Hacker News Reader

Comment by nailer | Hacker News Reader

Yes I did. The full quote is:

> Steve: We took a tiny little open source project, and we created what's called "WebKit" out there, and we did an interesting thing for Apple: we put it in open source.

which doesn't serve any value beyond simply saying:

"We took a tiny little open source project, and worked on it."

Steve adding 'we created what's called "WebKit" out there, and we did an interesting thing for Apple: we put it in open source' makes no sense - it's either:

- redundant (KHTML was already LGPLed, so obviously Apple's patches would be)

- implying Webkit was something 'created' by Apple that Apple had choice over their licensing with.

To me it seems the latter, which is somewhat disingenuous. You obviously disagree. Invoking spiritual beings is unnecessary.

View on HN

I refer you to my previous comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1397514

Let me break it down a bit further. WebKit is an Apple-initiated project. It is the web counterpart to Apple's native UIKit framework. If they wanted to, they could have made WebKit closed source, eschewing the use of KHTML entirely. They were in no way obligated to use KHTML as a starting point. And for a company like Apple, you can be sure the decision to tie themselves to the LGPL was not undertaken lightly.

In choosing to use the LGPLed KHTML project as the basis for WebKit, they chose to put WebKit in open source. They did exactly what Steve Jobs said they did, no disingenuity required.

Sure, maybe he could have ordered his phrases more clearly, but he's speaking off the cuff here.

> If they wanted to, they could have made WebKit closed source, eschewing the use of KHTML entirely.

Yes, I understand what you're saying - Apple made a choice about what product to use and was aware of the licensing implications.

Apple got to make one choice: use KHTML or something else. As soon as they chose KHTML, the choice of licensing was made for them. Saying 'we open sourced it' implies Apple made the choice to open source it. They did not. They were obligated to by the fact the people who made the code licensed it that way.

Linksys got to make one choice: use Linux or something else. As soon as they chose Linux, the choice was made for them.

Job's already mentioned that Apple chose to use an OSS app. Saying they 'chose the licensing for it' is wrong: they didn't, someone in the KDE project made that decision. Apple abided by the rules, they didn't create them.

Let me try this again.

Let's say we form a company to develop a web layout engine. We haven't made anything yet, and we're wondering if it would be better to make our layout engine closed source or open. We decide to go with open. Why? Because we're fed up with having to support slow, non-standards-compliant browsers for our web apps. If our fast, standards-compliant layout engine is open source, maybe more browsers will use it, and web development will be less sucky for us in the future.

It turns out that there's already some great open source code called KHTML that we can build on to create our engine, and it's licensed with the LGPL. Well, that's no problem, because we decided our layout engine was going to be open source anyway. So why not fork it? We don't have to, but it's good code, so we might as well. Thus, our open source layout engine ends up being based on KHTML. But it was not our decision to use KHTML that made our engine open source. We decided that it was going to be open source, irrespective of whether we decided to use KHTML.

Likewise, Apple chose whether or not WebKit would be open source, irrespective of whether they decided to use KHTML.

You seem to be making the argument that Apple just decided to base WebKit on KHTML without much concern for the licensing implications, and inadvertently ended up "stuck" with a WebKit that must adhere to the LGPL. Hence, Steve Jobs is disingenuously suggesting that WebKit was intentionally open source. And what I'm saying is, given Apple's long history of tight control over its software, not to mention their willingness to rewrite their software from scratch, that assumption just isn't credible. Whereas they have credible, self-interested motives for creating an open source layout engine, just like Google has credible self-interested motives for making Android open source.

> You seem to be making the argument that Apple just decided to base WebKit on KHTML without much concern for the licensing implications

No.

I'm saying 'we used something OSS! Then we decided to make it OSS!' is either nonsensical or misleading.

Well, I tried my best.

I didn't think it was that hard to understand. Do you get what I'm saying now?

I've always gotten what you've been saying. You seem to be completely incapable of getting what I'm saying. And I'm certain you have to ability to get what I'm saying, but I think you just really, really don't want to. Or you're trolling. Not really sure at this point.

>>> You seem to be making the argument that Apple just decided to base WebKit on KHTML without much concern for the licensing implications

>I've always gotten what you've been saying.

Clearly you haven't.

OTOH, if you think I've misunderstood or mischaracterized anything you've said, you haven't said so.

Anyway, I give up.

You're saying Apple decided to open source WebKit before deciding what to base it on.

He's saying that because KHTML's LGPL was going to force them to open source WebKit in any case, it's either nonsensical or misleading for Steve to say that Apple "put it into open source".

I didn't remember that LGPL wasn't commercially "safe".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com