Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX

Linux to Over take Apple on Desktop

<< < (3/14) > >>

Pantso:
Well, to tell the honest truth, Darwin is certainly not Free Software, since it isn't licensed under the General Public License or any other license approved by the Free Software Foundation (LGPL etc). I would like to see Darwin GPL'd since the BSD subsystem under OS X is truly excellent.

However, I don't have any objection to what Apple is doing since I care less about looking at things that strictly and more about the software side of things. I like to be open-minded and look at the long term consequences for OS X users as well. Did you by any chance look at the Fink, Darwin and Gentoo merge? Or the upcoming Gentoo OS X port?

And before you say anything hasty, let me remind you that I'm an FSF Associated Member, and I also run a site on Free and Open Source Software. I just choose not to be that narrow-minded.    ;)

[ June 27, 2003: Message edited by: Panos ]

Laukev7:
Well said, Panos. I am not against open source, and there are many advantages to this approach. However, I think that not everything should be given away. What irks me is the dogmatic attitude adopted by many FSF and Linux proponents who think that any other approach is immoral.

The APSL may not be a 'free' licence by the FSF definition, but it has been amended over the years, and it is certainly not a proprietary licence.

flap:
The APSL is a perfect example of the limitations of an "Open Source" licence i.e. you can look at the source, but that's pretty much it. You can't reuse the code in other projects without Apple's permission, and you can't even really privately modify your own system as the licence requires you to make any modifications public. Its only point is that people might be able to find bugs and tell Apple about them, effectively doing their work for them. This in itself is fine - but the community gets nothing in return.

It's certainly not Free by any definition (except perhaps cost) and is a good example of how Open Source is not synonymous with Free Software. Basically, the Open Source-ness of APSL covered code is useless, and the fact that only the kernel is covered by the licence anyway adds insult to injury.

Laukev7:

quote: You can't reuse the code in other projects without Apple's permission
--- End quote ---


This has been amended.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html

 
quote: It's certainly not Free by any definition
--- End quote ---


But it's not proprietary (not that there's anything wrong with proprietary software).

 
quote: and is a good example of how Open Source is not synonymous with Free Software.
--- End quote ---


No one made that claim. The point is that not every company can afford to release their software under a free licence.

billy_gates:

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:

But it's not proprietary (not that there's anything wrong with proprietary software).
--- End quote ---


I'm gonna have to agree with Laukev on this one.  Proprietary software is not bad.  Free Software is not bad.  Companies should not be forced to divulge their source code, period.  People (and companies) have right, and no one should be able to take them away.

Also, I had never though of losing IE as a worry, as the title of that article states.

[ June 28, 2003: Message edited by: jeffberg: Mac Capitalist ]

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page