3 ms·
Like I said to the other commenter, the source code for the software being discussed already is available - by definition - and much more easily than if you had
by samhw 5y ago
Like I said to the other commenter, the source code for the software being discussed already is available - by definition - and much more easily than if you had to go searching through /usr/lib. It's an absolutely moot point[0] whether Apple bundles the source code for Bash into their operating systems, for 99.99999% of intents and purposes and users.
We're not discussing whether the source code for XNU/Darwin/Mach/MacOS itself ought to be open, which is another question entirely. (Obviously everyone would sooner it be open than not open, in a first-order analysis, but, as with medical patents and the like, a proper analysis would have to ask whether it would even have existed if its source code were to be open.)
[0] Or rather a non-moot point, for the pedants.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago>[ ... ] as with medical patents and the like, a proper analysis would have to ask whether it would even have existed if its source code were to be open. The overwhelming majority of XNU/Mach was created as open source. It is quite unlikely that macOS would exist today if those components had not been created under an open source license.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago> Like I said to the other commenter, the source code for the software being discussed already is available I was replying to this remark: > Most users – hell, most developers – do not give a toss about having the source code for software that's shipped with MacOS.