Apple's free pass on open source
news.cnet.com
news.cnet.com
Granted they forked and renamed KHTML, and take maybe a little too much credit because of it, but they really propelled KHTML/WebKit to the top in the last couple of years. IMHO, WebKit is the premiere browser engine at this point, and I doubt it would be without Apple's involvement.
Also they call it "open source", and say they love it. You can go to an "Open Source" webpage at apple.com and see how to download source from CVS, and how to install and run other open-source programs (like PostgreSQL and MySQL) on Mac OS X.
It's hard to imagine how a company selling proprietary software could be any more open-source friendly.
It took forever when I was trying to track down the source for their libtool a couple years back; when I finally did I patched it to use half of the memory of their version (at the time it was using 1.5 GB just to link some stuff where I worked) and sent the patches in to mailing lists and filed them in a bug report. Never heard anything from Apple on either.
The biggest case where that's not true -- where Apple has been pretty integrated into the community development processes from the beginning isn't any of the projects you mention -- it's GCC. Usually they just do what they need to to meet the license requirements.
They also beat all of the big-name players to Acid 3 compliance.
I contributed some very minor portions back in the KHTML days, and am friends with all of the original KHTML developers, so I watched this unfold. To be fair, this wasn't the fault of the Webkit developers, but as mentioned in the article, Apple's ultra-secretiveness and development timelines.
By most measures, it's the least open smart phone platform.
But since you brought it up, Apple has contributed to several open source projects as a direct result of the iPhone projects. WebKit, for one.
LLVM is another:
"continued development and support of LLVM is funded by Apple Inc., ..."
If you believe the two are unrelated, then we have widely differing beliefs about why Open Source is important. Open Source and Free Software is about freedom to do what you want with the software you use...Apple is not fond of that idea, and never has been.
Sending money, and/or some snippets of code, to Open Source developers is wonderful...but it doesn't make a company a friend to Open Source or a friend to freedom. Apple is not an Open Source friendly company. They're not even an open standards friendly company, except where it suits them.
And, I guess I need to point out that WebKit is not some generous gift to the world. Apple was required, by law, to release the source they produced. That they did so is not something to be praised. It's just doing business legally.
So, sure, Apple contributes to some Open Source projects...and that's a good thing. But Apple is hostile to openness on many fronts, and that is a bad thing.
My point is that Apple does much more than contribute "snippets of code". Perhaps not every aspect of their business lives up to your ideal, but I think most of their involvement in open source projects does.
So, sure, Apple contributes to some Open Source projects...and that's a good thing. But Apple is hostile to openness on many fronts, and that is a bad thing.
I like that Apple is involved in Open Source, and I'm sure WebKit is more awesome than race cars and firetrucks. And I don't begrudge anyone making money from their software--we have proprietary offerings along-side our predominantly Open Source core. Nothing wrong with making money. I just find Apple's hostility to open standards and basic user freedoms, particularly in the mobile space but also in music and media distribution, to be wholly at odds with so many people considering Apple to be a benevolent force in the technology industry.
When Microsoft can, without irony, claim to provide more open solutions to many common problems than another company, it's a really big red flag. If Microsoft is evil (and historically, on many counts, they are), then any company that is worse than Microsoft is...well...worse than Microsoft. Microsoft actually does offer significantly more openness in their mobile platform than Apple. If you don't consider this a serious problem (given that mobile devices are the future of computing, and the only way a huge number of people will ever get to the Internet), then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Nothing is going to convince me that Apple's animosity to openness on mobile devices is not a dangerous move backward for the mobile industry.
You know what else isn't open source? PageRank. Shut up, CNet.
I _do_ tend to try and spend my money with companies that contribute back.
This is so true. The iPhone is out. Everybody can (and could) become an iPhone developer and download the SDK.
Yet, developers are still not allowed to talk to each other about programming on the iPhone. Not in public forums. But also not even in person with you colleague or friend who also downloaded the SDK.
In my opinion they are taking it too far. Way too far. I just don't see the point of this NDA.
It seems to me that the issue could be related to the fact that Apple uses a lot of open source code (granted they do give back), but quite a bit of their software comes with technology that restricts usage by consumers.
The GPL (v3 even more so than v2) tries to address these types of issues. The downside being that everything needs to be shared so it reduces private company incentive to pour money into features/technology that competitors can just snag.
In the end it is one of the downsides of working on BSD/MIT licensed open source code. In one sense it is an act of altruism, but it can sting to see someone snag the code and make lots of money with hardly an acknowledgment in your direction or to take and use it to restrict people.
I bear no grudge against Apple, Microsoft, or Google for not 'contributing enough' to Open Source.
I love it when companies make their products open source, but after all, they are companies and their primary objective as publicly traded corporations is to create value for shareholders.
My opinion on the matter is simply, give Microsoft and Google a break.
"I love my Mac. Period." That sortof answers your question, doesn't it? For good or ill, some people just want to get in on the Apple love fest. But don't cut off your nose to spite your face: I think Sun's actually done, on the whole, a decent job at working with and for the open source community. For both Apple and (sometimes) Google, I merely say: Beware Greeks bearing gifts.