Re: intel source code release
Re: intel source code release
- Subject: Re: intel source code release
- From: Derick Centeno <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:36:51 -0500
If what has been reported here is true and Apple is changing or has
removed standard open source components to it's purposes (whatever that
may be), which further limits other current and potentially workable
open source projects -- also reported, it might be time to consider the
fact that Apple did enter into a open source agreement of a particular
unique nature which has aspects of the GPL standard but is not
completely standard open source. In short, it is a form of "open
source" as Apple has redefined as open source in it's own terms, which
Apple feels comfortable with; this is the kind of "open source"
definition which Apple developers engage together with Apple in
employing. Apple is not the only company to do so, and probably won't
be the last.
The specific details discussing this nuance appeared a long time ago --
perhaps on /. or elsewhere, I'm not sure. It was one of those articles
of interest to lawyers and persons who follow, use and attend to the
standard GPL. I believe I recall a statement in the same article of a
key founder of the GPL concept commenting on the nature of the kind of
"open source" clause which Apple has engaged upon and employed. If my
memory serves me correctly, that comment foresaw the situation reported
upon here, these many years later.
I recommend that others evaluating this situation who do not care to
"reason why" this or that with Apple or any similar corporate entity
consider returning to the standard GPL fold, where there remain many
good and solid projects and companies abiding to the spirit and nature
of the standard GPL while simultaneously engage in commercial
production. There remain many GPL based Linux distributions, and the
strongest amongst those supporting the PPC remains Yellow Dog Linux
(YDL) (www.yellowdoglinux.com) which adheres closely to Red Hat Linux.
Apple is not the only entity that can redefine what is done or how; so
can you. If you are looking to keep your different computer
architectures going and yet remain within the GPL standard -- without
odd and unpleasant surprises here/there or now/then, remember there is
no problem running Red Hat Linux on Intel boxes (which the new Macs are
just like any other Intel box) and run YDL on the PPCs you have and the
projects you have will be done -- YOUR -- way!
By the way, for all the preachy news regarding speed of the new Intel
systems over PPC; some will be surprised to determine for themselves
performance statistics when Intel machines and PPC machines are running
Red Hat Linux or YDL.
Best wishes, respectfully to all ...
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 20:44 +0100, Stéphane Sudre wrote:
> On vendredi, février 17, 2006, at 04:32 PM, Graham Jouee wrote:
>
> > On 17 Feb 2006, at 14:38, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> > [...]
> >>
> >> By limiting published source code to that which is "infected" by the
> >> GPL, Apple is, in my honest opinion, scoring an own goal.
> > [...]
> >
> > I agree, but then I think that a large slice of the people you just
> > sent your message to (especially on hackers@) are going to agree also.
> > I for one have filed an Enhancement Request with Apple asking for
> > greater access to the Darwin/intel sources and outlining what I use it
> > for, and why I won't be able to get all of my work done if I went to
> > an intel-only environment with the current source availability. IOW,
> > I explain why I'm not about to rush out and upgrade all of my PPC Macs
> > ;-). I don't know how successful that will be, but source-code
> > availability of the core UNIX is a reason that I and some of my
> > colleagues have given to justify going with OS X; not having that
> > makes other BSDs, Linux and Slowlaris[!] more attractive than OS X for
> > some purposes.
>
> What would be interesting to see in the Intel source version is the
> explanation why one week before the announcement of Mac OS X for Intel
> at WWDC, the x86 version of Darwin was said to be a dying 3-leg horse
> from a performance point of view with no hope of recovery and now,
> since the release of the Intel iMac Core Duo, it is (or stated to be) a
> stalion.
>
> This could help me for turf related stuff :)
>
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden