Re: GPLv3, was: Copying off Time Machine?

On Oct 4, 2012, at 9:14 AM, objectwerks inc wrote:

>>=20
>> Or you only have examples of contributions under licenses that don't =
require that they share anything, letting them pick and choose which =
modifications they share?
>=20
> Apple puts a ton of stuff back into open source projects.   They just =
avoid the GPL since it is not really about freedom, but control, and =
Apple would like to retain control of their work.

Yet Microsoft is a top contributor of the linux kernel, and have =
contributed code to SAMBA. Both under the GPL.

Webkit is not about freedom either I guess: LGPL and BSD licenses.

A license that is regarded as having been designed to proscribe a code =
base being used in closed source software available to the public, is =
not about freedom, according to you. Closed source is about freedom? For =
whom?

Apple puts in so many tons for open source projects, yet we have quite =
old bits in brand new Mountain Lion, even setting aside the GPL =
utilities. But you have nothing to say about this XServe-ization of Mac =
OS X. There's a pretty clear eventuality in Apple's track record when =
the milk starts to get sour.


>> I'm well aware that they contribute some things to open source, under =
licenses that let them sleep at night. It is entirely within their right =
to make vertical contributions to particular open source projects, and =
yet reap broad benefit from open source projects.
>=20
> Which is how EVERYONE does it.  Most people USE a lot more open source =
stuff than they contribute back to even if they are prolific committers. =
 That is usually constrained to a limited number of projects.

Finally, you make one reasonable point. Sadly, it doesn't last long.


> The world has benefitted more from Apple's contributions to open =
source than probably ANYONE else's if you look at pure numbers.


I accept your proposal to provide me with the the pure numbers so I may =
look at them. This is quite the grandiose statement, I look forward to =
seeing your metrics and data. And the pure numbers.

>  Based on the numbers for Webkit use alone, that dwarfs Linux use (or =
any other project -- Linux is probably the most widespread with a few =
desktops, relatively large number of servers, and Android).

Why are you comparing WebKit and Linux in this way? The context is =
commits by committers. Not hardware counts.

Why are you considering WebKit as synonymous with an Apple only =
contribution?

WebKit is a fork of KHTML, and Apple open sourced their fork 7 years =
ago. Have you considered that Apple might not even be a majority =
contributor to WebKit? Google, KDE, Nokia, Samsung, all contribute. A =
total of 418 people have pushed commits to WebKit. Yet you equate WebKit =
to Apple.

WebKit use dwarfs Linux use when you use flawed (and biased) logic to =
distort the client-server relationship. You're counting physical =
instances of clients vs servers, in a context where it's expected =
there'd be many more clients compared to servers. It isn't expected to =
be a 1:1 relationship.

>   Every Android phone using Linux also has Webkit on it, so that =
cancels out.  Then all the Chrome and other use of webkit more than =
cancels out the limited number of Linux desktops and the server cadre =
out there.

They cancel out even though WebKit is ~4 million lines of code, compared =
to linux which is ~11 million lines of code. And ~400 contributors vs =
~9000+ contributors. That cancels out, according to you. Last 30 days =
there were 200964 lines of code added to WebKit by 168 people; and 3.2 =
million lines of coded added to linux by 524 people. But these =
contributions cancel out, only because more people have client hardware =
than server hardware, and you think that counting hardware is a valid, =
useful metric.

How about I use a metric that's based on "PiB of data stored", instead =
of "number of desktops/servers"? Don't you suppose data bytes stored is =
a more valuable and neutral metric than counting physical hardware? You =
aren't even accounting for virtualization, the fact most servers have =
hundreds or thousands of server instances running on them, serving =
thousands to millions of users.

For every WebKit client session, there is a server hosting that data. =
Yet you're saying WebKit instances dwarf everything else. It's like =
saying the sand on all the beaches of earth cancel out the sun because =
there are more grains of sand.


>   (And for Apple supported open source spread you  technically you can =
add OS X use in as well since it is based on the open source Darwin =
project but I won't include that since you would just argue about it, =
fruitlessly btw)

Right but you're going to credit Apple with Darwin, and not account at =
all for the non-Apple contributions. Do you even know what percentage of =
XNU did not come from Apple at all?

OS X !=3D Darwin. The vast majority of OS X by payload size is closed.

OpenDarwin shut down six years ago. PureDarwin is a handful of people. =
There is no meaningful Darwin project, let alone as open source. It's =
hilarious to use this as an example of Apple's open source commitment, =
especially given the quotes from someone previously involved in the =
project. Darwin open source developer Rob Braun, from the time when =
OpenDarwin was shut down:

"Apple has chosen to not release source to key components of the OS, =
such as the kernel and all drivers. This means Darwin/x86 is dead in the =
water"

"One has to wonder why Apple even bothers to release non-GPL=92d source =
at all, if it is unwilling to cooperate with external developers to =
increase their return on investment and accept external bug fixes and =
features."

"Even worse, one has to wonder why people would want to donate their =
time to such a fruitless and pointless cause."

http://www.applematters.com/article/opendarwin-dies-a-lonely-death/


> The GPL is not about freedom. It is about control.  For control freaks =
like Stallman and his FSF buddies.

The GPL is not about freedom, but the iTunes monostore, closed hardware =
devices, closed software, and even an increasingly closed desktop =
platform are about freedom?

Since by default Mountain Lion in effect advises users to not run =
unsigned code, developers need to have their code put into the App Store =
in order for Apple to sign it. Only Apple has the signing keys. Apple =
doesn't let developers go to VeriSign and sign their own code. If the =
app is sold in the App Store, it must also run in the sandbox, =
inhibiting much of its functionality. But if you don't run in the =
sandbox you also don't have full access to all available OS X =
frameworks.

User freedom, developer freedom, are certainly not being enhanced on Mac =
OS. Apple's freedom from embarrassing malware tales is, however.

BIOS bootkits have been around for some time. They can affect Macs via =
the EFI CSM. There are very recently UEFI bootkits that target both =
Windows 8 and Mac OS X. It's a reasonable certainty we'll see Apple =
employ UEFI Secure Boot or something like it. And as they do not allow =
developers to sign their own application code, there's every reason to =
wonder if Apple will make it possible to add signing keys to the =
firmware whitelist so we can run something other than Mac OS X on the =
hardware we own. Prepare for Mac hardware jailbreak articles in the =
future.

Last and totally least, Google is full of the decade old stupid flame =
wars of "BSD is not about freedom" and "GPL is not about freedom" and =
which one was more or less free. Such binary logic thinking, and not =
recognizing at all that context matters, that licenses have their pros =
and cons, long ago deserved to be and had been placed in the refuse bin. =
No one can possibly say anything that hasn't already been argued before =
and long ago settled.


Chris Murphy