32 ms·

This seems a little extreme. "To me, Apple's not-yet-executed move to liberate some of the Swift 2.0 code seems a tactical stunt to win over developers who cur

by owenwil 11y ago

This seems a little extreme. "To me, Apple's not-yet-executed move to liberate some of the Swift 2.0 code seems a tactical stunt to win over developers who currently prefer the relatively more open nature of the Android/Linux platform." They said why this was the case -- Swift 2.0 isn't finished yet -- but have pledged to open-source the entire thing.

ossreality 11y ago
Just like FaceTime. And I don't want to hear the "legal stopped it", because I don't want to hear that lame as s excuse in a year when Swift 2.0 still isn't OSS.
wumbernang 11y ago
It isn't happening until it has happened. Also sure a compiler may drop but its useless without a pile of libs.
glandium 11y ago
> They said why this was the case -- Swift 2.0 isn't finished yet You know what else isn't finished? The vast majority of open-source software. You don't need something to be finished to open-source it. That feels like the Android model to open-source: source code dumps at convenient times. The only valid reason not to open-source when you say you will is that you don't have all the copyright to do so, and are actively rewriting the bits you can't open-source.
- cmsj 11y ago
  That is really a separate question though. Open Source is simply about licensing of a software release, it says nothing about the nature of the development community that produced the software. An open, collaborative development community in an Open Source or Free Software project, is a very good thing, but it is a separate thing.
shiggerino 11y ago
What they have done is pledge to kill software freedom. Whether they release Swift 2.0 now or later is irrelevant.
- antimagic 11y ago
  Please feel free to provide us with a link to this "pledge". As far as I'm aware, Apple has never done any such thing.
- cmsj 11y ago
  I don't think you have any evidence of such a pledge. Personally, I think Apple doesn't give a fig about software freedom. I don't think they are in favour of it, or against it, they simply want to ship their products. For a time they were happy to use GPL software to help them do that, but then v3 happened and they have been moving away from the projects that switched to v3. It's impossible to argue that WebKit, LLVM, Swift, etc. are intended "to kill software freedom". They are simply software projects that exist and release code under an OSI license (or will do, in the case of Swift). If Apple/Google/others can push these projects beyond where things like GCC are, that is more the fault of the GCC project for not being nimble enough to stay on the leading edge (if it ever was there). It's also not because they are determined to kill projects like GCC, it's because they need really good compilers/renderers/etc.
  - shiggerino 11y ago
    They were never happy to use copyleft software, and they (then NeXT, now Apple) have been trying to weasel out of it since the 1980s, long before the GPLv3 happened.
belorn 11y ago
What is a finished software product? One that no longer get patched and supported, or is it when a "gold" copy get sent to the factories to be mass-copied and sent to stores? I understand the concept when it comes to games, since a finished product is one where the developers has switched over to the next product and only occasional maintenance patches are added post-launch. It makes sense to call those finished, but a programming language that does this would likely be called dead.
- kybernetyk 11y ago
  >What is a finished software product? One that meets a pre-defined milestone and is seen fit for public release. I guess Apple wants to get some warts out and add a few features before it releases the project to the "design by committee" open source world.
bitserf 11y ago
It's highly unlikely that Apple will release any code under an FSF license, ever. The FSF needs to make their peace with that, no shrill screeds are going to change that. And frankly, if there's going to be a new, modern, high quality language with support for the platforms I care about (Linux, OS X), I'm going to use it. I wonder if RMS is going to publish a Swift version of "The Java Trap". I don't think it will meet with the same result (relicensing under the GPL).
- itaysk 11y ago
  "modern, high quality language with support for the platforms I care about (Linux, OS X)" - .NET's open sourcing is already happening (including cross-platform) and is under MIT\Apache license. github.com/dotnet
  - azinman2 11y ago
    Well I guess that settles it. We should all just only use .net.
    - itaysk 11y ago
      Not really.. :) Of course the majority of languages today also meets that criteria. I guess I just used that to say that for a company of "the same kind" (unlike who's behind those other languages), MS is actually doing above expectations when it comes to openness.
      - gillianseed 11y ago
        Not really when you take into account their backing of Oracle in making API's copyrighted.
        WorldWideWayne 11y ago
        So what? Every open source project license I've seen has a big fat copyright at the top of it too. Microsoft didn't invent copyright. If coders get to apply it to every line of copy-pasted code they "write" then Oracle should be allowed to copyright an API.
cmsj 11y ago
Bradley is pretty extreme :) It's not necessarily a bad thing to have sentinels out on the fringes, like RMS and Bradley, to remind us not to get lost. We don't have to go where they are, but we can at least navigate by them. Having said that, there is a detail here which Bradley is omitting. Specifically, that is that Apple is not anti-copyleft, what Apple is (and what many other corporations are), is anti-GPLv3. Apple shipped Samba for a very long time. They could have replaced it at any point, but they didn't need to. It was Samba switching to GPLv3 that pushed Apple into writing its own SMB implementation. Now, it's possible that these things are unrelated, but I believe I am correct in stating that Apple has never shipped GPLv3 software, and anything that has switched to v3, simply gets replaced or held back at its last v2 release (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3559990 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3559990 ). The most likely explanation is that they are not prepared to be bound by the patent/tivoisation clauses. The deeper question is why these v3 terms are unacceptable. IANAL, but I have worked at places where there are pretty flexible policies around using/distributing Free Software, and it's not at all uncommon that blanket policies apply to v2 licensed software, but any and all use of v3 (or indeed AGPL) software require specific individual review by Legal to ensure that you aren't placing the company in an actionable position. That's a pretty heavy time/effort burden to place on the (ideally nimble) process of developing and shipping software, it's also a cost burden. Personally, I love the GPLv2, I think it's a masterstroke of a license. I don't use it very much anymore, but I'm very glad that exists. I think v3 goes to far, and I think AGPL goes way too far. I tend to think that there are strategic projects which should be under v3, to protect the wider Free Software community from being unreasonably locked out of their own future, however, it seems fairly clear to me that overall, v3 has hurt copyleft more than helped it.
- xerophyte12932 11y ago
  If it's not too much trouble, could you please this part: >Personally, I love the GPLv2, I think it's a masterstroke of a license. I don't use it very much anymore, but I'm very glad that exists. I think v3 goes to far, and I think AGPL goes way too far. I am really not familiar with licenses and I have a feeling the legal text won't make much sense to me either if I treid reading it by my self
jasonlotito 11y ago
Pledges from Apple are worthless. One need only look to FaceTime as an example.
- chrisoverzero 11y ago
  They lost a lawsuit, so they had to cancel that.
  - jasonlotito 11y ago
    I realize that. Doesn't change the fact that they said they were going to do something and failed to do it. Apple has a long proven track record of saying one thing and doing the complete opposite. I'll save my congratulations for when they actually do it.
    - rdsnsca 11y ago
      What choice did they have when a court said you can't do that?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - jasonlotito 11y ago
        > What choice did they have when a court said you can't do that? Easy. Not say they are going to do something unless they know they can do it. Better yet: announce it when you can do it.
        rdsnsca 11y ago
        And in what crystal ball do you expect them to check for possible lawsuits?
        jasonlotito 11y ago

by owenwil 11y ago

ossreality 11y ago

Just like FaceTime. And I don't want to hear the "legal stopped it", because I don't want to hear that lame as s excuse in a year when Swift 2.0 still isn't OSS.

wumbernang 11y ago

It isn't happening until it has happened. Also sure a compiler may drop but its useless without a pile of libs.

glandium 11y ago

> They said why this was the case -- Swift 2.0 isn't finished yet You know what else isn't finished? The vast majority of open-source software. You don't need something to be finished to open-source it. That feels like the Android model to open-source: source code dumps at convenient times. The only valid reason not to open-source when you say you will is that you don't have all the copyright to do so, and are actively rewriting the bits you can't open-source.

cmsj 11y ago
That is really a separate question though. Open Source is simply about licensing of a software release, it says nothing about the nature of the development community that produced the software. An open, collaborative development community in an Open Source or Free Software project, is a very good thing, but it is a separate thing.

shiggerino 11y ago

What they have done is pledge to kill software freedom. Whether they release Swift 2.0 now or later is irrelevant.

antimagic 11y ago
Please feel free to provide us with a link to this "pledge". As far as I'm aware, Apple has never done any such thing.
cmsj 11y ago
I don't think you have any evidence of such a pledge. Personally, I think Apple doesn't give a fig about software freedom. I don't think they are in favour of it, or against it, they simply want to ship their products. For a time they were happy to use GPL software to help them do that, but then v3 happened and they have been moving away from the projects that switched to v3. It's impossible to argue that WebKit, LLVM, Swift, etc. are intended "to kill software freedom". They are simply software projects that exist and release code under an OSI license (or will do, in the case of Swift). If Apple/Google/others can push these projects beyond where things like GCC are, that is more the fault of the GCC project for not being nimble enough to stay on the leading edge (if it ever was there). It's also not because they are determined to kill projects like GCC, it's because they need really good compilers/renderers/etc.
- shiggerino 11y ago
  They were never happy to use copyleft software, and they (then NeXT, now Apple) have been trying to weasel out of it since the 1980s, long before the GPLv3 happened.

belorn 11y ago

What is a finished software product? One that no longer get patched and supported, or is it when a "gold" copy get sent to the factories to be mass-copied and sent to stores? I understand the concept when it comes to games, since a finished product is one where the developers has switched over to the next product and only occasional maintenance patches are added post-launch. It makes sense to call those finished, but a programming language that does this would likely be called dead.

kybernetyk 11y ago
>What is a finished software product? One that meets a pre-defined milestone and is seen fit for public release. I guess Apple wants to get some warts out and add a few features before it releases the project to the "design by committee" open source world.

bitserf 11y ago

It's highly unlikely that Apple will release any code under an FSF license, ever. The FSF needs to make their peace with that, no shrill screeds are going to change that. And frankly, if there's going to be a new, modern, high quality language with support for the platforms I care about (Linux, OS X), I'm going to use it. I wonder if RMS is going to publish a Swift version of "The Java Trap". I don't think it will meet with the same result (relicensing under the GPL).

itaysk 11y ago
"modern, high quality language with support for the platforms I care about (Linux, OS X)" - .NET's open sourcing is already happening (including cross-platform) and is under MIT\Apache license. github.com/dotnet
- azinman2 11y ago
  Well I guess that settles it. We should all just only use .net.
  - itaysk 11y ago
    Not really.. :) Of course the majority of languages today also meets that criteria. I guess I just used that to say that for a company of "the same kind" (unlike who's behind those other languages), MS is actually doing above expectations when it comes to openness.
    - gillianseed 11y ago
      Not really when you take into account their backing of Oracle in making API's copyrighted.
      - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
        So what? Every open source project license I've seen has a big fat copyright at the top of it too. Microsoft didn't invent copyright. If coders get to apply it to every line of copy-pasted code they "write" then Oracle should be allowed to copyright an API.

cmsj 11y ago

Bradley is pretty extreme :) It's not necessarily a bad thing to have sentinels out on the fringes, like RMS and Bradley, to remind us not to get lost. We don't have to go where they are, but we can at least navigate by them. Having said that, there is a detail here which Bradley is omitting. Specifically, that is that Apple is not anti-copyleft, what Apple is (and what many other corporations are), is anti-GPLv3. Apple shipped Samba for a very long time. They could have replaced it at any point, but they didn't need to. It was Samba switching to GPLv3 that pushed Apple into writing its own SMB implementation. Now, it's possible that these things are unrelated, but I believe I am correct in stating that Apple has never shipped GPLv3 software, and anything that has switched to v3, simply gets replaced or held back at its last v2 release (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3559990 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3559990 ). The most likely explanation is that they are not prepared to be bound by the patent/tivoisation clauses. The deeper question is why these v3 terms are unacceptable. IANAL, but I have worked at places where there are pretty flexible policies around using/distributing Free Software, and it's not at all uncommon that blanket policies apply to v2 licensed software, but any and all use of v3 (or indeed AGPL) software require specific individual review by Legal to ensure that you aren't placing the company in an actionable position. That's a pretty heavy time/effort burden to place on the (ideally nimble) process of developing and shipping software, it's also a cost burden. Personally, I love the GPLv2, I think it's a masterstroke of a license. I don't use it very much anymore, but I'm very glad that exists. I think v3 goes to far, and I think AGPL goes way too far. I tend to think that there are strategic projects which should be under v3, to protect the wider Free Software community from being unreasonably locked out of their own future, however, it seems fairly clear to me that overall, v3 has hurt copyleft more than helped it.

xerophyte12932 11y ago
If it's not too much trouble, could you please this part: >Personally, I love the GPLv2, I think it's a masterstroke of a license. I don't use it very much anymore, but I'm very glad that exists. I think v3 goes to far, and I think AGPL goes way too far. I am really not familiar with licenses and I have a feeling the legal text won't make much sense to me either if I treid reading it by my self

jasonlotito 11y ago

Pledges from Apple are worthless. One need only look to FaceTime as an example.

chrisoverzero 11y ago
They lost a lawsuit, so they had to cancel that.
- jasonlotito 11y ago
  I realize that. Doesn't change the fact that they said they were going to do something and failed to do it. Apple has a long proven track record of saying one thing and doing the complete opposite. I'll save my congratulations for when they actually do it.
  - rdsnsca 11y ago
    What choice did they have when a court said you can't do that?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - jasonlotito 11y ago
      > What choice did they have when a court said you can't do that? Easy. Not say they are going to do something unless they know they can do it. Better yet: announce it when you can do it.
      - rdsnsca 11y ago
        And in what crystal ball do you expect them to check for possible lawsuits?
        jasonlotito 11y ago