From the Apple page: "Apple uses software created by the Open Source community, such as the HTML rendering engine for Safari, and returns its enhancements to the community."
Similar with contributions to the kernel, afaik? Didn't Apple buy CUPS, hire the main developer -- and let it continue be open source? And so on.
Corporations, like countries, are a bit above (or, if you want, below) the concepts of good/evil. But Apple is hardly Microsoft.
Edit: I checked, the HTML rendering is under LGPL/BSD licenses! A bit ridiculous to complain about that, since it now is used by direct competitors of Apple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit
"WebKit was originally derived by Apple Inc. from the Konqueror browser’s KHTML software library for use as the engine of Mac OS X’s Safari web browser and has now been further developed by individuals from the KDE project, Apple Inc., Nokia, Google, Bitstream, Torch Mobile and others.[4]"
I think gst's point was not that Apple contributes back to the open source community or not in terms of code, it's that Apple reaps the benefits of the open source software and community and then attacks open source projects and contributors with patent threats. While they are good citizens on the code contribution front, they are not all around good citizens on the plays-wells-with-others front.
That might be, but I don't see the logic in that. Everything Apple does is not open source. The closed source or patented stuff can't be used regardless if someone is part of the open source community. No one gets sued for using the open-source stuff, if I got this right.
I don't take any sides here, just pointing out, that as far as I can see open source has nothing to do with this.
The closed source or patented stuff can't be used regardless if someone is part of the open source community. No one gets sued for using the open-source stuff, if I got this right.
(IANAL) Patented stuff can be used as long as the owner of the patent doesn't seek to enforce their patent. Unlike trademarks, the owner of a patent doesn't lose it if they don't enforce it, and also unlike patents, the patent holder can choose to selectively enforce/seek damages from infringing parties. Does a company with as much market penetration and power as Apple really feel threatened by open source projects such that they need to threaten them with lawsuits, meanwhile not feeling threatened enough by them to use open source software? Patent holders, including Apple, could take the high road and say "While we own these patents, we're not going to attack or threaten open source products that use our patents because 1) we benefit from open source 2) we still have the advantage even if our competitors use the open source product that is using our patented technology". But they don't, I suspect because it's cheaper to set a precedent for the validity of their patent by attacking someone who can't fight back.
The direct quote in the reference was that they'd be sued if they "moved forward to commercialize it". To me, that doesn't imply that they'd sue if the project was kept open source?
Sure, I might be missing something (I've been writing stupid error checking code most of the night.)
"Commercial" is not the opposite of "open source" or "free software", "proprietary" is. And "proprietary" software can be sold or given away in a non-commercial, or non-profit making manner just like FLOSS. The two issues are almost entirely orthogonal.
Yes, but I would be surprised if they were the only ones developing it.
As for Webkit, I assume Apple does benefit from enhancements made by Google, Nokia and everybody else. They didn't make Webkit open because they are generous - they had to make it open because they based it on KHTML.
>>Apple takes ... HTML rendering engine
From the Apple page: "Apple uses software created by the Open Source community, such as the HTML rendering engine for Safari, and returns its enhancements to the community."
Similar with contributions to the kernel, afaik? Didn't Apple buy CUPS, hire the main developer -- and let it continue be open source? And so on.
Corporations, like countries, are a bit above (or, if you want, below) the concepts of good/evil. But Apple is hardly Microsoft.
Edit: I checked, the HTML rendering is under LGPL/BSD licenses! A bit ridiculous to complain about that, since it now is used by direct competitors of Apple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit
"WebKit was originally derived by Apple Inc. from the Konqueror browser’s KHTML software library for use as the engine of Mac OS X’s Safari web browser and has now been further developed by individuals from the KDE project, Apple Inc., Nokia, Google, Bitstream, Torch Mobile and others.[4]"