Comment by cscotta | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cscotta | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Thanks for posting the detailed write-up, but I don't believe that the facts warrant this conclusion.

The fact remains that PastryKit is open source, but close-licensed - by which I mean the frontend source code is transmitted when you access the website by necessity, but owned entirely by Apple.

Honestly, Apple is behaving much like Plurk just a few days ago. Their frontend source code was lifted, unpacked, analyzed, and repackaged for another product. Frustrated by having their intellectual property repurposed without permission or license, a takedown order was appropriate.

While I'm all for analyzing techniques like those found in PastryKit and am sort of a "rah! rah! open source!" guy in general, Apple was well within their rights to request a takedown. It sucks that they did, because I'd love to read up on this sometime and learn from it, but that's how these things tend to go.

That said, whether you agree with me or not, I don't think that this takedown notice is any reason to suggest that "Apple is terrified of iPhone web apps being as good as native apps."

Yea, you're totally right, apple was well within their rights to tell me to take the code down, I know that. But I would definitely say that the comparison with plurk is inaccurate because in their case Microsoft grabbed their code and re-used it in their own website not only for their own gain, but even to compete against plurk.

I would say that what I, and others, did was more like someone going to a website, hitting view-source, and saying "hmm this is interesting, there is something to be learned here" and then putting the interesting code snippets up on their blog. especially when the first line of my readme said "this is just for learning's sake, dont use this on your real website."

At any rate, I for sure agree that apple is not being a bully, unjust, or outside of their rights to tell me to take it down. But it does kind of suggest that apple is going out of their way to impede the quality of web-apps on the iphone rather than try to help it along.

Apple if your listening, why not just open source PastryKit?

I would say that what I, and others, did was more like someone going to a website, hitting view-source, and saying "hmm this is interesting, there is something to be learned here" and then putting the interesting code snippets up on their blog. especially when the first line of my readme said "this is just for learning's sake, dont use this on your real website."

You reproduced the code wholesale -- that was infringement, not fair use.

Apple if your listening, why not just open source PastryKit?

They don't want to -- that's their prerogative. I find your sense of entitlement baffling.

But it does kind of suggest that apple is going out of their way to impede the quality of web-apps on the iphone rather than try to help it along.

It does not. You're projecting motive onto an action when you have only seen the action itself, not the deliberations that lead to the action.

> the interesting code snippets

Copyright allows snippets of works for discussion under concept of fair use. It doesn't allow wholesale republishing into a distribution channel of the complete original work -- even if your first line does say "just for learning".

See "Fair Use" test #3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

> Apple if your listening, why not just open source PastryKit?

Why? If you care to learn the lessons of PastryKit, you can view the original source. Its not in Apple's best interest to support yet another web framework thats kind of Cocoa-like. Both SproutCore.com and Cappuccino.org provide web application frameworks that are more complete, better documented, and actually maintained.

//But it does kind of suggest that apple is going out of their way to impede the quality of web-apps on the iphone rather than try to help it along

I guess Apple has an incentive in doing so. Improving web apps improves it for all phones. They lose their comparative advantage in doing so.

<Sarcasm> Its not like they contribute to the development of open web standards or browser libraries. </Sarcasm>

When Apple is scared of web applications, they'll stop improving WebKit.

> When Apple is scared of web applications, they'll stop improving WebKit.

And WebObjects.

Oh, wait... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebObjects#2009:_No_longer_supp...

Don't let the iPhone fans hear you say that. Apple's competitive advantage is the UI handed down from Olympus! The sleek hardware! The brand! The integration with iTunes! How could you possibly imply that their advantage is actually just the fact that they're a closed platform that Apple exercises total control over? Blasphemy!

> Apple if your [sic] listening, why not just open source PastryKit?

Perhaps they already intend to, but they don't want half the world using some half-baked prerelease version and then asking them for support?

I have no idea if that's the case, but it's at least as plausible as your theory that they're terrified of web apps competing with native apps. And it's supported by exactly the same amount of evidence, which is to say none.

"open source, but close-licensed" is a contradiction. By no definition I know of is that considered "open source".

You're splitting hairs. I don't see any value to semantic argument here. The point is, the source code can be gotten, but it's not licensed so that others can use it.

"open source" has a specific meaning, not just "you can read the source:" http://www.opensource.org/

Yes, that's arguably true. That's also a completely boring semantic argument that completely misses what the guy was trying to express.

The usual nomenclature for this sort of thing is "shared source"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com