4 ms·

Really not much to see here, as the author originally did not know Apple uses stone age FOSS tools because of GPLv3. Sources here: http://opensource.apple.com

Really not much to see here, as the author originally did not know Apple uses stone age FOSS tools because of GPLv3. Sources here: http://opensource.apple.com http://opensource.apple.com Apple doesn't seem timely in getting sources put up. Wayback Machine shows that 10.9.5 was posted around October 7th even though that update was distributed to users on September 17 (~20 day gap), so they're not exactly adhering to the license as they should. Also there is no sources for 10.10 and does iOS 7 and 8 really use no GPL'd or other FOSS'd code?

sjwright 12y ago
> they're not exactly adhering to the license as they should Correct me if I'm wrong, but the licenses don't require Apple to proactively publish sources, they just need to be able to supply them upon request.
- danieldk 12y ago
  Indeed, that's what the GPL requires. There is absolutely no necessity to put the sources online like they do. Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
  - brymaster 12y ago
    Actually, it's in Apple's best interests to simply post the sources online and not play fast and loose with licensing as you're suggesting. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#Wh... Source is not distributed along with their binaries nor is a written offer to receive source code that I've seen. http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1761 http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1761 & http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
ghostly_s 12y ago
Apple considers iOS to be a branch of OS X, so I imagine they consider it covered by these releases. I can't really imagine what FOSS code they would feel compelled to include in iOS that's not already in OS X, anyway.

sjwright 12y ago

> they're not exactly adhering to the license as they should Correct me if I'm wrong, but the licenses don't require Apple to proactively publish sources, they just need to be able to supply them upon request.

danieldk 12y ago
Indeed, that's what the GPL requires. There is absolutely no necessity to put the sources online like they do. Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
- brymaster 12y ago
  Actually, it's in Apple's best interests to simply post the sources online and not play fast and loose with licensing as you're suggesting. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#Wh... Source is not distributed along with their binaries nor is a written offer to receive source code that I've seen. http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1761 http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1761 & http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

ghostly_s 12y ago

Apple considers iOS to be a branch of OS X, so I imagine they consider it covered by these releases. I can't really imagine what FOSS code they would feel compelled to include in iOS that's not already in OS X, anyway.