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

101–110 of 113 posts

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#101

Post by jebblue »

stephenr wrote: post #91
jebblue wrote: post #85

I'm not an Apple fan but this is very professionally done, it reminds me of the work an Orthopedic Sureon had me do for him years ago when I see the layout: http://researchkit.github.io/docs/docs/Overview/GuideOvervie... The flow is consistent, step 1, step 2, etc. Something else that Apple makes I'm a fan of, CUPS Printing. It's also very professionally done. If we could only convince Apple to go Linux on everything…

Why does the kernel matter so much to you?

I guess I was expressing that the stuff that Apple Open Sources seems genuine, legit, honest and I admire that. I guess as I get older I realize (sorry for all the I's) that maybe I should give Apple a second look, on all fronts.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#102

Post by stephenr »

jebblue wrote: post #101
stephenr wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the kernel matter so much to you?

I guess I was expressing that the stuff that Apple Open Sources seems genuine, legit, honest and I admire that. I guess as I get older I realize (sorry for all the I's) that maybe I should give Apple a second look, on all fronts.

Sure, that makes sense, I just don't quite understand the "convince Apple to go Linux on everything" bit??

In terms of userland tools, OS X has pretty good compatibility with an average Linux distro (yes there are obvious differences between *BSD and GNU implementations of various tools).

Personally I think you should give Apple a(nother) look in terms of a productive workstation machine, even if that's paired with/using services from/developing systems for Linux-based servers.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#103

Post by sanxiyn »

yellowapple wrote: post #70
jshevek wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I'm honestly baffled that anyone thinks that Oracle has a admirable history of contributions to open source. When a software company is so large (and especially when they buy a company like Sun) one can always cherry pick examples in oracles favor, but on the whole, I see oracle trying to exploit open source software, and they don't seem to play nice with others.

I can't even find a single example from Oracle that would be cherry-pickable as evidence for their supposed open-source-friendliness. Literally every open-source project that Oracle owns has stagnated at best (aside from maybe Java; while I'm personally unimpressed by Java 8, I know there are a few people who would disagree with me), and at worse has significantly deteriorated, died entirely, been shoved off onto som…

JVM (not Java) gained invokedynamic, which is an amazing work. invokedynamic work was paid for by Oracle, so at least I am thankful to Oracle for advancing the open source there.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#104

Post by pistle »

It's a start! There is big space for improvement in supporting the complexities of research studies, but this can definitely be a jumping-off and may well support broad consistencies in design and implementation.

There would still be a massive effort to implement most of the requirements of a research study. But, at least the iOS UI implementation and some on-ramps via ActiveSteps would be eased.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#105

Post by ndnichols »

jebblue wrote: post #101
stephenr wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the kernel matter so much to you?

I guess I was expressing that the stuff that Apple Open Sources seems genuine, legit, honest and I admire that. I guess as I get older I realize (sorry for all the I's) that maybe I should give Apple a second look, on all fronts.

I for one appreciated all the "I"s! To me it shows that you understand that you are expressing a subjective opinion, not a fact in the world. I think too many people express opinions as facts with puffy language.

Compare yours to "Apple's admirable open source program is genuine and legit. If you've unfairly dismissed them in the past, give them a second look."

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#106

Post by pervycreeper »

cozzyd wrote: post #100
aetch wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said Apple currently makes CUPS, not that it started with Apple...

CUPS has a GPL exception for OS X software. [0] My interpretation of it is that it allows people to make proprietary printer drivers for OS X, making them useless on Linux. [0] http://cups.org/documentation.php/doc-2.0/license.html

That's chilling. Shame on them.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#107

Post by rimantas »

yellowapple wrote: post #77
rimantas wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. E…

What do you mean MySQL was not aquired by Sun? I was among ~400 MySQL employees in Orlando when the deal was announced. Yes, Sun was later bought by Oracle.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#108

Post by icebraining »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #99
icebraining wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why exactly couldn't it be combined with those licenses?

The GPL forbids additional restrictions on code, so you can't legally combine something that is GPL with a restriction like this. Adding something like this (that we'll call Apple BSD) to anything that is MIT/BSD would end up being Apple BSD, because you'd have to ensure this restriction is applied to the resulting product, over an above MIT/BSD.

So it's not actually incompatible with BSD/MIT.

As for the GPL, I think you missed section 7 - "Additional Terms":

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:

e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#109

Post by comex »

icebraining wrote: post #108
JohnTHaller wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPL forbids additional restrictions on code, so you can't legally combine something that is GPL with a restriction like this. Adding something like this (that we'll call Apple BSD) to anything that is MIT/BSD would end up being Apple BSD, because you'd have to ensure this restriction is applied to the resulting product, over an above MIT/BSD.

So it's not actually incompatible with BSD/MIT. As for the GPL, I think you missed section 7 - "Additional Terms": Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms: e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or serv…

If anyone's wondering, the GPLv2 is slightly less explicit: it doesn't directly state that it's strictly a copyright license rather than involving trademarks, but it's strongly implied, and has been treated as such in court, e.g. this from Germany:

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5b0c0785-3eac-...

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#110

Post by JohnTHaller »

icebraining wrote: post #108
JohnTHaller wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPL forbids additional restrictions on code, so you can't legally combine something that is GPL with a restriction like this. Adding something like this (that we'll call Apple BSD) to anything that is MIT/BSD would end up being Apple BSD, because you'd have to ensure this restriction is applied to the resulting product, over an above MIT/BSD.

So it's not actually incompatible with BSD/MIT. As for the GPL, I think you missed section 7 - "Additional Terms": Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms: e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or serv…

It's incompatible with BSD/MIT in the sense that whatever you combine with this Apple-variant BSD becomes Apple-variant BSD and can't be straight BSD or MIT anymore. In that respect, GPL code is also compatible with BSD/MIT as it can legally be combined, it just becomes GPL and can't be licensed as BSD/MIT anymore either.

As for the GPL notice, I hadn't realized that was added in GPL3, so these additions by Apple would be allowable under GPL3. I don't use GPL3 so hadn't known about that, thanks for the heads up. They wouldn't be compatible with the more-popular GPL2 (Linux and everything else), though, which has no such allowances.

Post reply on HN