3 ms·
Since this is touching Linux, and Linux is copy left, they _have_ to do this.
by nhumrich 1y ago
Since this is touching Linux, and Linux is copy left, they _have_ to do this.
- n2d4 1y agoTouching Linux would not be enough. It would have to be a derivative work, which this is (probably?) not. Besides, I think OP wasn't talking about licenses; Apple has a lot of software under FOSS licenses. But usually, with their open-source projects, they reject most incoming contributions and don't really foster a community for them.
- TimTheTinker 1y ago> derivative work Or distributing builds of something that statically links to it. (Which some would argue creates a derivative work.)
- jen20 1y agoThis doesn’t do that, though.
- pxc 1y agoIf the license of this project were determined by obligations to the Linux kernel, it would be GPLv2, not Apache License 2.0!
- mirashii 1y agoIn addition to the other comments about the fact that this wasn't forced to adopt the GPL, even if it were, there's nothing in the license that forces you to work with the community to take contributions from the public. You can have an entirely closed development process, take no feedback, accept no patches, and release no source code until specifically asked to do so. They don't have to do literally any of this.
- pxc 1y agoRight! The exciting thing is the approach, not the license.
- Aurornis 1y agoThe comment was about them welcoming contributions, not making it open source.