Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 94 posts

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#11

Post by saurik »

X-Istence wrote: post #5
sedachv wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I drew exactly the opposite conclusion. Go with BSD if you want Apple to steal your code and contribute back nothing to the community (how much have they given back to Free/NetBSD?).

This keeps being brought up, the whole apple not contributing back to FreeBSD, but I would urge you to please look through FreeBSD's CVS history to find all of the places that Apple HAS indeed contributed back (I've made several comments with links to such sources on HN before). Apple also has an entire website dedicated to the various pieces of source code for their OS, and other tools, and are actively developing c…

As somebody who actually has to use Apple's "open source" website, you have to realize that the code for the projects listed there is often:

a) out of date or unrealized (for which they are entitled to do with BSD code, but when it comes to GPL I file complaints)

b) redacted and uncompilable (they purposely remove source code for specific targets that is still listed in the build environment, or hold back critical header files for dependent libraries)

c) limited in scope (they release WebCore, because it is LGPL, but they actually /don't/ release a lot of WebKit)

Also, it is quite clear to everyone involved that the reason that they are actively developing Clang/LLVM is so that they can avoid gcc 4.3+, when it went GPLv3. It was hard enough for them before: gcc was the one place they have been unable to redact and hoard their ARM contributions, but with GPLv3 the situation becomes untenable for them.

So, since then, Apple's Xcode compiler has rapidly slipped out of date, and now they are forced to take over development of a BSD project just to stay competitive.

Frankly, this is actually a /win/ for the GPL: despite Apple's claims, Clang/LLVM is still very very far behind GCC in terms of correctness and compliance (certainly with recent specifications, like C++0x), which has made Apple's less-free choices result in an increasingly "dispreferred" deployment target for many projects.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#12

Post by patrickaljord »

X-Istence wrote: post #5
sedachv wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I drew exactly the opposite conclusion. Go with BSD if you want Apple to steal your code and contribute back nothing to the community (how much have they given back to Free/NetBSD?).

This keeps being brought up, the whole apple not contributing back to FreeBSD, but I would urge you to please look through FreeBSD's CVS history to find all of the places that Apple HAS indeed contributed back (I've made several comments with links to such sources on HN before). Apple also has an entire website dedicated to the various pieces of source code for their OS, and other tools, and are actively developing c…

WebKit doesn't count because they were forced to contribute back as KHTML was LGPL. I know they have rewritten big parts of it under the BSD license, but given that Google (and others) commits constitutes more than 50% of the webkit contributions today, it wouldn't make sense for Apple to stop contributing their changes.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#13

Post by redial »

sedachv wrote: post #3
alanh wrote: post #2

Another reason to go BSD over GPL unless you really do care about the GNU project more than shipping code & solutions.

I drew exactly the opposite conclusion. Go with BSD if you want Apple to steal your code and contribute back nothing to the community (how much have they given back to Free/NetBSD?).

These may be old, but help to get some perspective.

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat/2004-July/00...

http://www.trollaxor.com/2004/02/thank-apple-for-freebsd.htm...

As mentioned in the first link by Paul Robinson,

"If FreeBSD wanted more than attribution, perhaps the choice of BSD license was a bad idea. :-)"

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#14

Post by ajross »

alanh wrote: post #4
sedachv wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I drew exactly the opposite conclusion. Go with BSD if you want Apple to steal your code and contribute back nothing to the community (how much have they given back to Free/NetBSD?).

Darwin? How is it stealing if it's open source, and the end result is the best desktop OS ever created? Sheesh And Apple's work on open source Clang/LLVM and WebKit has been quite significant has it not?

WebKit is a descendant of KHTML, and thus LGPL by requirement. I have a hard time believing Apple would have ever opened this technology had they developed it internally.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#15

Post by vasi »

saurik wrote: post #11
X-Istence wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This keeps being brought up, the whole apple not contributing back to FreeBSD, but I would urge you to please look through FreeBSD's CVS history to find all of the places that Apple HAS indeed contributed back (I've made several comments with links to such sources on HN before). Apple also has an entire website dedicated to the various pieces of source code for their OS, and other tools, and are actively developing c…

As somebody who actually has to use Apple's "open source" website, you have to realize that the code for the projects listed there is often: a) out of date or unrealized (for which they are entitled to do with BSD code, but when it comes to GPL I file complaints) b) redacted and uncompilable (they purposely remove source code for specific targets that is still listed in the build environment, or hold back critical he…

I mostly agree with you, but you're incorrect about WebCore/WebKit. For the first couple of years of WebKit development, Apple did indeed only release WebCore, but since 2005 all of WebKit has been released. Otherwise, how could Gnome (Epiphany), KDE (rekonq), Chromium, etc be using it?

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#16

Post by foljs »

saurik wrote: post #11
X-Istence wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This keeps being brought up, the whole apple not contributing back to FreeBSD, but I would urge you to please look through FreeBSD's CVS history to find all of the places that Apple HAS indeed contributed back (I've made several comments with links to such sources on HN before). Apple also has an entire website dedicated to the various pieces of source code for their OS, and other tools, and are actively developing c…

As somebody who actually has to use Apple's "open source" website, you have to realize that the code for the projects listed there is often: a) out of date or unrealized (for which they are entitled to do with BSD code, but when it comes to GPL I file complaints) b) redacted and uncompilable (they purposely remove source code for specific targets that is still listed in the build environment, or hold back critical he…

1) (a) and (b) Applies mostly to the Darwin source. Apple doesn't provide you with the latest sources before it has it released commercially. Big f'n surprise. Not many people are interested in Darwin anyways.

(c) Actually, you can get the WebKit code and build it, and you'll have a WebKit browser to run. I've done it. Don't know what you are talking about. Did you expect the whole code for Safari? They sure give enough Webkit source for Google, Nokia, the GTK people et al to build a full featured browser upon...

2) "Also, it is quite clear to everyone involved that the reason that they are actively developing Clang/LLVM is so that they can avoid gcc 4.3+, when it went GPLv3."

Actually, it is not at all "clear". They started using it way back in 2005. Actually they wanted a better, faster, more flexible and dynamic compiler infrastructure, and LLVM provided that. And they use it for other stuff too, from graphics code to MacRuby.

3) "since then, Apple's Xcode compiler has rapidly slipped out of date, and now they are forced to take over development of a BSD project just to stay competitive".

Actually Apple had made huge improvements to XCode's compiler in XCode 3, even adding several new features to the core Objective-C language, and also made a HUGE improvement to the overall IDE and compiler (new static analyzer, new debugger, AST-based syntax assistance and code completion etc) with XCode 4 (currently in public beta 5).

4) despite Apple's claims, Clang/LLVM is still very very far behind GCC in terms of correctness and compliance

Bzzz, wrong.

5) (certainly with recent specifications, like C++0x)

Which are not even standard yet, and noone cares about while actually SHIPPING code.

Whatever man...

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#17

Post by blasdel »

This is much more about a single VLC developer spitefully griefing the others than the GPL.

The only reason he has grounds to send C&D letters to Apple is because he holds copyright over his contributions to VLC. The other developers don't give a shit that the Apple-distributed binaries aren't redistributable by default, given that the iOS port is still fully open source and is trivially redistributable/compilable on jailbroken devices.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#19

Post by sedachv »

alanh wrote: post #4
sedachv wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I drew exactly the opposite conclusion. Go with BSD if you want Apple to steal your code and contribute back nothing to the community (how much have they given back to Free/NetBSD?).

Darwin? How is it stealing if it's open source, and the end result is the best desktop OS ever created? Sheesh And Apple's work on open source Clang/LLVM and WebKit has been quite significant has it not?

"Open source" is a misleading term, please stop using it: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...

As pointed out in other replies, Apple is working on clang because it doesn't want to deal with the GPL (unless you own Apple stock, you're the one losing because of this decision), and WebKit because it's derived from LGPL code.

How much work is Apple putting into making Darwin a usable Free Software OS? Versus how much work have Red Hat, Canonical, Novell, IBM etc. have put into making Linux available in a number of different, free distributions? The reason all has to do with GPL and copyleft. There is very little incentive for companies to invest in BSD code, and no disincentive for them to steal it. If Linux wasn't GPLed, it wouldn't be where it is today.

There's nothing wrong with what Apple is doing. However, if you think that somehow Apple releasing some of their code under the BSD justifies restricting their end-users to their locked-in App Store and their fight against the GPL, there is something morally off with your thinking.

Claiming that this makes the BSD a better choice than the GPL shows that you don't understand that Apple doesn't care about you and your open source; they'll take whatever is convenient. You're the one losing out, and you're justifying it to yourself as a good thing.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#20

Post by Dylan16807 »

To me this seems like a failure of the simplicity of the GPL, but with no easy fix. Apple doesn't want to restrict the program to anyone, they just want to have their distribution process restrictive. If there was a way to proxy the supply of the restriction-free binary and/or source code of the app there wouldn't be a problem. The app submitter or VLC devs or another interested party would step up to host.
Post reply on HN