10 ms·

> Yeah, Apple definitely doesn't like copyleft. That's okay; lots of people don't (especially larger companies – how many large companies actively release GPLd

by laumars 11y ago

> Yeah, Apple definitely doesn't like copyleft. That's okay; lots of people don't (especially larger companies – how many large companies actively release GPLd software?). It's a legitimate business decision, and there are some good arguments that support it (which you may or may not agree with). While I do agree with your point, I do also find it frustrating when businesses' are quick to base their core components on copyleft licensed code (eg CUPS, kHTML, Mach, OpenSSH, OpenSSL, Apache httpd, many GNU projects, and much more https://www.apple.com/opensource/ https://www.apple.com/opensource/), often only releasing patches because of their legal obvigation. Yet they are quicker to hoard their own technologies claiming they've "innovated" the industry and that their technology "works like magic". It feels extremely disingenuous and I think that's why Apple is met with such criticism and skepticism by their critics. I appreciate that there are other companies who mix and match open with closed proprietary solutions, but Apple seem to me to be the worst and most aggressive for exaggerating the significance and originality of their own proprietary code relative to the amount of copyleft code they depend on to run their software stack. edit: s/copyleft/open source/g Sorry for the school boy error

Ensorceled 11y ago
Wait, what? Mach, Apache, OpenSSH, OpenSSL are all under Apache/BSD style licenses, not "copyleft" GPL licenses. You clearly don't understand the issues being discussed here; for at least those projects things are working exactly as intended.
matthewmacleod 11y ago
I understand what you're saying, but there's some confusion there – of the projects you've listed, none of Mach, OpenSSH, OpenSSL, and Apache are copylefted – they all use permissive licensed. And regarding CUPS and Webkit/kHTML, I think it's difficult to argue that Apple 'only released patches because of their legal obligation' – they were the primary developers of those projects. But more importantly, I don't think it is a disingenuous complaint, and it's the basis of most commercial software. I build software – we release some component parts as open-source, which the proprietary bits on top are how we can make value. And it seems like that benefits everybody!
- pyre 11y ago
  > CUPS ... they were the primary developers of those projects They own CUPS, but it existed prior to their ownership of it.
  - Intermernet 11y ago
    CUPS is... weird: "CUPS is provided under the GNU General Public License ("GPL") and GNU Library General Public License ("LGPL"), Version 2, with an exception for Apple operating systems. A copy of the exception and licenses follow this introduction." https://www.cups.org/documentation.php/doc-2.0/license.html https://www.cups.org/documentation.php/doc-2.0/license.html EDIT: Just to provide the full exception clause text. "Apple Operating System Development License Exception; Software that is developed by any person or entity for an Apple Operating System ("Apple OS-Developed Software"), including but not limited to Apple and third party printer drivers, filters, and backends for an Apple Operating System, that is linked to the CUPS imaging library or based on any sample filters or backends provided with CUPS shall not be considered to be a derivative work or collective work based on the CUPS program and is exempt from the mandatory source code release clauses of the GNU GPL. You may therefore distribute linked combinations of the CUPS imaging library with Apple OS-Developed Software without releasing the source code of the Apple OS-Developed Software. You may also use sample filters and backends provided with CUPS to develop Apple OS-Developed Software without releasing the source code of the Apple OS-Developed Software. An Apple Operating System means any operating system software developed and/or marketed by Apple Inc., including but not limited to all existing releases and versions of Apple's Darwin, OS X, and OS X Server products and all follow-on releases and future versions thereof. This exception is only available for Apple OS-Developed Software and does not apply to software that is distributed for use on other operating systems. All CUPS software that falls under this license exception have the following text at the top of each source file: This file is subject to the Apple OS-Developed Software exception."
    - carussell 11y ago
      pyre already acknowledged that Apple now owns the code. The reason why CUPS is GPL+/LGPL+the Apple OS exception? Because Apple bought the rights to it and made it that way. Before that, it was GPL/LGPL. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.
jorgecastillo 11y ago
CUPS is owned by Apple. Mach, OpenSSH, OpenSSL & Apache are not copyleft. The success of Apple has nothing to do with the copyleft software they use, most code used by Apple has been based on permissively licensed code or written by them. The main software asset Apple has is Cocoa and Cocoa Touch, which are as far from copyleft as you can get. Apple could replace every piece of copyleft software they have left in OS X tomorrow and no mainstream news source would bother to inform of this. That's how relevant copyleft software is to the success of Apple. Now if you say "open source has been an integral part on the success of Apple", I would agree with that. Still Apple owes its success to it's own code not to code from others. If taking open source code and modifying it a little was all it took to make a successful company, all of us would be millionaires.
- laumars 11y ago
  > CUPS is owned by Apple CUPS was bought by Apple. It was originally GPL software and was incorporated into OS X a few years before Apple bought it. > Mach, OpenSSH, OpenSSL & Apache are not copyleft. Fair point, I did actually mean open source in the more general sense than the copyleft subset of open licences. > The success of Apple has nothing to do with the copyleft software they use....Now if you say "open source has been an integral part on the success of Apple", I would agree with that. I sense you're nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking :) In any case, I think we agree the same point. edit: why is this comment getting downvoted so much yet not one single correction posted? Please guys, don't just downvote because you dislike the tangent I started in my previous post. Take this comment in isolation and if you still disagree with me then explain why.
  - carussell 11y ago
    Someone has gone through and downvoted multiple comments that mention Apple's purchase of the rights to the CUPS code. I don't get it. To whomever is taking issue with this, could you, uh, you know... say why?
parasubvert 11y ago
"Apple seem to me to be the worst and most aggressive for exaggerating the significance and originality of their own proprietary code relative to the amount of copyleft code they depend on to run their software stack." I'm finding this hard to parse. Mix & match is okay, so long as you don't promote what you feel makes you special? I don't get it, this seems to be an emotional reaction to the fact Apple is still doing so well vs. more open source (Android) approaches. Herein lies the crux of the competitive manner. In what possible way is Apple's success with their proprietary code and processes exaggerated? I mean, Apple might market in a way you find distasteful, but facts are facts - Apple has been wildly successful in profitability, largely because of their proprietary ability to design great holistic user experiences that people like to use. This isn't because of marketing and brainwashing solely, as the products do mostly work really well, with some debate around overall quality lately. The Google/Android ecosystem has access to the same open source base Apple does, and they've wound up in a different competitive situation - high marketshare, no direct profits on Android itself. Everything is driven by compliments, like Ads. Perhaps that's part the point of open source - to drive out direct profits on a core set of capabilities. But why hasn't it worked on Apple? I think the issue is not solely about code, it's about ecosystem and all the proprietary bits surrounding that (The Apple Store, the app store, their hardware devices, the Genius Bar experience...). Apple has managed to build a very appealing proprietary ecosystem to both users because of the experience, and developers because of the overall architecture of the app store and potential for $$$. All of this is not about exaggeration and "it's magic" stuff, it's about very smart people thinking through how they're going to compete against an ecosystem that doesn't want to make any money.
- laumars 11y ago
  > this seems to be an emotional reaction to the fact Apple is still doing so well vs. more open source (Android) approaches. Wow that's a hell of a conclusion to jump to. And your argument doesn't even make sense given how hugely successful Android has been. I was actually thinking more on the wider industry scale, such as Redhat, Canonical, and obviously Google (but not specifically Android). > In what possible way is Apple's success with their proprietary code and processes exaggerated? I mean, Apple might market in a way you find distasteful, but facts are facts - Apple has been wildly successful in profitability, largely because of their proprietary ability to design great holistic user experiences that people like to use. This isn't because of marketing and brainwashing solely, as the products do mostly work really well, with some debate around overall quality lately. Clean design isn't innovation. I'm not disputing that Apple have done great work on polishing their products and rightfully deserve to be rewarded for it. I have an issue with companies that stand on the shoulders of giants and then claim their software stacks are "innovative", "original" and deserve aggressively pursuing any company who developed similarly usable frontends around the same or similar underlying open source software stacks. > All of this is not about exaggeration and "it's magic" stuff, it's about very smart people thinking through how they're going to compete against an ecosystem that doesn't want to make any money. All of that you listed existed before Apple incorporated them, it wasn't their invention. And your "[the mobile ecosystem] doesn't want to make any money" couldn't be more wrong. Mobile apps were a profitable market before the iPhone came along, not to mention the profitability selling feature phones and smart phones at that time. It was already a pretty big industry - though obviously had room to grow. Apple obviously did a great job carving a share of that market. But it would be silly to say they were the only ones wanting to make money.

by laumars 11y ago

Ensorceled 11y ago

Wait, what? Mach, Apache, OpenSSH, OpenSSL are all under Apache/BSD style licenses, not "copyleft" GPL licenses. You clearly don't understand the issues being discussed here; for at least those projects things are working exactly as intended.

matthewmacleod 11y ago

I understand what you're saying, but there's some confusion there – of the projects you've listed, none of Mach, OpenSSH, OpenSSL, and Apache are copylefted – they all use permissive licensed. And regarding CUPS and Webkit/kHTML, I think it's difficult to argue that Apple 'only released patches because of their legal obligation' – they were the primary developers of those projects. But more importantly, I don't think it is a disingenuous complaint, and it's the basis of most commercial software. I build software – we release some component parts as open-source, which the proprietary bits on top are how we can make value. And it seems like that benefits everybody!

pyre 11y ago
> CUPS ... they were the primary developers of those projects They own CUPS, but it existed prior to their ownership of it.
- Intermernet 11y ago
  CUPS is... weird: "CUPS is provided under the GNU General Public License ("GPL") and GNU Library General Public License ("LGPL"), Version 2, with an exception for Apple operating systems. A copy of the exception and licenses follow this introduction." https://www.cups.org/documentation.php/doc-2.0/license.html https://www.cups.org/documentation.php/doc-2.0/license.html EDIT: Just to provide the full exception clause text. "Apple Operating System Development License Exception; Software that is developed by any person or entity for an Apple Operating System ("Apple OS-Developed Software"), including but not limited to Apple and third party printer drivers, filters, and backends for an Apple Operating System, that is linked to the CUPS imaging library or based on any sample filters or backends provided with CUPS shall not be considered to be a derivative work or collective work based on the CUPS program and is exempt from the mandatory source code release clauses of the GNU GPL. You may therefore distribute linked combinations of the CUPS imaging library with Apple OS-Developed Software without releasing the source code of the Apple OS-Developed Software. You may also use sample filters and backends provided with CUPS to develop Apple OS-Developed Software without releasing the source code of the Apple OS-Developed Software. An Apple Operating System means any operating system software developed and/or marketed by Apple Inc., including but not limited to all existing releases and versions of Apple's Darwin, OS X, and OS X Server products and all follow-on releases and future versions thereof. This exception is only available for Apple OS-Developed Software and does not apply to software that is distributed for use on other operating systems. All CUPS software that falls under this license exception have the following text at the top of each source file: This file is subject to the Apple OS-Developed Software exception."
  - carussell 11y ago
    pyre already acknowledged that Apple now owns the code. The reason why CUPS is GPL+/LGPL+the Apple OS exception? Because Apple bought the rights to it and made it that way. Before that, it was GPL/LGPL. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

jorgecastillo 11y ago

CUPS is owned by Apple. Mach, OpenSSH, OpenSSL & Apache are not copyleft. The success of Apple has nothing to do with the copyleft software they use, most code used by Apple has been based on permissively licensed code or written by them. The main software asset Apple has is Cocoa and Cocoa Touch, which are as far from copyleft as you can get. Apple could replace every piece of copyleft software they have left in OS X tomorrow and no mainstream news source would bother to inform of this. That's how relevant copyleft software is to the success of Apple. Now if you say "open source has been an integral part on the success of Apple", I would agree with that. Still Apple owes its success to it's own code not to code from others. If taking open source code and modifying it a little was all it took to make a successful company, all of us would be millionaires.

laumars 11y ago
> CUPS is owned by Apple CUPS was bought by Apple. It was originally GPL software and was incorporated into OS X a few years before Apple bought it. > Mach, OpenSSH, OpenSSL & Apache are not copyleft. Fair point, I did actually mean open source in the more general sense than the copyleft subset of open licences. > The success of Apple has nothing to do with the copyleft software they use....Now if you say "open source has been an integral part on the success of Apple", I would agree with that. I sense you're nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking :) In any case, I think we agree the same point. edit: why is this comment getting downvoted so much yet not one single correction posted? Please guys, don't just downvote because you dislike the tangent I started in my previous post. Take this comment in isolation and if you still disagree with me then explain why.
- carussell 11y ago
  Someone has gone through and downvoted multiple comments that mention Apple's purchase of the rights to the CUPS code. I don't get it. To whomever is taking issue with this, could you, uh, you know... say why?

parasubvert 11y ago

"Apple seem to me to be the worst and most aggressive for exaggerating the significance and originality of their own proprietary code relative to the amount of copyleft code they depend on to run their software stack." I'm finding this hard to parse. Mix & match is okay, so long as you don't promote what you feel makes you special? I don't get it, this seems to be an emotional reaction to the fact Apple is still doing so well vs. more open source (Android) approaches. Herein lies the crux of the competitive manner. In what possible way is Apple's success with their proprietary code and processes exaggerated? I mean, Apple might market in a way you find distasteful, but facts are facts - Apple has been wildly successful in profitability, largely because of their proprietary ability to design great holistic user experiences that people like to use. This isn't because of marketing and brainwashing solely, as the products do mostly work really well, with some debate around overall quality lately. The Google/Android ecosystem has access to the same open source base Apple does, and they've wound up in a different competitive situation - high marketshare, no direct profits on Android itself. Everything is driven by compliments, like Ads. Perhaps that's part the point of open source - to drive out direct profits on a core set of capabilities. But why hasn't it worked on Apple? I think the issue is not solely about code, it's about ecosystem and all the proprietary bits surrounding that (The Apple Store, the app store, their hardware devices, the Genius Bar experience...). Apple has managed to build a very appealing proprietary ecosystem to both users because of the experience, and developers because of the overall architecture of the app store and potential for $$$. All of this is not about exaggeration and "it's magic" stuff, it's about very smart people thinking through how they're going to compete against an ecosystem that doesn't want to make any money.

laumars 11y ago
> this seems to be an emotional reaction to the fact Apple is still doing so well vs. more open source (Android) approaches. Wow that's a hell of a conclusion to jump to. And your argument doesn't even make sense given how hugely successful Android has been. I was actually thinking more on the wider industry scale, such as Redhat, Canonical, and obviously Google (but not specifically Android). > In what possible way is Apple's success with their proprietary code and processes exaggerated? I mean, Apple might market in a way you find distasteful, but facts are facts - Apple has been wildly successful in profitability, largely because of their proprietary ability to design great holistic user experiences that people like to use. This isn't because of marketing and brainwashing solely, as the products do mostly work really well, with some debate around overall quality lately. Clean design isn't innovation. I'm not disputing that Apple have done great work on polishing their products and rightfully deserve to be rewarded for it. I have an issue with companies that stand on the shoulders of giants and then claim their software stacks are "innovative", "original" and deserve aggressively pursuing any company who developed similarly usable frontends around the same or similar underlying open source software stacks. > All of this is not about exaggeration and "it's magic" stuff, it's about very smart people thinking through how they're going to compete against an ecosystem that doesn't want to make any money. All of that you listed existed before Apple incorporated them, it wasn't their invention. And your "[the mobile ecosystem] doesn't want to make any money" couldn't be more wrong. Mobile apps were a profitable market before the iPhone came along, not to mention the profitability selling feature phones and smart phones at that time. It was already a pretty big industry - though obviously had room to grow. Apple obviously did a great job carving a share of that market. But it would be silly to say they were the only ones wanting to make money.