blobs for the rest. WebKit proper (as opposed to WebCore, which was based on KHTML, and JavaScriptCore, which was based on KJS) was originally not open source.
- arusahni 6y ago
  Interesting. Thanks for the correction!

nolok 6y ago

I'm not sure why the victim complex about Apple in your comment, he said too few companies do it and that remains true whether or not Apple is in that group. In fact that conversation has nothing to do with Apple.

yannoninator 6y ago
> I'm not sure why the victim complex about Apple in your comment, he said too few companies do it Sure it's all good when companies fund projects they use, but that does not mean they should instantly get a board seat. It makes sense why Jane Street sponsors OCaml, does not mean they instantly get a board seat. I don't see Jane Street sponsoring RISC-V and getting a board seat do I? And it doesn't make sense to do so. I find is suspicious for companies to join or create a foundation and get automatically propped up on the board, especially Google. It's going to be much harder to remove them if your values are not aligned with theirs or you dare criticise them.
- no_wizard 6y ago
  Google is highly invested Kotlin and it’s success with Android and what I’m certain is the fact that they have huge Java code adds that I could see them having real value in slowly converting to kotlin and allowing Kotlin to be the first class choice where Java would be. Honestly I just don’t see it here. Google’s marketplace ambitions have not surfaced in these foundations. I would Love a real tangible counter example of Google leveraging their seat on a language committee to control the language in such a way it only furthers Googles interests. Even with the browser I don’t see them outright controlling tc39 or WHATWG/W3C or the CSS working group. Otherwise HTML imports would be a thing right now (and arguably they should be but that’s another debate) I don’t defend what they’re doing with Chrome the product but they so far have seemed to be pretty sane with standards bodies The thing about Google or any entity of their size is that they’re huge and lots of different types of people work there, and I’d wave most aren’t malicious That doesn’t handwave legitimate complaints here and I don’t like Google have arbitrary outsized influence either but I don’t think that’s the case with these commuters/foundations