9 ms·

Why is iOS only disclosed up to version 6.1.3? https://opensource.apple.com/ https://opensource.apple.com/

• JohnTHaller 12y ago
  I believe Apple stopped releasing any source for iOS at that point. The open source projects they pull from are BSD/MIT which permits and encourages closed source usage.
  • colinbartlett 12y ago
    Presuming OS X pulls from the same licensees, why do they release those revisions but not iOS?
    • 0x0 12y ago
      Wild guess: while iOS' version of XNU is often one major version ahead of OSX, there is no way for 3rd party developers to write kexts on that platform (beyond jailbreaking). Maybe they don't want to help jailbreakers.
  • saurik 12y ago
    WebCore and JavaScriptCore are LGPL, so they can't stop providing the source code for their mobile builds. I sent Apple a request for disclosure a couple days ago. In a week or so if I haven't gotten anything I will start escalating.
    • orbitur 12y ago
      Can you not get to that stuff through the WebKit repo? edit: Looks like you can: https://github.com/WebKit/webkit/tree/master/Source https://github.com/WebKit/webkit/tree/master/Source This is where I was digging to find whether or not JavaScriptCore would still work with WKWebView. Spoiler: it won't.
      • MAGZine 12y ago
        Yeah, you can get the webkit source through the webkit repo. however, since it's under lgpl, any source you write that uses webkit must also be shared. this is why some of EA's code is published: http://gpl.ea.com/ http://gpl.ea.com/
        • ClashTheBunny 12y ago
          That's GPL, not LGPL. LGPL only requires you to release the source of the part you used, nothing that links with it.
          • yaeger 12y ago
            I still haven't got a clue what needs to be done if I used a component with, say MIT license which in turn uses a dependency lib that is LGPL licensed. That components vendor of course then has to make the source of the LGPL dependency available on request. But what about me? What would I need to do if I wanted to sell a closed source product that uses this MIT licensed component which is of course totally permitted my the MIT license. Would I have to stop using this MIT licensed component unless I also want to provide the source code of a dependency lib that I might not even be aware of?
            • tspiteri 12y ago
              If your distributed object code includes a library that is under the LGPL, then you must also make the source of that LGPL library available on request, and users should be able to change that LGPL library in your project with their modified version of that LGPL library. So, if I remember well, you can either (a) use dynamic linking so that the user can replace your version of the LGPL library with their modified version, or you can (b) provide object code that can be linked with their modified version of the LGPL library.
            • Someone 12y ago
              IANAL, but are at least two cases of "was not aware of": if that MIT licensed package mentioned the LGPL dependency, you could and should have been aware of the dependency, and I think you must mention it in your license, and provide the source on request. If, on the other hand, the MIT licensed product doesn't mention the dependency, and you cannot be expected to have learnt of it elsewhere, you should be of the hook, both ethically and as far as damage lawsuits go. As soon as that "expected to know of" changes, you must change your license and provide the source on request (or remove the dependency or stop shipping your entire product) Of course, that is an opinion and just theoretical. In practice, who knows what will happen? That is one reason large companies are/used to be worried about using any source that doesn't ship with extensive disclaimers. Large companies are expected to spend more effort researching these things. That lowers the threshold for "should have known". They generally also have more money. That makes them more open for lawsuits if they are found to walk in a gray area.
    • cpach 12y ago
      Good! I hope they’ll respond to you within a reasonable time frame.
  • feld 12y ago
    It doesn't encourage, it merely permits. It does encourage you to upstream your changes so you don't have to hire developers to keep up with upstream's improvements and deal with merge hell.
    • budu3 12y ago
      Does Apple upstream any of their changes?
    • JohnTHaller 12y ago
      The license absolutely doesn't encourage you to share. The technical complexity of managing a project might, but the license is purposely designed so anyone can take without giving.