7 ms·

I used to work for Oracle. Something I heard several times around different parts of the company was that Larry believed that open source was a good way to buil

• gcb0 13y ago
  It would be ironic if you typed that on a mac or iphone.
  • jacobparker 13y ago
    That's... not very fair. Apple contributes a fair amount to many random open source projects and also runs a number of important ones (Webkit, Clang, LLVM, ...) The kernel to OS X/iOS is open source but this is not of any serious utility as far as I know :P
    • oblio 13y ago
      Aaaand the AppStore basically destroys Open Source since it doesn't allow distribution of GPL programs. If that's not FOSS hostile, I don't know what is...
      • chii 13y ago
        i dont understand the rationale for not allowing GPL'ed apps. Can someone explain it to me?
        • nevir 13y ago
          The TL;DR is that the app store EULA is incompatible with the GPL. The main issue is that the GPL stipulates that the licensor cannot restrict distribution above and beyond the GPL's terms. Because apps must also be distributed under Apple's ToS, the app author would violate the GPL (e.g. due to DRM and regional restrictions). Basically, this is Apple protecting their asses as well as the developer. Any downstream dev could sue you for using their GPL library (or at least force you off the app store). This is why build of VLC was yanked. The FSF has a good article on it: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-...
          • interpol_p 13y ago
            I'd like to hear more about this. Can you distribute on the official Google Play store and incorporate GPL code? Is this allowed because there is an alternate means of installing apps (side loading) which you must make available to all users? I'm curious if a developer can incorporate GPL code in their app and make it available only on Google Play or the Amazon App Store while supplying the relevant source code (or object files) — but not making the unsigned/unprotected APK available to the public.
      • nevir 13y ago
        GPL is not the only open source license out there. I guarantee that practically every app you use incorporates open source code. Blocking GPL doesn't seem to have hampered the amount of open source code written for the platforms, either. Look how many libs/projects target iOS! Hell, I consider GPL to be hostile party in that arena. As an open source author, I want people to use my code; that's it. I don't give a damn if they open source their own code base or fork. That's their choice. I have interacted with more than enough contributors on the "more loose" licenses. Plus, by going GPL you're effectively cutting off contributions from large companies that play in the OSS space (like Google)
        • jedbrown 13y ago
          Apple refused to update to any GPL-3 software, including GCC and GDB. Clang/LLVM is great, but it's not a complete replacement given that it's lacking commonly-needed things like OpenMP, thread-local storage, Fortran, and others. Valgrind chronically does not work properly on OSX because the Valgrind developers don't use it and Apple hasn't invested a modicum of effort in helping. I use BSD-2/MIT for my own work so I have to deal with not depending on libraries that are GPL-encumbered, but I still respect the GPL and think it's poor form for a platform to discriminate against it.
          • dietrichepp 13y ago
            Wait, are you saying that Apple is hostile towards the GPL because it contributed developer resources towards GPLv2 projects and shipped hardware with preinstalled GPLv2 binaries, and refuses to spend developer resources on contributing to GPLv3 projects? And are you blaming Apple for not devoting resources to Valgrind? From my perspective, GCC was becoming a tangled mess of code due to politically-motivated sabotage by the FSF. Nothing like LLVM bitcode would ever have made it into GCC because it would make GCC too modular, and because the FSF not only supports open-source software but opposes closed-source software, it is against modularity (since someone could potentially distribute closed-source frontend to GCC, if it were modular). This is not mere speculation, people have tried to fix architectural issues in GCC in the past and been shot down for explicitly this reason. You could even say this behavior is hostile. But this is nothing special. This is just another iteration of the conflict between BSD and GPL.
      • wavefunction 13y ago
        Make your own GPL app store. People can sideload all they want on their own devices if they're really interested. Besides, the iOS App store is pretty crappy anyways.
        • deleted 13y ago
          [deleted]
        • jacalata 13y ago
          Isn't restricting the use of open source software to those who are "really interested" part way to destroying it?
          • wavefunction 13y ago
            I guess I'm just a pragmatist, and I don't believe in forcing Apple to do anything with their own properties. If they want to conduct their business in a way that is unethical but legal, so be it. While we might bemoan the walled garden model that Apple has picked and most people's seeming readiness to go along with it, you might be surprised at how many people would be interested in a store specifically "curated" towards GPL apps.
            • jacalata 13y ago
              You can simultaneously believe that something is justifiable/natural and that it is destroying open source. I think the majority of people would not jailbreak to use such a store, thus limiting the potential audience and reducing the incentive for developers to release to it.
        • gergles 13y ago
          No, they can't, unless they are willing to pay Apple a $100 a year tax for the privilege.
      • gte910h 13y ago
        Apple doesn't destroy OSS. It DOES however make the GPL code unusable. I'm okay with that: I don't really like the gpl. There is a very vibrant non-gpl OSS community around OS X and iOS.
      • krichman 13y ago
        The App Store is openly hostile to freedom, let alone FOSS.
        • nevir 13y ago
          So is the GPL, imo.
          • NegativeK 13y ago
            As ridiculous as it sounds, that depends on your definition of freedom. BSD and such allow people the freedom to do almost anything with the code. Close it, leave it open, whatever. BSD grants you the freedom to deny a freedom. The GPL attempts to preserve that freedom for people other than the current recipient. GPL denies you the freedom to deny a freedom.
            • quadrangle 13y ago
              "the freedom to deny a freedom" is not freedom, it's power.
              • Jach 13y ago
                Yes, and the GPL is only as powerful as the copyright system that supports it. Some people publish under public domain in the US and something like the MIT license for other countries where that license is less restrictive than their particular public domain.
              • Drakim 13y ago
                The freedom to have a power is also a freedom. We as a society often want to restrict such powers though.
            • Shamanmuni 13y ago
              Yep, GPL preserves freedom in exactly the same way modern societies preserve freedom for their citizens. You are free, everyone who lives in the country is also free and you're not allowed to enslave other people. Of course, someone could make the argument that preventing you from owning slaves denies you some freedom. And from a narrow and purely technical side he would be right. However, which society would you say has more freedom, the one in which slavery is forbidden, or the other? I think the same argument applies to FOSS.
      • aaronbrethorst 13y ago
        An infinitesimal subset of all iOS apps that use open source components: https://www.cocoacontrols.com/apps https://www.cocoacontrols.com/apps
      • rimantas 13y ago
        Actually it is more like GPL does not allow software to be distributed under AppStore EULA.
        • quadrangle 13y ago
          It's not either specifically blocking the other, it's both. The two rules specify restrictions that are incompatible with the other. GPL says: no taking away certain freedoms. AppStore EULA says: no allowing certain freedoms.
      • rimantas 13y ago
        GPL != FOSS. And if you think AppStore is FOSS hostile, you really don't know much.
      • sambeau 13y ago
        Apple did not create the need for the App Store any more than locksmiths created the need for us all to live in locked homes. The App Store was created by a small group of Malware writers, virus creators and Spammers who exploited their freedoms to make computers a dangerous, confusing environment for the majority of its users who are also the less technically able members of society. The fact that many geeks seem to think that the App Store reduces their freedom in any way beggars belief. You have the freedom to use other devices or create new devices that live outside this eco-system: your Grandparents and young children do not. Get of your high-legged blinkered horse and take a look at the real users of the technology you no-doubt help create. They are exploited, patronised, ridiculed and blamed for merely wanting to share the most important technology of the last 200 years with us. Rather than try to include them we ostracise them and call them idiots. Once again I was recently reminded why we need the App Store. I spent some of my weekend helping my ex and our 10-year-old son discover why his innocent use of his mothers' work laptop to look at a flash gaming site has caused her PhD thesis to become infected with a virus and all her emails to be sent back to her as containing malware. Is it my ex's fault for letting our son use her work laptop? Is it his fault for not understanding the dangers of the internet? Is it her fault for not having the correct settings set or the correct anti-virus protection? Is it her department's IT guys' fault for not enforcing a stricter policy? It's the fault of the fucking arseholes who write malware and deliberately target children and other computing novices by presenting them with ten choices of download button and flashing click-me-now popups that look like system controls. Either that or it's my fault for not buying my sons an iPad.
        • annnnd 13y ago
          I wanted to say that your answer really doesn't address what the parent was saying, but I see your point now... Integral part of GPL is the ability for users to change their software, and Apple doesn't allow that (both for the reasons you stated and because... well, a work "monopoly" comes to mind ;). Nicely put.
          • sambeau 13y ago
            Ha. Yes, maybe I went slightly tangential due to my weekend experience but I think the core is relevant: Some geeks accuse the App Store of eroding our freedoms (and the freedom of free software). I say that truly free software is a luxury that we geeks afford ourselves but make no real effort to share with the less-technical while we intellectually discount the mountainous problem of malicious software that makes non-geeks lives' a misery. It is the latter that erodes the freedoms our our software not the the App Store. Weight & measures, environmental health departments, competition commissions, ombudsmen.. etc. all erode some freedoms while protecting others. This is, sadly, a necessary trade-off.
    • hazov 13y ago
      Well, CUPS still did not suffered what Oracle's is doing to MySQL.
    • devcpp 13y ago
      Open Source? Who cares about open source? What we're talking about is free software. The bulk of the code they write is all-rights-reserved.
  • daemonl 13y ago
    Or a Dell or a Samsung or a Lenovo, any hardware, obviously, or Windows...
    • gcb0 13y ago
      Dell and lenovo does not manufacture anything that requires even a driver. And the stuff they do manufacture they choose providers that actually are pretty good on providing linux support.
  • csomar 13y ago
    That's a wrong comparison. I think the author is complaining about Oracle taking advantage of Open Source and not giving back. I don't think he's worried about companies developing closed-source software for profit.
    • mdesq 13y ago
      Correct. Anything that had some kind of open source license (particularly for acquired products in spaces where Oracle had little actual experience) required justification for why the license had to be that way to maximize the business value to Oracle. Not a single penny could leak from the purse, even on speculation that it would generate good will and lead to a better market position etc. It was solely about the money, and it felt like we were reminded of this every single day. This was in product management, so that probably had something to do with it.