6 ms·

Like Palm's WebOS open source releases [0], this is the code of the modifications they made to open-source projects, some of which they are supposed to release

by markbao 15y ago

Like Palm's WebOS open source releases [0], this is the code of the modifications they made to open-source projects, some of which they are supposed to release under GPL. The title should be updated to reflect this. [0]: http://opensource.palm.com/packages.html http://opensource.palm.com/packages.html

Xuzz 15y ago
Apple has an equivalent page for iOS, but they've done a very good job phasing out anything GPL or LGPL licensed, and are now down to a very small set of tools with any code released: http://opensource.apple.com/ http://opensource.apple.com/
- mp3geek 15y ago
  The very reason why I prefer the GPL/LGPL over the BSD license, no obligation to give back/share with the community.
  - jamesaguilar 15y ago
    I don't get it. What purpose do the licenses serve if the software goes unused?
    - nknight 15y ago
      You could basically say the same thing about any proprietary license. It won't go unused by anyone who needs it and is willing to abide by the provisions of the license, same as any other software license. And there are many millions of people happily using GPL'd software every day.
  - pallinder 15y ago
    And the very reason I dont, I have no intention of forcing my views of what should be done with the sc onto people that might benefit from using it.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      You mean distribute it, not use it.
- tobylane 15y ago
  It seems that what is left of GPL software there is either things that they've changed beyond recognition since taking on (webkit) or absolutely basic parts like gcc. Bit of a shame the larger pieces, all the way up to Darwin have nearly died.
- nknight 15y ago
  Not sure what you mean, exactly. GCC went away for 5.x, sure, but that's because they've switched over to clang, which may not be (L)GPL, but is open source, and I haven't heard any stories of secret modifications to it. Everything else seems to have remained from one iOS release to the next...?
nikcub 15y ago
This is why, in my opinion, having the GPL force code sharing may sound nice in theory, but in practice it isn't very interesting. Amazon are just providing the bare essentials, there is no development community here, no way for them to take back any changes, no user or developer feedback, no documentation, build instructions, etc. - just a site that reads and looks like a legal obligation (and it is in the legal section of the Kindle docs). Compare this to Webkit - where there is no requirement to share code, but you have a number of companies that have setup very successful developer communities around the code base and a lot of products taking advantage of the work with both the rendering engine and the Javascript interpreters. You can require somebody to release code, but you can't force them to actively support it.
- diminish 15y ago
  Kindle source code against KHTML/Webkit? I would rather compare it to OS/X or iOS which utilized the BSD and other open source codes and.. where is the community around them? oh no, where is the source code for them? Or did they just suck the open source code like a black hole? Now why would I blame GPL, because it forced Kindle to release at least, so that someone can benefit.
  - anon1385 15y ago
    >where is the community around them? http://www.puredarwin.org/ http://www.puredarwin.org/ >where is the source code for them? http://opensource.apple.com/release/ios-50/ http://opensource.apple.com/release/ios-50/ http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1072/ http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1072/
- wheels 15y ago
  > Compare this to Webkit - where there is no requirement to share code, but you have a number of companies that have setup very successful developer communities around the code base... Huh? Webkit was based on an open source project (KHTML under the LGPL) and there is a requirement that the code be shared. Also Apple basically did the same thing as Amazon did here at first: they just dropped huge tarballs on the developers with no comments. In fact, attempting to merge Apple's changes in without comments was so divisive that the forks split, and only years later did Apple open up to an extent with WebKit that it became a proper collaborative effort. As for whether or not it's useful in practice ... note that I am one of the authors of one of the things they released, and my first reaction was to run a diff against the original to see if they'd made any interesting changes (they haven't).

by markbao 15y ago

Xuzz 15y ago

Apple has an equivalent page for iOS, but they've done a very good job phasing out anything GPL or LGPL licensed, and are now down to a very small set of tools with any code released: http://opensource.apple.com/ http://opensource.apple.com/

mp3geek 15y ago
The very reason why I prefer the GPL/LGPL over the BSD license, no obligation to give back/share with the community.
- jamesaguilar 15y ago
  I don't get it. What purpose do the licenses serve if the software goes unused?
  - nknight 15y ago
    You could basically say the same thing about any proprietary license. It won't go unused by anyone who needs it and is willing to abide by the provisions of the license, same as any other software license. And there are many millions of people happily using GPL'd software every day.
- pallinder 15y ago
  And the very reason I dont, I have no intention of forcing my views of what should be done with the sc onto people that might benefit from using it.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    You mean distribute it, not use it.
tobylane 15y ago
It seems that what is left of GPL software there is either things that they've changed beyond recognition since taking on (webkit) or absolutely basic parts like gcc. Bit of a shame the larger pieces, all the way up to Darwin have nearly died.
nknight 15y ago
Not sure what you mean, exactly. GCC went away for 5.x, sure, but that's because they've switched over to clang, which may not be (L)GPL, but is open source, and I haven't heard any stories of secret modifications to it. Everything else seems to have remained from one iOS release to the next...?

nikcub 15y ago

This is why, in my opinion, having the GPL force code sharing may sound nice in theory, but in practice it isn't very interesting. Amazon are just providing the bare essentials, there is no development community here, no way for them to take back any changes, no user or developer feedback, no documentation, build instructions, etc. - just a site that reads and looks like a legal obligation (and it is in the legal section of the Kindle docs). Compare this to Webkit - where there is no requirement to share code, but you have a number of companies that have setup very successful developer communities around the code base and a lot of products taking advantage of the work with both the rendering engine and the Javascript interpreters. You can require somebody to release code, but you can't force them to actively support it.

diminish 15y ago
Kindle source code against KHTML/Webkit? I would rather compare it to OS/X or iOS which utilized the BSD and other open source codes and.. where is the community around them? oh no, where is the source code for them? Or did they just suck the open source code like a black hole? Now why would I blame GPL, because it forced Kindle to release at least, so that someone can benefit.
- anon1385 15y ago
  >where is the community around them? http://www.puredarwin.org/ http://www.puredarwin.org/ >where is the source code for them? http://opensource.apple.com/release/ios-50/ http://opensource.apple.com/release/ios-50/ http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1072/ http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1072/
wheels 15y ago
> Compare this to Webkit - where there is no requirement to share code, but you have a number of companies that have setup very successful developer communities around the code base... Huh? Webkit was based on an open source project (KHTML under the LGPL) and there is a requirement that the code be shared. Also Apple basically did the same thing as Amazon did here at first: they just dropped huge tarballs on the developers with no comments. In fact, attempting to merge Apple's changes in without comments was so divisive that the forks split, and only years later did Apple open up to an extent with WebKit that it became a proper collaborative effort. As for whether or not it's useful in practice ... note that I am one of the authors of one of the things they released, and my first reaction was to run a diff against the original to see if they'd made any interesting changes (they haven't).