Very Computer

http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/21318.html

IS OPEN SOURCE APPLE'S SALVATION?
Joe "Zonker April 21 2003

".. While Apple's reliance on open source has changed the nature of
its products, it is not likely to result in a huge change in market
share. Open source is not the key to Apple taking over the world, says
Roger Kay, director of client computing at IDC .."

".. The question is whether adoption of open source has any real
impact on Apple's overall strategy and health or is just an
interesting side note .."

".. While Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) complains bitterly about open
source, Apple has found a way to have its cake and eat it too .."
....... unquote .......

Another interesting thing to note is that Apple's Public Source license
has some similarities to the GPL.  So, although they used BSD code,
anyone who modifies Darwin code would be required to contribute back.
As for what they've contributed back to FreeBSD, I heard a long time ago
they contributed an NFS debugging tool.  I don't know what else.  The
BSDL doesn't require it, but some companies do contribute back anyways,
or have an additional agreement as to how handle such things. Like, for
example, one company that builds embedded products derived from NetBSD
code signed an agreement that the source was to remain closed for 6
months, and then opened.  I think this is what Lindows and/or someone
associated with United Linux tried to do with GPL code.  The BSDL does
allow this flexibility while being compatible with the GPL (due to the
removal of the obnoxious advertising clause).  RMS was right is lobbying
to have that clause removed.  Of course, the BSDL has its obvious
weaknesses, as others have pointed out.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Quote:> associated with United Linux tried to do with GPL code.  The BSDL does
> allow this flexibility while being compatible with the GPL (due to the
> removal of the obnoxious advertising clause).  RMS was right is lobbying
> to have that clause removed.  Of course, the BSDL has its obvious
> weaknesses, as others have pointed out.

  In the academic or scientific world, if you use freely-available
research without appropriate citation, you're considered a thieving
scumbag.  The BSD license's advertising clause served the same purpose,
and only a thieving scumbag would have wanted it removed.

--
 <a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"We remain convinced that this is the best defensive posture to adopt in
order to minimize casualties when the Great Old Ones return from beyond
the stars to eat our brains." -Charlie Stross, _The Concrete Jungle_