4 ms·

Wow! Amazed to see Apple is still committing to the repo (albeit a huge code dump, latest of which was ~5 months ago)!

by bch 3y ago

ManuelKiessling 3y ago
Well, they don’t really have a choice, do they? My uninformed understanding is: Darwin is Open Source, so when they improve/extend/modify it for their own needs (Darwin still is the foundation for macOS, iOS etc.), they must make those changes available.
- wbl 3y ago
  Not the kernel: that's BSD licensed
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  No; open source encompasses copyleft, which broadly requires derivative works to be under the same or similar license, and permissive licenses, which generally don't care and are happy to let you incorporate the code in differently licensed derivatives up to and including producing completely proprietary programs using permissively licensed open source code. Darwin largely uses permissive license code, in particular from the BSDs, which means that it's under very little obligation to share. (IANAL and this is somewhat oversimplified, but that's the gist)
- Alupis 3y ago
  How exactly would someone prove they improved/extended/modified the source? These sort of copy-left licenses rely an awful lot on good faith, and that does not contend for human nature. Even if someone could prove it - good luck legally compelling Apple to do anything.
  - samatman 3y ago
    > How exactly would someone prove they improved/extended/modified the source? Disassembly would work. > These sort of copy-left licenses rely an awful lot on good faith, and that does not contend for human nature. This is not a copyleft license. Also, copyleft licenses rely on lawsuit, more than good faith. > Even if someone could prove it - good luck legally compelling Apple to do anything. If Apple gets sued, they do have to show up in court. If they lose, they must pay damages. If they're injuncted, and do not comply with the injunction, the courts can take any number of actions against them in response. I don't sit on Apple's board, but I can't imagine them preferring an arbitrarily-large fine over releasing GPL-licensed code which Apple modified without complying with the license.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      > If Apple gets sued, they do have to show up in court This is a very naïve view of the legal process. Apple could, and would drag the process out and make it as costly/lengthy as possible. They can outlast any feasible plaintiff - especially in the FOSS world (what we're discussing here). It matters not how just or righteous your case may be. It only matters how deep your pockets are. Apple's are much deeper than FSF or any other organization that would bring a suit. It's that simple... > Disassembly would work. Doing so would violate their EULA/TOS and expose yourself to a suit as well. Fun times. > Also, copyleft licenses rely on lawsuit, more than good faith How many of those cases have actually seen a courtroom - and how many did the plaintiffs actually prevail?
- numpad0 3y ago
  Actually, you don't have to. For GPL software you must provide source code for the binary, and can't put it under NDA, that is many fails to comply with. But you don't have to upload the files onto Internet or anything. This is about BSD so it's even less than that, you only have to display correct attributions. You can refuse to distribute binary and/or source code, or your private copy thereof, entirely, with FOSS. You don't have to send your fork to non-users randomly asking for it, even with AGPLv3. It's just a totally fine and also easy conformance that is slightly beneficial to all.

Wow! Amazed to see Apple is still committing to the repo (albeit a huge code dump, latest of which was ~5 months ago)!

by bch 3y ago

Wow! Amazed to see Apple is still committing to the repo (albeit a huge code dump, latest of which was ~5 months ago)!

Well, they don’t really have a choice, do they? My uninformed understanding is: Darwin is Open Source, so when they improve/extend/modify it for their own needs (Darwin still is the foundation for macOS, iOS etc.), they must make those changes available.

wbl 3y ago
Not the kernel: that's BSD licensed
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
No; open source encompasses copyleft, which broadly requires derivative works to be under the same or similar license, and permissive licenses, which generally don't care and are happy to let you incorporate the code in differently licensed derivatives up to and including producing completely proprietary programs using permissively licensed open source code. Darwin largely uses permissive license code, in particular from the BSDs, which means that it's under very little obligation to share. (IANAL and this is somewhat oversimplified, but that's the gist)
Alupis 3y ago
How exactly would someone prove they improved/extended/modified the source? These sort of copy-left licenses rely an awful lot on good faith, and that does not contend for human nature. Even if someone could prove it - good luck legally compelling Apple to do anything.
- samatman 3y ago
  > How exactly would someone prove they improved/extended/modified the source? Disassembly would work. > These sort of copy-left licenses rely an awful lot on good faith, and that does not contend for human nature. This is not a copyleft license. Also, copyleft licenses rely on lawsuit, more than good faith. > Even if someone could prove it - good luck legally compelling Apple to do anything. If Apple gets sued, they do have to show up in court. If they lose, they must pay damages. If they're injuncted, and do not comply with the injunction, the courts can take any number of actions against them in response. I don't sit on Apple's board, but I can't imagine them preferring an arbitrarily-large fine over releasing GPL-licensed code which Apple modified without complying with the license.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    > If Apple gets sued, they do have to show up in court This is a very naïve view of the legal process. Apple could, and would drag the process out and make it as costly/lengthy as possible. They can outlast any feasible plaintiff - especially in the FOSS world (what we're discussing here). It matters not how just or righteous your case may be. It only matters how deep your pockets are. Apple's are much deeper than FSF or any other organization that would bring a suit. It's that simple... > Disassembly would work. Doing so would violate their EULA/TOS and expose yourself to a suit as well. Fun times. > Also, copyleft licenses rely on lawsuit, more than good faith How many of those cases have actually seen a courtroom - and how many did the plaintiffs actually prevail?
numpad0 3y ago
Actually, you don't have to. For GPL software you must provide source code for the binary, and can't put it under NDA, that is many fails to comply with. But you don't have to upload the files onto Internet or anything. This is about BSD so it's even less than that, you only have to display correct attributions. You can refuse to distribute binary and/or source code, or your private copy thereof, entirely, with FOSS. You don't have to send your fork to non-users randomly asking for it, even with AGPLv3. It's just a totally fine and also easy conformance that is slightly beneficial to all.