11–20 of 113 posts
Is there anything about App Store guidelines? Curious if Apple is going to require any kind of IRB approval first.
IRB = institutional review board, which commonly also includes ethics committees
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EDIT (To Clarify) Warning I am Strongly Anti-Apple Bias: Apple has a fairly decent Open Source history. http://www.opensource.apple.com There is things to complain about but there are more I am concerned with in regards to Open Source (Oracle). EDIT: I don't like Apple's products or the way the conduct business BUT I think they have done more good for Open Source than bad.
"Strongly Anti-Apple Bias here" was something you assumed that may or may not be correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can sense some Strong Anti-Oracle Bias here. Oracle is one of the major contributor to open source, see the lineup here, chances are you're using some of them: https://oss.oracle.com/ starts with Java
Java, is it the thing they used to sue on API copyright? Good demonstration of how to mess with "open-source" IMO. If you remove what they got from Sun, what reminds?
Ever heard of the fasted embedded database engine called Berkeley DB. Doesn't matter came from where, Sun or what ever is still being developed and contributed in the open source environment.
Here's a link to the current project's source if anyone is interested: https://github.com/researchkit Love that Apple is going open-source, and hopefully they do this for more of their code (pssssttt...Swift)
EDIT (To Clarify) Warning I am Strongly Anti-Apple Bias: Apple has a fairly decent Open Source history. http://www.opensource.apple.com There is things to complain about but there are more I am concerned with in regards to Open Source (Oracle). EDIT: I don't like Apple's products or the way the conduct business BUT I think they have done more good for Open Source than bad.
I hate when companies just feel the urge to add a random sentence or two to an existing license, particularly in cases like these:
"3. Neither the name of the copyright holder(s) nor the names of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. No license is granted to the trademarks of the copyright holders even if such marks are included in this software."
The first sentence is BSD, they added the second sentence. The problem with this is a few-fold.
Either this clause is needed for the entire world (since BSD is used for trademark'd software all the time), or it's not needed at all.
It turns out, in fact, arguments over trademark inclusion due to OSS licensing has been made before, and nobody has ever won on this before[1] So other than some lawyer just "not being satisfied unless they added stuff to the license", all this does is make a gratuitously different license that
A. can't be merged with other licenses (since it requires you reproduce this condition text, and this condition text is not the same anymore as the other ones)
B. Isn't actually the BSD license, and was deliberately changed, so ends up worse in court since now the other side can reasonably argue that the same precedent should't apply.
C. Makes analyzing compatibility with other licenses more difficult and annoying.
[1] Since they are very clearly licenses about the software work, not trademarks, and you can't stop someone from saying "this uses apple's researchkit" regardless of what trademarks you have or what you write in this license, anyway.
E.g. build a system with RFID cards that uses sensors to automatically measure blood pressure, etc[1] and keep history.
ps. Too many interesting possibilities out there and too little time to pursue them!
[1] http://www.cooking-hacks.com/documentation/tutorials/ehealth...
I hope they will open Swift, like Microsoft is doing with C#.
[deleted]
> It was developed by Microsoft within its .NET initiative and later approved as a standard by Ecma (ECMA-334) and ISO (ISO/IEC 23270:2006).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_%28programming_language...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EDIT (To Clarify) Warning I am Strongly Anti-Apple Bias: Apple has a fairly decent Open Source history. http://www.opensource.apple.com There is things to complain about but there are more I am concerned with in regards to Open Source (Oracle). EDIT: I don't like Apple's products or the way the conduct business BUT I think they have done more good for Open Source than bad.
Complying with copyright is not a great example of "Open Source history"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can sense some Strong Anti-Oracle Bias here. Oracle is one of the major contributor to open source, see the lineup here, chances are you're using some of them: https://oss.oracle.com/ starts with Java
Java, is it the thing they used to sue on API copyright? Good demonstration of how to mess with "open-source" IMO. If you remove what they got from Sun, what reminds?
Initially I was partnering with Google, but now I side with Oracle's decision, as it is now proven how Google just pulled a Microsoft and fragmented the Java eco-system.
Now we are stuck with partial Java 7 assuming 4.4 devices, good luck using try-with resources in lower versions and no plan for future versions as of the Android Developers Fireside at Google IO 2014.
The Android team seems more interested in porting the whole Eclipse/Ant infrastructure, building more Google APIs or making Android run everywhere instead of improving the language support.
[0] http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/my_attitude_on_oracle...