Why Apple acted like linux?

[cabron]

I don't get it, why Apple if they are proprietary hardware and software company acted like linux, publishing for free the source code of OS X. I really don't understand why they do it if we have to pay for the Operation System. Can anyone clear me this up?

BTW here is what I am talking about it: http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1057/

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Because by posting the source, people from all over the world can spot bugs and such.

Same reason their web browser engine is open source, and their printing system (It's called CUPS, I hear it's popular)

[Beastage]

Some of the "Stuff" Apple uses in OSX has origins in open source, it isn't their choice, they have to publish it open source but as a whole the main "ingredients" are proprietary.

Apple do have some open source projects of their own, like webkit.

[cabron]

Because by posting the source, people from all over the world can spot bugs and such.

Same reason their web browser engine is open source, and their printing system (It's called CUPS, I hear it's popular)

But don't you think that it should be the developer's job to do that? they already have some type of developer connection system in which you have to pay to be a member. I don't think is right to publish something that is not free, is like Microsoft publishing for free the source code of Windows Vista or Windows 7.

I paid a lot of money for Apple's Operation Systems, and these people make it available to anyone for free, its not ****ing right.

[corrosive23]

But don't you think that it should be the developer's job to do that? they already have some type of developer connection system in which you have to pay to be a member. I don't think is right to publish something that is not free, is like Microsoft publishing for free the source code of Windows Vista or Windows 7.

I paid a lot of money for Apple's Operation Systems, and these people make it available to anyone for free, its not ****ing right.

They did'nt give it away. Some of the tools and code in OS X is open source so they HAVE to release the source to those programs. Read what people are telling you.

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

But don't you think that it should be the developer's job to do that? they already have some type of developer connection system in which you have to pay to be a member. I don't think is right to publish something that is not free, is like Microsoft publishing for free the source code of Windows Vista or Windows 7.

I paid a lot of money for Apple's Operation Systems, and these people make it available to anyone for free, its not ****ing right.

The whole is more than a sum of its parts.

Sure parts of the OS is free (libre/gratis), but that doesn't mean you can recreate the entire OS without the proprietary parts, and the whole OS is what you're buying.

edit: Most of those things weren't even written by Apple, just modified (under the terms of the existing product's license)

[giga Veteran]

But don't you think that it should be the developer's job to do that? they already have some type of developer connection system in which you have to pay to be a member. I don't think is right to publish something that is not free, is like Microsoft publishing for free the source code of Windows Vista or Windows 7.

I paid a lot of money for Apple's Operation Systems, and these people make it available to anyone for free, its not ****ing right.

The developer's job? Apple is the developer that modifies the open source software used. The source has to published under GPL, BSD, etc.

And they're not publishing the full source code for OS X, not even close.

[Simon Veteran]

But don't you think that it should be the developer's job to do that? they already have some type of developer connection system in which you have to pay to be a member. I don't think is right to publish something that is not free, is like Microsoft publishing for free the source code of Windows Vista or Windows 7.

I paid a lot of money for Apple's Operation Systems, and these people make it available to anyone for free, its not ****ing right.

What Apple publishes is the kernel of their OS, plus a few other (essentially) command line tools and libraries.

What you really pay for is the desktop built on top of that, ie. Finder, the dock, and all the other user-level features. Even Safari is proprietary outside of Webkit itself.

If you think you can live off of the kernel itself in a command line environment (some people can), then yeah, Apple is giving you a free OS.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

That's what you get when you run Darwin.

You can add a UI, but you're limited to X11 and stuff like KDE or Gnome.

[cabron]

Thanks guys, you helped me understand why they release it for free.

[ootput]

edit: you get the point

[the evn show]

Apple ships the source to a number of things they wouldn't be required to (like Launchd and Quicktime Streaming Server) in addition to the BSD tools, kernel, etc. Furthermore, the BSD license doesn't require that source is available - it's different from the GPL in that respect: it's much more "free" for developers and less free for "users".

Some of the utilities Apple ships must come with source code (notably GCC) though I'm not sure Apple is particularly fond of those requirements. Apple's efforts in LLVM seem to indicate they'd be happy to move from GCC but that could be as much a performance/quality decision as a license one.

[cabron]

Apple ships the source to a number of things they wouldn't be required to (like Launchd and Quicktime Streaming Server) in addition to the BSD tools, kernel, etc. Furthermore, the BSD license doesn't require that source is available - it's different from the GPL in that respect: it's much more "free" for developers and less free for "users".

Some of the utilities Apple ships must come with source code (notably GCC) though I'm not sure Apple is particularly fond of those requirements. Apple's efforts in LLVM seem to indicate they'd be happy to move from GCC but that could be as much a performance/quality decision as a license one.

mmm... interesting :rolleyes:

[Growled Member]

I know Apple just recently bought Cups. I believe they did so to insure it remained open, since they are dependent on it. They have to abide by the open source conditions, I suppose. I'm sure they don't really care to.

[the evn show]

I know Apple just recently bought Cups. I believe they did so to insure it remained open, since they are dependent on it. They have to abide by the open source conditions, I suppose. I'm sure they don't really care to.

CUPS was/is GPL licensed so closing it would just require Apple to fork as of the last free version. I suspect that their desire to add exemptions to the license for Apple software had more to do with the purchase decision. The GPL license is viral by nature. By owning CUPS Apple is able to bundle it very tightly with their own software without unintentionally "infecting" their own software with the GPL.

Whether you think the terms of the GPL are fair or not - Apple clearly has some reservations as nearly all of their open source software is under a non-GPL license. The only one that comes to mind other than CUPS is GCC but there's probably at least a couple of other GPL-only licensed projects use by Apple.

[markwolfe Veteran]

With Apple avoiding GPL, they wish to retain the freedom to close off their code and keep it from the community.

Any GPL code cannot easily just be "forked" and closed. The license in-place at the time is still in effect on the code prior to attempts to fork it. That is, they need the permission of the copyright holder(s) to change the license. Same as when there was discussion to possibly update the Linux kernel from GPL v2 to v3.

[dyn]

That is not true markjensen. You always need permission from the copyrightholders when changing the license, that is the law in a lot of countries. If the license such as the GPL permits forking then it is quite easy to fork stuff. It is not very uncommon that GPL licensed software are not being used in commercial applications. The GPL opposes a lot of restrictions in that area which causes a lot of companies to choose software that has a less restrictive licensing. The GPL is quite a risk to a company. IBM wants to open source the OS/2 operating system but is not able to because they can't get permission from all of the copyright holders (mostly because they simply don't know who they are). If they GPL it anyway they run the risk of being sued.

The discussion about putting the Linux kernel under a GPL 3 license was different. It was a discussion about what was in the GPL3 license itself. Some parts were too restrictive which made Linus not so happy about it. In the end they stuck with GPL2 because they simply didn't like GPL3. Getting permission was not the reason why they didn't go for it.

[markwolfe Veteran]

That is not true markjensen. You always need permission from the copyrightholders when changing the license, that is the law in a lot of countries.

...

:blink:

I never tried to claim the contrary. I was just using an example.

The GPL allows forking, but the license forbids any change that places more restrictions, including the closing of source, or other license requirements.

The discussion about putting the Linux kernel under a GPL 3 license was different. It was a discussion about what was in the GPL3 license itself. Some parts were too restrictive which made Linus not so happy about it. In the end they stuck with GPL2 because they simply didn't like GPL3. Getting permission was not the reason why they didn't go for it.

Funny, but the Copyright Holders (including what to do in the case of deceased ones) were discussed, since discussion of obtaining permissions was active. Even Linus Torvalds participated, and specifically statrf that he didn't dislike GPL v3.

So, it wasn't all about hatred of the v3. ;)

[Subject Delta]

Complaining because you WANT everything to be close sourced? talk about stuck in the Apple mentality.

Open source code is useful to developers, it makes a platform more viable to developers if they can study the Kernel and some of the core components of the OS to ensure correct interoperability.

[Elv13]

Darwin is built on top of most gnu packages. It even come with emacs by default. It is not just the darwin kernel. -Most- of OSX is open source and most of those sources are GPL. It is more than just "a few command line executable", it is 95% of the Unix compatibility and some userspace library. If GNUStep get closer to full cocoa compoatibility, it would even be possible to ditch proprietary Gui (exept CoreImage, Quartz extreme and coreAnimation) and recompile OSX apps on top of X11.

But no one will ever do that, to much work for mostly nothing (source compatible != binary compatiable)

[Macalicious]

I don't get it, why Apple if they are proprietary hardware and software company acted like linux, publishing for free the source code of OS X. I really don't understand why they do it if we have to pay for the Operation System. Can anyone clear me this up?

BTW here is what I am talking about it: http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1057/

They are only the opensource components (low level components and libraries from other opensource projects). You pay for it because the whole operating system isn't opensource.

:blink:

I never tried to claim the contrary. I was just using an example.

The GPL allows forking, but the license forbids any change that places more restrictions, including the closing of source, or other license requirements.

I believe that GPL is very restrictive when compared to BSD and MIT/X11 licences - there is also issues such as linking - which is why Apple is working on LLVM so that they have compiler which allows them to integrate with their XCode development environment which the GPL does not allow.

[Rudy]

The openness of OSX must be a bit bittersweet since they moved to x86 though. The availability of the source code for Darwin has helped the OSx86 community greatly (it would still be there but it might not be as advanced as it is today without Darwin)

[Richardarkless]

The only reason why the kernel is open source is because darwin has code from the free bsd kernel so they had to make it open source

I dunno why they open sourced their other projects

[gollux]

I don't get it, why Apple if they are proprietary hardware and software company acted like linux, publishing for free the source code of OS X. I really don't understand why they do it if we have to pay for the Operation System. Can anyone clear me this up?

BTW here is what I am talking about it: http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1057/

You need to correct the title a little bit, more along the lines of "Why Apple acted like freeBSD?" and it has to do with a Berkely Software Development derived Unix variant, not Linux which is a whole 'nother animal. Us Apple geeks already know about this and accept it. And even like it because it opens up whole new horizons as to what can be done with OSX.