7 ms·

Here's a link to the current project's source if anyone is interested: https://github.com/researchkit https://github.com/researchkit Love that Apple is going o

• baldfat 12y ago
  EDIT (To Clarify) Warning I am Strongly Anti-Apple Bias: Apple has a fairly decent Open Source history. http://www.opensource.apple.com http://www.opensource.apple.com There is things to complain about but there are more I am concerned with in regards to Open Source (Oracle). EDIT: I don't like Apple's products or the way the conduct business BUT I think they have done more good for Open Source than bad.
  • suyash 12y ago
    I can sense some Strong Anti-Oracle Bias here. Oracle is one of the major contributor to open source, see the lineup here, chances are you're using some of them: https://oss.oracle.com/ https://oss.oracle.com/ starts with Java
    • Joky 12y ago
      Java, is it the thing they used to sue on API copyright? Good demonstration of how to mess with "open-source" IMO. If you remove what they got from Sun, what reminds?
      • suyash 12y ago
        That is a different topic altogether. I'm referring to Open JDK. Ever heard of the fasted embedded database engine called Berkeley DB. Doesn't matter came from where, Sun or what ever is still being developed and contributed in the open source environment.
        • Joky 12y ago
          I disagree, it matters because acquiring a technology that has an existing open-source community (that can fork your codebase...) is not the same things as releasing your internally developed technology as open-source and build a community around. Looking at OpenOffice or MySQL, it does not seem that Oracle had a great success with open-source communities. And the Java topic is not different altogether, it is disturbing to claim to be "open-source friendly" when you release an open-source implementation for the JVM but sue on the basis that the API is copyrighted. What is off-topic it talking about Oracle at all in this thread ;-)
        • feld 12y ago
          I hope you're joking. BerkleyDB is a mess. From Wikipedia: ----- Oracle Corporation makes versions 2.0 and higher of Berkeley DB available under a dual license.[15] The sleepycat license license is a 2-clause BSD license with an additional copyleft clause similar to the GNU GPL version 2's Section 3, requiring source code of an application using Berkeley DB to be made available for a nominal fee. As of Berkeley DB release 6.0, the Oracle Corporation has relicensed Berkeley DB under the GNU AGPL v3.[16] As of July 2011, Oracle's list price for non-copyleft Berkeley DB licenses varies between 900 and 13,800 USD per processor. -----
          • duskwuff 12y ago
            That's the AGPL, mind you. One of the most ridiculous and restrictive "open-source" licenses created; it's not really intended to be applied to libraries, and is incompatible with every other license in existence, including even the standard GPL. Applying it to a library makes the open-source version effectively unusable. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
      • pjmlp 12y ago
        Sun would have sued Google if they had the money for the lawyers[0]. Initially I was partnering with Google, but now I side with Oracle's decision, as it is now proven how Google just pulled a Microsoft and fragmented the Java eco-system. Now we are stuck with partial Java 7 assuming 4.4 devices, good luck using try-with resources in lower versions and no plan for future versions as of the Android Developers Fireside at Google IO 2014. The Android team seems more interested in porting the whole Eclipse/Ant infrastructure, building more Google APIs or making Android run everywhere instead of improving the language support. [0] http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/my_attitude_on_oracle_v#comments http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/my_attitude_on_oracle...
        • pyre 12y ago
          > Initially I was partnering with Google, but now I side with Oracle's decision, as it is now proven how Google just pulled a Microsoft and fragmented the Java eco-system. I'm not sure that's a good enough reason so say that it's "ok" to claim that an API is copyrightable. The idea that I might have to ask someone permission just to make API-compatible alternate implementation seems ridiculous.
        • magicalist 12y ago
          > Sun would have sued Google if they had the money for the lawyers[0]. Actually: > Just because Sun didn't have patent suits in our genetic code doesn't mean we didn't feel wronged implies just the opposite. The rest of your post has nothing to do with whether APIs should be copyrightable or not.
        • baldfat 12y ago
          Actually another post on Sun wouldn't have sued. Sun's CEO Jonathan Schwartz testified on behave of Google. He even blogged a congratulations to Google for releasing Android running Java. http://web.archive.org/web/20101023072550/http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/congratulations_google http://web.archive.org/web/20101023072550/http://blogs.sun.c... http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/26/2977858/former-sun-ceo-jonathan-schwartz-testifies-for-google-oracle-trial http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/26/2977858/former-sun-ceo-jon...
      • yellowapple 12y ago
        MySQL, which - as one of the worst victims of Oracle's sidaM Touch - ended up being forked into MariaDB, and is now effectively irrelevant outside of legacy deployments since anyone who knows what they're doing has switched to PostgreSQL and anyone who doesn't know what they're doing has switched to MongoDB. MySQL as packaged by Oracle is quite literally a corpse. MariaDB is a reanimated corpse. And such is the tale of an open-source product acquired by a multi-billion-dollar company who made those multiple billions of dollars entirely on selling a commercial product against which the open-source product competed. Competition-elimination-by-acquisition at its finest.
        • SEJeff 12y ago
          "MariaDB is a reanimated corpse" - Citation Needed Looks like to me, like it is far from a corpse: https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commits/10.1 https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commits/10.1 I agree with you on both PostgreSQL and MongoDB, but saying MariaDB is a corpse is ignorant at best.
          • yellowapple 12y ago
            That would be the "reanimated" part of "reanimated corpse"; I think you've significantly misinterpreted my point there. MariaDB is not dead; it's undead. A zombie. Or perhaps resurrected and now serving as a database messiah. Whatever the case, it's the end-result of something that's dead (MySQL) no longer being dead.
      • s73v3r 12y ago
        Open source doesn't mean you get to ignore the license.
        • suyash 12y ago
          Exactly folks are confused between freeware and open source software.
    • jsmthrowaway 12y ago
      It doesn't take anti-Oracle bias to reflect upon OpenSolaris and other direct assaults on open source undertaken by the company. Defend them all you want, you're still on the wrong side. Trust them to do the right thing at your peril.
    • yellowapple 12y ago
      Hahahahahahahahaha. Fucking no. Effectively all of Oracle's "open source" things come from Sun Microsystems, upon which Oracle happily latched onto and sucked dry. Oracle has what's called the "sidaM Touch". It's like the Midas Touch, but instead of gold, everything Oracle touches turns to shit: Java -> shit (though maybe slightly less so now). Solaris -> shit. OpenSolaris -> shit, now dead (thank the Lord for illumos). OpenOffice -> shit. GridEngine -> shit. Lustre -> almost became shit and died; would have if it weren't for the Oracle-side devs jumping ship. NetBeans -> in the process of becoming shit. MySQL -> shit (though it pretty much already was; somehow, though, Oracle managed to make that worse and prompt the existence of MariaDB); I realize this wasn't Sun's, but it's still an open-source project that Oracle assaulted, robbed, and left to die on the cold streets by the dock where Larry Ellison's (admittedly pretty badass) sailboat is docked. OpenDS -> dead (though it was mercifully forked into OpenDJ). Project Wonderland -> now limping around as "Open Wonderland" after Oracle forcibly amputated its leg. By some miracle, the only things that haven't completely turned to shit or died (or both) yet are Virtualbox and SPARC (though OpenSPARC is effectively dead since Oracle didn't continue it).
      • pm 12y ago
        I call the opposite of the Midas touch the Romero touch myself.
      • rimantas 12y ago
        However, even before MySQL was acquired by Sun the most serious engine—InnoDB which got bought by Oracle in 2005 but still kept open source.
        • yellowapple 12y ago
          MySQL wasn't acquired by Sun; that was a direct acquisition by Oracle in order to snuff out the most significant player in the realm of open-source SQL databases (and thus snuff out one of the most significant competitors to Oracle's flagship, Oracle DB). As a result, MySQL is effectively dead outside of legacy deployments that haven't migrated to PostgreSQL, MariaDB, or one of the NoSQL monstrosities like MongoDB. Even InnoDB was eventually forked; MariaDB and Percona both use XtraDB nowadays, probably because they didn't feel like being tied to something that - like every other open-source project Oracle has owned - would be fated to eventually wither and die.
    • baldfat 12y ago
      > Sense some Strong Anti-Oracle Bias here Use to be a System Librarian and had to run Oracle DB. Issues: 1. OpenOffice gave it to Apache Foundation and not LibreOffice 2. MySQL is abandoned by many major users but we have MariaDB 3. Java suite against Google to make API Copyright-able 4. Oracle's White Paper stating that Open Source cost more and is less reliable. 5. Oracle Linux (Just a rip off of Red Hat) 6. KSplice bought by Oracle none of us gets to use re-bootless kernel patches with that technology since it has no development after it was bought 3 years ago. EDIT (FALSER: Was going off the top of my head) It is available to people who purchase support convert to Oracle Linux and they are making updates to legacy customers (Which is good to know)) corrected bellow. I could go on about Oracle :) So yes a bias against Oracle's Open Source stances and activities.
      • fragmede 12y ago
        Just to clarify, legacy Ksplice customers are still supported under their original contracts, Ksplice is available to new customers with Oracle Premier Support, and finally, Ksplice updates are still being provided for free for all current Ubuntu and Fedora distros. Disclaimer: I'm on the Ksplice team.
    • jshevek 12y ago
      Publishing lots of code under an OS license does NOT make one a valued contributor to the open source world, especially when you have a history of anti-OS litigation.
  • nnutter 12y ago
    "Strongly Anti-Apple Bias here" was something you assumed that may or may not be correct.
    • Swizec 12y ago
      I think baldfat was talking about themselves. They've got a strong anti-Apple bias, but still think Apple's got a decent history of opensource.
      • nnutter 12y ago
        I'm laughing at the irony of my own comment.
  • frewsxcv 12y ago
    Complying with copyright is not a great example of "Open Source history"
    • jws 12y ago
      At least the first four in the OS X 10.10 tree are apple original software, not just source dumps of other people's OSS products. Ok, that's terrible statistics since the files are alphabetized and Apple comes early. But take a look through there at the copyright owners and you'll see lots of original software released as open source.
    • skrpwr 12y ago
      Complying with copyright is the entire premise of copyleft aka the GPL.
    • Argorak 12y ago
      Apple has funded clang and LLVM, maintains CUPS, funded MacRuby for a while and packaged a lot of OS Software for their system, promoting it. Not all is gold, but that's certainly more than "complying with copyright".
  • xasos 12y ago
    I think now that it's on GitHub, it's a lot more accessible and easier for developers to start pulling the source
  • criley2 12y ago
    "Apple has a fairly decent Open Source history." To me, this is like calling someone who occasionally eats a vegan diet a "Fairly decent Vegan". No, if you eat meat or cheese on a regular basis you're a terrible Vegan! Just because Apple releases the source code as read-only doesn't really make them fairly decent with open source. To me, if you're not willing to pull commits from outside your walled garden or allow external forks of your technologies, then you're terrible at open source. Sure, you technically checked off the very first checkbox ("make source available") but you stopped there. That's not a success, that's a stillborn effort... Heck, when I look at the wikipedia entry for Open Source, the first line is: "In production and development, open source as a development model promotes a universal access via a free license to a product's design or blueprint, and universal redistribution of that design or blueprint, including subsequent improvements to it by anyone." Which I don't think Apple is really engaging with any of the OSS spirit on any level. I mean is that what open source is now? As long as the source code is technically viewable, it's "open source software" now?
    • CHY872 12y ago
      The Wikipedia article does not mean that they have to reincorporate the changes of others into their code. Nevertheless, they are doing so. https://github.com/ResearchKit/ResearchKit/pull/20 https://github.com/ResearchKit/ResearchKit/pull/20
    • yellowapple 12y ago
      > To me, if you're not willing to pull commits from outside your walled garden or allow external forks of your technologies, then you're terrible at open source. Sure, you technically checked off the very first checkbox ("make source available") but you stopped there. That's not a success, that's a stillborn effort... That's still significantly better than what a lot of big "open-source" companies do. Not that I disagree with you. Just putting things into perspective.
    • jshevek 12y ago
      Why is this downvoted? His points are valid. Apple's business models are hostile towards open source software in most cases.
  • saurik 12y ago
    When Apple stops releasing things on that website for iOS and Xcode (and yes: they do still have some things that are at least LGPL in those distributions, and no: it is not sufficient to give me very-similar-but-slightly-different code from OS X) only when I get around to making a public statement (which I absolutely hate doing) over things they don't send me when I request them via email, maybe they will have some right to getting the praise you are deciding to lavish. (Speaking of which, I have given them months to respond to my most recent requests for a bunch of things; I have gotten so used to Apple giving open source the finger, and thereby have backup plans involving disassembles for most of the things I care about at this point, I had forgotten to even follow up on them failing to release anything :/.) (As for Oracle, I think Apple is much more harmful, as at least Oracle is upfront about where you stand, so the greater community knows to handle them with care and avoid putting them in the center of something they will later come to regret.)
  • jheriko 12y ago
    this is awesome, never knew it was there. i can never forget the freetype hinting death trap... that thing persisted for too long, and was unreasonable to start with. i think i can forgive now that i have seen this. :) EDIT: i take it back, i got the wrong end of the stick, it looks like they have open sourced important things, but actually its a list of nothing.