4 ms·

So what's the purpose of this site? To attract learners and contributors? To build a better source code browsing system? To build an open-source ecosystem? To p

by oldgun 11y ago

So what's the purpose of this site? To attract learners and contributors? To build a better source code browsing system? To build an open-source ecosystem? To promote the spirit of open-source softwares? The half-assed design of the webpage indicates that Apple is probably not paying attention to it at all. So what's the purpose of this site exactly?

ekianjo 11y ago
Isn't that obvious? To release the modified code used in some of the Free Software packages they use for their devices. It's a requirement.
- 4ad 11y ago
  No, most of the source released is not under a virulent license. They are not required to provide it. Edit: oh wow, downvoted for stating objective facts that take seconds to verify.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    I didn't downvote you, but the use of "virulent" instead of "copyleft" is annoying and imprecise.
    - 4ad 11y ago
      Viral licensing is a standard, established, and widely used term, which also has the property of using real words rather than invented neologisms which have imprecise and incorrect definitions (from POV of real-world usage in OSS) in dictionaries: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/buzzword/entries/copyleft.html http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/buzzword/entries/copyl... Inventing new words for concepts properly described by old words is what's annoying, and it's really imprecise when people outside the specialized field start to have different opinions about what the neologisms mean than the people inside the field who actually use them.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        You wrote that Apple would only be forced to distribute code under viral licenses, but licenses like MPL are hardly "viral" (they don't require you to distributed linked code) yet they still require people to distribute the original source. "Viral licenses" lose the nuance of weak copyleft. That's besides the inherit prejudice in the choice of the word "viral".
      - the_why_of_y 11y ago
        The wikipedia article cites as the source for the term various Microsoft executives; so you propose we should use the Microsoft propaganda terms to refer to open source licenses? Ah I see, you're just trolling.
    - hobarrera 11y ago
      > I didn't downvote you, but the use of "virulent" instead of "copyleft" is annoying and imprecise. "viral" is perfectly precise. One of properties of copyleft licences is that they are viral (and need to be by design). If being viral is a good or a bad thing, is another discussion.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        How is a weak copyleft license like MPL "viral", if it doesn't extend its reach to any other code?
pervycreeper 11y ago
The purpose is to grudgingly comply with the licenses to all the FOSS software that they use in their projects.
- danieldk 11y ago
  That's nonsense. There are many BSD, MIT, and ISC-licensed packages on that site that they wouldn't have to release source code for. This page dates back to the early 2000s, when Apple was a relatively small company after years of decline, and OS X was gaining popularity among UNIX users. They hired some people from the FreeBSD project (most notably Jordan Hubbard, one of the founders of FreeBSD). This was also the time that everyone and their dog was going open source (a trend started by Netscape). The industry's open sourcing spree, their traction in the UNIX community, and the fact that they were importing a lot of new BSD code, probably moved them to make non-Aqua/Cocoa source open source. Suddenly removing source code now would probably be a small PR disaster. So, they basically let stuff rot: some new stuff is missing and they are slow in posting new code drops.
  - pervycreeper 11y ago
    Not every project is copylefted, true, but they are still trying to give back as little as they possibly can without raising too many hackles.
    - sudioStudio64 11y ago
      I'm not an apple fan, but I don't know if we know enough to say that this is their motivation.
r3bl 11y ago
As far as I can see, they're just using it to promote their products and their usage for developing open source software.
aurora72 11y ago
It's an indispensable source for those who build opensource projects on their Macs (such as I .) For instance the Apple build of gcc is still needed to build some OSS projects, and they are probably found only at this site.

by oldgun 11y ago

ekianjo 11y ago

Isn't that obvious? To release the modified code used in some of the Free Software packages they use for their devices. It's a requirement.

4ad 11y ago
No, most of the source released is not under a virulent license. They are not required to provide it. Edit: oh wow, downvoted for stating objective facts that take seconds to verify.
- icebraining 11y ago
  I didn't downvote you, but the use of "virulent" instead of "copyleft" is annoying and imprecise.
  - 4ad 11y ago
    Viral licensing is a standard, established, and widely used term, which also has the property of using real words rather than invented neologisms which have imprecise and incorrect definitions (from POV of real-world usage in OSS) in dictionaries: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/buzzword/entries/copyleft.html http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/buzzword/entries/copyl... Inventing new words for concepts properly described by old words is what's annoying, and it's really imprecise when people outside the specialized field start to have different opinions about what the neologisms mean than the people inside the field who actually use them.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      You wrote that Apple would only be forced to distribute code under viral licenses, but licenses like MPL are hardly "viral" (they don't require you to distributed linked code) yet they still require people to distribute the original source. "Viral licenses" lose the nuance of weak copyleft. That's besides the inherit prejudice in the choice of the word "viral".
    - the_why_of_y 11y ago
      The wikipedia article cites as the source for the term various Microsoft executives; so you propose we should use the Microsoft propaganda terms to refer to open source licenses? Ah I see, you're just trolling.
  - hobarrera 11y ago
    > I didn't downvote you, but the use of "virulent" instead of "copyleft" is annoying and imprecise. "viral" is perfectly precise. One of properties of copyleft licences is that they are viral (and need to be by design). If being viral is a good or a bad thing, is another discussion.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      How is a weak copyleft license like MPL "viral", if it doesn't extend its reach to any other code?

pervycreeper 11y ago

The purpose is to grudgingly comply with the licenses to all the FOSS software that they use in their projects.

danieldk 11y ago
That's nonsense. There are many BSD, MIT, and ISC-licensed packages on that site that they wouldn't have to release source code for. This page dates back to the early 2000s, when Apple was a relatively small company after years of decline, and OS X was gaining popularity among UNIX users. They hired some people from the FreeBSD project (most notably Jordan Hubbard, one of the founders of FreeBSD). This was also the time that everyone and their dog was going open source (a trend started by Netscape). The industry's open sourcing spree, their traction in the UNIX community, and the fact that they were importing a lot of new BSD code, probably moved them to make non-Aqua/Cocoa source open source. Suddenly removing source code now would probably be a small PR disaster. So, they basically let stuff rot: some new stuff is missing and they are slow in posting new code drops.
- pervycreeper 11y ago
  Not every project is copylefted, true, but they are still trying to give back as little as they possibly can without raising too many hackles.
  - sudioStudio64 11y ago
    I'm not an apple fan, but I don't know if we know enough to say that this is their motivation.

r3bl 11y ago

As far as I can see, they're just using it to promote their products and their usage for developing open source software.

aurora72 11y ago

It's an indispensable source for those who build opensource projects on their Macs (such as I .) For instance the Apple build of gcc is still needed to build some OSS projects, and they are probably found only at this site.