131–140 of 458 posts
Am I the only one who finds it odd that while pushing two high level but performant languages (Objective-C and Swift) Apple wrote their Swift compiler in C++?
Github repo is live now. https://github.com/apple/swift First ever commit found here https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/afc81c1855bf711315b8e5...
It's cool to see that it was basically all Lattner at the beginning and his decisions about the license/exception still stand. EDIT: License/Header in each of files were apparently retroactively added.
https://github.com/apple/ This organization has no public repositories.
Github repo is live now. https://github.com/apple/swift First ever commit found here https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/afc81c1855bf711315b8e5...
It's cool to see that it was basically all Lattner at the beginning and his decisions about the license/exception still stand. EDIT: License/Header in each of files were apparently retroactively added.
Apache 2.0 License + Runtime Library Exception + copyright owned by the contributor (i.e. no assignment or CLA) + good community structure and documentation + code of conduct... well done, Apple!
Anybody knows what effects of the "copyright owned by the contributor" are in the context of Swift's Apache license? I guess the "good side" is that the lawyers of other companies probably like when the code made by their programmers keeps being copyrighted by the company. But it is still an Apache license, so they can't demand too much from the users of the code. Still, are there any negative aspects? Any imaginable…
Your typical corporate IP lawyer might feel queasy about the collective copyright aspect, but so much of the open source world works this way now... they can suffer in their jocks.
One important question they'll ask is: "Who can enforce the copyright and licence?" (Which is when the subtle difference between joint and collective copyright matters.)
Non-trivial contributions are made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 Licence, so regardless of who owns the copyright, everyone operates under those same terms.
One common rationalisation for copyright assignment is ease of relicensing, should it be necessary. That's much less important when operating under the terms of a permissive license.
It looks like Apple is also releasing an official package manager for swift.[1] I wonder how that will effect Cocoapods. [1] https://swift.org/package-manager
Also of note, the largest contributor to the package manager is Max Howell (mxcl), the creator of Homebrew: https://github.com/apple/swift-package-manager/graphs/contri...
Apache 2.0 License + Runtime Library Exception + copyright owned by the contributor (i.e. no assignment or CLA) + good community structure and documentation + code of conduct... well done, Apple!
Apache 2.0 License + Runtime Library Exception + copyright owned by the contributor (i.e. no assignment or CLA) + good community structure and documentation + code of conduct... well done, Apple!
Anybody knows what effects of the "copyright owned by the contributor" are in the context of Swift's Apache license? I guess the "good side" is that the lawyers of other companies probably like when the code made by their programmers keeps being copyrighted by the company. But it is still an Apache license, so they can't demand too much from the users of the code. Still, are there any negative aspects? Any imaginable…
Its developer's way to say FIRST