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

71–80 of 113 posts

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#71

Post by JohnTHaller »

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…

Unfortunately, that single line addition means that this code can't be used with other open source projects. It can't be combined with code released under the BSD, MIT, MPL, GPL or other OSI-certified open source licenses and kept under the same OSI license. This puts it more in the 'shared source' realm than the 'open source' realm.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#72

Post by yellowapple »

pjmlp wrote: post #46
baldfat wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually another post on Sun wouldn't have sued. Sun's CEO Jonathan Schwartz testified on behave of Google. He even blogged a congratulations to Google for releasing Android running Java. http://web.archive.org/web/20101023072550/http://blogs.sun.c... http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/26/2977858/former-sun-ceo-jon...

If you have bothered to read what Gosling had to say about it: "Google totally slimed Sun. We were all really disturbed, even Jonathan: he just decided to put on a happy face and tried to turn lemons into lemonade, which annoyed a lot of folks at Sun."

That doesn't mean they would have sued over it, though. Just that they disagreed with Google's actions.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#73

Post by JohnTHaller »

baddox wrote: post #27
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…

> 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. I'm not sure I follow your argument. Obviously, different individuals/organizations desire different licenses for the software they produce. If that wasn't the case, one could argue that only one software license should exist. Also, as we all know, software licenses are a fairly tr…

Whatever the motivation, this makes code released under Apple's custom BSD license incompatible with other open source licenses, so you can't use this code in other projects.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#75

Post by yellowapple »

criley2 wrote: post #51
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.

"Apple has a fairly decent Open Source history." To me, this is like calling someone who occasionally eats a vegan diet a "Fairly decent Vegan". No, if you eat meat or cheese on a regular basis you're a terrible Vegan! Just because Apple releases the source code as read-only doesn't really make them fairly decent with open source. To me, if you're not willing to pull commits from outside your walled garden or allow e…

> To me, if you're not willing to pull commits from outside your walled garden or allow external forks of your technologies, then you're terrible at open source. Sure, you technically checked off the very first checkbox ("make source available") but you stopped there. That's not a success, that's a stillborn effort...

That's still significantly better than what a lot of big "open-source" companies do.

Not that I disagree with you. Just putting things into perspective.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#76

Post by 8ig8 »

beshrkayali wrote: post #74

Sloppy scripting http://cl.ly/image/1L2G1V3C0A08 :P (Edit: added emoticon for joke emphasis)

I think we've all done something along those lines. I'm not sure if this counts, but recently HN asked us to avoid gratuitous negativity...

http://blog.ycombinator.com/new-hacker-news-guideline

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#77

Post by yellowapple »

rimantas wrote: post #59
yellowapple wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hahahahahahahahaha. Fucking no. Effectively all of Oracle's "open source" things come from Sun Microsystems, upon which Oracle happily latched onto and sucked dry. Oracle has what's called the "sidaM Touch". It's like the Midas Touch, but instead of gold, everything Oracle touches turns to shit: Java -> shit (though maybe slightly less so now). Solaris -> shit. OpenSolaris -> shit, now dead (thank the Lord for illumo…

However, even before MySQL was acquired by Sun the most serious engine—InnoDB which got bought by Oracle in 2005 but still kept open source.

MySQL wasn't acquired by Sun; that was a direct acquisition by Oracle in order to snuff out the most significant player in the realm of open-source SQL databases (and thus snuff out one of the most significant competitors to Oracle's flagship, Oracle DB).

As a result, MySQL is effectively dead outside of legacy deployments that haven't migrated to PostgreSQL, MariaDB, or one of the NoSQL monstrosities like MongoDB.

Even InnoDB was eventually forked; MariaDB and Percona both use XtraDB nowadays, probably because they didn't feel like being tied to something that - like every other open-source project Oracle has owned - would be fated to eventually wither and die.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#78

Post by beshrkayali »

8ig8 wrote: post #76
beshrkayali wrote: post #74

Sloppy scripting http://cl.ly/image/1L2G1V3C0A08 :P (Edit: added emoticon for joke emphasis)

I think we've all done something along those lines. I'm not sure if this counts, but recently HN asked us to avoid gratuitous negativity... http://blog.ycombinator.com/new-hacker-news-guideline

I just thought it's a bit funny, wasn't trying to be negative. Yes, we've all done something similar at some point.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#79

Post by SEJeff »

yellowapple wrote: post #33
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?

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…

"MariaDB is a reanimated corpse" - Citation Needed

Looks like to me, like it is far from a corpse: https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commits/10.1

I agree with you on both PostgreSQL and MongoDB, but saying MariaDB is a corpse is ignorant at best.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#80

Post by noblethrasher »

meragrin wrote: post #21
[deleted] wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

I don't see anything about async/await, extension methods, or lambdas. C# has quite a few additions since 2006. I would hate to go back to C# 2. C# 5 is the current and C# 6 coming very soon.

I often have to use C# 2.0 because that's the version that the SQL Server 2005 CLR understands. It turns out not to be so bad since you still have closures (in the form of anonymous delegates), generics, and user-defined operators.

Generics and user-defined conversion operators are powerful enough to nicely simulate Haskell's type classes (or Scala's traits), which, in my opinion, is a bigger deal than higher-order functions and 3.0+'s version of “type inferencing”.

Post reply on HN