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

Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

researchkit.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 113 posts

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#31

Post by magicalist »

pjmlp wrote: post #20
Joky wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sun would have sued Google if they had the money for the lawyers[0]. 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…

> Sun would have sued Google if they had the money for the lawyers[0].

Actually:

> Just because Sun didn't have patent suits in our genetic code doesn't mean we didn't feel wronged

implies just the opposite.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with whether APIs should be copyrightable or not.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#32

Post by xasos »

baldfat wrote: post #5
xasos wrote: post #2

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 think now that it's on GitHub, it's a lot more accessible and easier for developers to start pulling the source

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#33

Post by yellowapple »

Joky wrote: post #7
suyash wrote: post #6

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?

MySQL, which - as one of the worst victims of Oracle's sidaM Touch - ended up being forked into MariaDB, and is now effectively irrelevant outside of legacy deployments since anyone who knows what they're doing has switched to PostgreSQL and anyone who doesn't know what they're doing has switched to MongoDB.

MySQL as packaged by Oracle is quite literally a corpse. MariaDB is a reanimated corpse.

And such is the tale of an open-source product acquired by a multi-billion-dollar company who made those multiple billions of dollars entirely on selling a commercial product against which the open-source product competed. Competition-elimination-by-acquisition at its finest.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#34

Post by skrpwr »

frewsxcv wrote: post #14
baldfat wrote: post #5

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"

Complying with copyright is the entire premise of copyleft aka the GPL.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#35

Post by oddevan »

DannyBee wrote: post #15

While it's wonderful they did this, as a short rant: 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 o…

> No license is granted to the trademarks of the copyright holders even if such marks are included in this software.

This line was probably required to get some manager at Apple to sign off on this. There are few companies as protective of their trademarks--their _name_--as Apple, and they probably wanted to make sure that an accidental commit from a developer that included an Apple logo or the word 'iPhone' didn't cause irreparable damage to their trademark.

Valid fear? That's debatable. But I'd rather have a company add _one line_ to an already minimal license than not open source at all out of this fear.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#36

Post by Argorak »

frewsxcv wrote: post #14
baldfat wrote: post #5

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"

Apple has funded clang and LLVM, maintains CUPS, funded MacRuby for a while and packaged a lot of OS Software for their system, promoting it.

Not all is gold, but that's certainly more than "complying with copyright".

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#37

Post by DannyBee »

oddevan wrote: post #35
DannyBee wrote: post #15

While it's wonderful they did this, as a short rant: 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 o…

> No license is granted to the trademarks of the copyright holders even if such marks are included in this software. This line was probably required to get some manager at Apple to sign off on this. There are few companies as protective of their trademarks--their _name_--as Apple, and they probably wanted to make sure that an accidental commit from a developer that included an Apple logo or the word 'iPhone' didn't c…

"This line was probably required to get some manager at Apple to sign off on this." I agree here :)

"Apple logo or the word 'iPhone' didn't cause irreparable damage to their trademark."

As I said, this is a problem either no company who uses the BSD license has or all of them have it.

"But I'd rather have a company add _one line_ to an already minimal license than not open source at all out of this fear."

I don't agree here at all. Because this is how we ended up with the mess that caused things like open source license certification by OSI to exist in the first place.

Random companies would add random one-liners to licenses, like "don't use in nuclear reactors", etc.

Down this path is madness, and it starts with good intentions.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#38

Post by mzs »

mattl wrote: post #29
DannyBee wrote: post #15

While it's wonderful they did this, as a short rant: 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 o…

Looks like they took it from http://opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php

Not really, AFL is more similar, but the language is all different in both.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#39

Post by derefr »

DannyBee wrote: post #37
oddevan wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No license is granted to the trademarks of the copyright holders even if such marks are included in this software. This line was probably required to get some manager at Apple to sign off on this. There are few companies as protective of their trademarks--their _name_--as Apple, and they probably wanted to make sure that an accidental commit from a developer that included an Apple logo or the word 'iPhone' didn't c…

"This line was probably required to get some manager at Apple to sign off on this." I agree here :) "Apple logo or the word 'iPhone' didn't cause irreparable damage to their trademark." As I said, this is a problem either no company who uses the BSD license has or all of them have it. "But I'd rather have a company add _one line_ to an already minimal license than not open source at all out of this fear." I don't agr…

It's probably a problem all of them have. Apple is just the only company that cares enough to make a big deal about it in advance, rather than imagining that they'll just let things slide for now and argue post-facto in some later court case that the license should be read as not granting trademarks.

In other words, this isn't like the nuclear reactors bit—this is something that could actually belong in the BSD license, and where when merging BSD-licensed software with Apple!BSD-licensed software, probably the Apple!BSD would keep winning, and the trait would end up at fixation, rather than "speciating" the license.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#40

Post by baldfat »

suyash wrote: post #6
baldfat wrote: post #5

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.

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

> Sense some Strong Anti-Oracle Bias here

Use to be a System Librarian and had to run Oracle DB.

Issues:

1. OpenOffice gave it to Apache Foundation and not LibreOffice

2. MySQL is abandoned by many major users but we have MariaDB

3. Java suite against Google to make API Copyright-able

4. Oracle's White Paper stating that Open Source cost more and is less reliable.

5. Oracle Linux (Just a rip off of Red Hat)

6. KSplice bought by Oracle none of us gets to use re-bootless kernel patches with that technology since it has no development after it was bought 3 years ago. EDIT (FALSER: Was going off the top of my head) It is available to people who purchase support convert to Oracle Linux and they are making updates to legacy customers (Which is good to know)) corrected bellow.

I could go on about Oracle :)

So yes a bias against Oracle's Open Source stances and activities.

Post reply on HN