An Apple Developer reportedly recommended that KHTML developers use Apple’s WebCore engine (that’s based on KHTML). This follows some controversy over Apple’s habit of “giving back” updates to KHTML in unmanageable chunks, and many open source advocates crying foul. Update: This description was changed from an earlier version which implied that Apple would drop KHTML in favor of WebCore, which is not an accurate statement.
Apple to KHTML Devs: use WebCore
133 Comments
2005-05-12 9:53 pm
2005-05-12 9:56 pm
2005-05-12 10:04 pm
2005-05-12 10:10 pm
2005-05-12 10:37 pm
2005-05-12 10:55 pm
2005-05-12 11:25 pm
2005-05-12 11:40 pm
Anonymous
I see you can’t read either. My anology refered to the publisher, not the writer.
And, I doubt that you have a job in the software industry. It’s evident that you really can’t differentiate between the GPL and BSD license.
And, there is a reason why Linux is not a major desktop player. Apps, Apps, Apps, Apps, Apps, Apps, Apps, Apps, and ease of use. It’s improved drastically since I started using it in 2000, but how many companies are writing commerical programs for it?
People are going to use the OS that has the Apps they want. And while free Apps are great, many people choose the commercial Apps. Why? Quality, Looks, a lot of reasons.
My favorite Linux apps are k3b, and amarok. But K3B doesn’t burn a cd or dvd as fast as Nero does (well in windows that is. I have no need for nero in linux). And k3b starts out slow and gets faster as it goes along. Performance is different per distro as well, and gentoo, with a highly optimized build, provided the fastest results.
Amarok, on the other hand, just rocks. Too bad it’s for kd3, so it looks funky in gnome 
gaming, well, I wont touch that, but linux is horrible in that field (and it’s funny how it has a better market share, but Apple is far superior in gaming).
DVD-backup, authoring, etc. Linux lacks there.
As for apple going for khtml for their web browser, it was for cost reasons. Get an established frame work, and build from there. Could they have made something better? With the right amount of money, yes. But why waste the money, when the code is already out there.
As for me being a theif, I haven’t stolen anything since I was 12, and I got busted then. You my friend, have no concept of reality. No understanding of business.
When you take down the evil MS, and the evil Apple, then what? You will take down a lot of companies with it. When all software is free, who is going to want to write programs? No one, because they wont be getting paid. You have to take care of the family somehow.
2005-05-13 12:14 am
2005-05-13 12:47 am
2005-05-13 1:26 am
2005-05-13 1:32 am
2005-05-13 2:03 am
Anonymous
“I see you can’t read either. My anology refered to the publisher, not the writer.”
No , I can read , your just not making sense at all and are changing what you mean because what you wrote the first time did not correspond with what you tought you wrote. I guess I have to loose my mind or be cerebraly retarded to be able to agree with you.
“And, I doubt that you have a job in the software industry.”
You would be right , I dont have a job , I work in the software industry. I am a professional.
“It’s evident that you really can’t differentiate between the GPL and BSD license. ”
No , I make the difference as I am the expert on the subject. I doubt you have any kind of law degree or any degree at all.
“And, there is a reason why Linux is not a major desktop player”
Say’s who ? you ? that source is pure crap, we are 13% of the desktop worlwide.
“Apps, Apps, Apps, Apps, Apps, Apps, Apps, Apps, and ease of use.”
All covered.
“It’s improved drastically since I started using it in 2000”
No , wrong , ignorant , it as improved since its first release and change of license to GPL in 1991 , you are irrelevant and of no consequence to whats happening in GNU/Linux.
“but how many companies are writing commerical programs for it? ”
Nobody cares , its irrelevant , just like you , people use whats availiable and the bulk 98% is GNU/Linux.
But I can even give you that answer : 400 000 company worldwide have registered as making commercial programs running on GNU/Linux.
“People are going to use the OS that has the Apps they want”
People are going to use whats availaible and what can do the job for the cheapest. Thats GNU/Linux.
“And while free Apps are great, many people choose the commercial Apps. Why? Quality, Looks, a lot of reasons. ”
most people dont choose or know GNU/Linux exist … most are like you tried it and think it stayed the same or cant use it due to there lack of training or knowledge of apps availaible.
“But K3B doesn’t burn a cd or dvd as fast as Nero does”
Man you really should fire the idiot who did your setup …
“Performance is different per distro as well, and gentoo, with a highly optimized build, provided the fastest results. ”
No , but then again you dont know what your talking about.
“Amarok, on the other hand, just rocks. Too bad it’s for kd3, so it looks funky in gnome ”
No , its the idiot who did your setting who as not set it properly.
“gaming, well, I wont touch that, but linux is horrible in that field”
No but then again , it whont stop you from saying lies …
“DVD-backup, authoring, etc. Linux lacks there.”
nope.
“As for apple going for khtml for their web browser, it was for cost reasons.”
Nope , it whas because of technicality and compatibility , Apple is one of the rare company that can afford to trow 1000 paid developper at any software they whant to see created , then again you dont know what your talking about.
“Get an established frame work, and build from there. ”
No problem there , thats whats good about Open Source its what make it good for everyone the fact you dont have to start from scratch.
“Could they have made something better? With the right amount of money, yes. ”
No , they can feel free to try … the real cost would probably be around 100 million.
“But why waste the money, when the code is already out there. ”
thats a good point of Open Source.
“As for me being a theif, I haven’t stolen anything since I was 12”
Dont take it too badly as I am into the habit of not believing liar and thief …
“you my friend, have no concept of reality. No understanding of business.”
I aint the friend of a thief and liar, reality is whats real , understanding of business is when you say something and it happens.
“When you take down the evil MS, and the evil Apple, then what?”
Interesting choice of word , evil , I prefer Bad or misguided or miss managed at the moment. Life goes on as usual those company did noy exist prior to the 70’s. They can disapear and it would not mather much.
“You will take down a lot of companies with it.”
Business is not like playing domino , and every year there are company who close and they dont affect the business at all.
“When all software is free, who is going to want to write programs?”
Anyone who whants to …
“No one, because they wont be getting paid.”
Thats the most stupidiest comment ever , people who work on GNU/Linux and Open Source when they are professional make more money then those in proprietary software. They are now getting paid …
“You have to take care of the family somehow.”
http://www.mandriva.com/company/jobs?wslang=fr
http://redhat.hrdpt.com/cgi-bin/a/searchjobs_quick.cgi
http://www.novell.com/job_search/servlet/eJobSearch/
etc …
Reality :
your a liar a thief and add clueless idiot.
I’m not so sure why people are so up-in-arms about this, the KHTML team wasn’t getting anything from the deal but good press, and in any case the license lets third parties come and go as they please, so its back to business as usual.
As for Apple, they are going to be pragmatic, like any corporation. This might reduce the fanboi element on tech blogs, but 99.999999999999% of Apple users don’t care.
Isn’t khtml the display engine that webcore uses? How could they drop it?
WebCore is based on KHTML. It is Apple’s implementation of KHTML. Safari is powered by WebCore right now. Apple isn’t thinking of switching to WebCore from KHTML. They are suggesting that KDE switch from their KHTML to Apple’s fork of KHTML which is WebCore.
I believe that WebCore *is* a fork of KHTML– what’s really under dispute is whether or not Apple will contribute bugfixes from WebCore back into KHTML. From what I’ve been reading on KDE developer blogs, Apple has not been keeping the KHTML developers up-to-date, and sometimes their bugfixes involve OSX specific code, which could never be backported anyway. So, it seems as if the two projects are going to diverge permanently.
Webcore is khtml (albeit Apples enhanced version of it… The title to this article is rather misleading.
isnt webcore developed as a fork of khtml? then saying that they are going to dump khtml in favor of webcore is a bit wrong isnt it?
so i guess what they realy will do is stop importing new stuff from khtml as its more or less mirroring what webcore have added to the mix but is a pain in the ass to port over as apple just took the code and ran rather then stick closely to the khtml development.
webcore IS khtml, just a different branch of it
The article is not wrong. Try reading it, not just OSNews’ editorial comment. The article itself says that an Apple engineer suggested the KHTML folks migrate to the WebCore fork.
Apple is different requirements on it, as a public company. The KHTML folks expecting Apple to take all of their enhancements and fixes, and port them back to KHTML is unreasonable. If KHTML wants to take advantage of the Apple modifications, they should use that fork.
This is like any other project, if someone starts a fork, they need to make the changes available, but they are not responsible to port it all back to the original.
– Kelson
read the article boys
they are suggesting that the KHTML team switch over to webcore
Wasn’t KHTML dead anyways before Apple decided to used it?
No.
(Warning: Comment on article, not on OSNews editorial)
Apple’s behavior seems a little rude to me. If they had just participated in the KHTML community whose code they were taking advantage of, then perhaps the KHTML people would have selected WebCore on technical merits. As it is, their statement seems somewhat arrogant, to a level that their code quality would not seem to merit.
Brian,
Don’t you think they *are* participating in the community to the best of their ability? As one developer pointed out in the article, since KHTML uses KDE as the interfacing schema, a divergence was inevitable. The animosity the community bears for Apple’s alleged lack of participation seems to be born from the inability to directly apply their patches and the documentation of said patches.
Whilst the lack of documentation can certainly be improved upon, do these developers expect Apple to switch to using the KDE toolkit to aid in the integration of said patches? Doubly, if the rate of improvement is in fact faster on the Apple branch, perhaps the KDE developers *should* consider back-porting WebCore to KDE.
As a disclaimer, I’m not following these chain of events very closely nor have I looked at either WebCore or KHTML’s code and do not understand the effort required to back-port WebCore to KDE.
developers are airing longstanding gripes against Apple, accusing the computer maker of taking more than it gives back to the open-source group.
When Apple first announced their open source initiative, Jobs talked a big game about open source, but when it comes down to it, they are leeching. Few of their “contributions” have been helpful to the wider open source community. The exceptions i see are their launchD unified daemon and KHTML, but according to this, Apple has been extremely difficult with KHTML.
As i see it, Apple used open source to catapult their new system into a modern OS, and since then have done little to give back. All the things F/OSS people would be interested in: iApps, Quartz, etc has been totally closed.
And what’s worse, Apple’s open source license does little to protect software freedom. Read FSF’s statement on Apple’s license and you get the impression they are endorsing it under duress:
The FSF now considers the APSL to be a free software license with two major practical problems, reminiscent of the NPL:
* It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.
* It is incompatible with the GPL.
For this reason, we recommend you do not release new software using this license; but it is ok to use and improve software which other people release under this license.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html
Its disgusting. More people in the open source community should speak out against this.
ive read some kde blogs, and from what they say, apple is more or less just doing the minimum the liscence requires. the way he was talking, he didnt seem to have too much of a problem with that, his beef was all the people taking the KHTML developers for granted. when KHTML gets a new feature, they get alot more “its about time, its been in safari for ages!” then “Wow, good job guys!”
I thought Apple’s suggestions sounded reasonable. They said they were willing to make webcore mulitplatform. Wouldn’t a porting layer be beneficial to both KDE and Apple (and other projects interested in porting WebCore to other platforms)?
The article also mentioned that the KHTML team said that before the Safari press the KHTML code base “had languished”. So it that is the case, what would be so bad about using the WebCore tree in place of their tree?
So Apple doesn’t allow other devs access to their commit logs and history. Thus using Webcore would mean to take a current snapshot (with lots of Mac specific stuff in it) without history, putting this one into KDE’s svn and develop this one, i.e. having just another fork. Doesn’t sound good.
The best option for KDE is still continue developing khtml as they do.
Apple’s behavior seems a little rude to me. If they had just participated in the KHTML community whose code they were taking advantage of, then perhaps the KHTML people would have selected WebCore on technical merits. As it is, their statement seems somewhat arrogant, to a level that their code quality would not seem to merit.
If they’re code is so terrible, why would the KDE team care? It seems like the KDE team WANTS Apple’s improvements, or there wouldn’t be a controversy. From an outsiders perspective (someone who doesn’t care too much either way), it sounds like Apple is somewhat at fault for not making it easier for the KDE team to keep track of what’s going on with Safari, but it also sounds like the KDE team has a case of “sour grapes”, getting snotty in their reactions because everyone is impressed with Safari lately. Because their pride is hurt, they badmouth Apple’s code and take on a “not invented here” attitude.
Not that I claim to know, but that’s my impression from what I’ve read.
The main reasons why KDE has problems with WebCore:
* It isn’t open, the khtml developers can’t even see the commit logs (as far as I understand it). So how can KDE ever use WebCore as a replacement?
* And, as far as I understand it, WebCore mixes a lot of ObjC code and Apple’s own GUI toolkit api calls in the code. So, it’s not always very easy to just use WebCore patches for khtml.
Well, if Apple really is serious, then they would have to open things up a bit, and they would have to do the work to make their Code Multi-Platform compatible, as they have said they would do (this would benefit them anyway, so I don’t see why they wouldn’t do it).
These steps would be necessary for KDE to adopt WebCore, I would think.
All the things F/OSS people would be interested in: iApps, Quartz, etc has been totally closed.
You mean the things Apple paid for and wrote by themselves and use to distinguish itself from other platforms? Apple follows the rules of the licenses and contributes to what it has taken from. As I hear it KHTML is under-staffed as-is so left Apple do the heavy-lifting and just back-port it and submit bug-fixes.
* It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.
As does the LGPL, not to mention the BSD licenses.
* It is incompatible with the GPL.
The Apache 2.0 isn’t either. The GPL is just *a* license not the living incarnation of the OSS deity. You can be anti-GPL and still pro-OSS at the same time.
Its disgusting. More people in the open source community should speak out against this.
If by “its” you were referring to “zealotry” then yes it is disgusting and people having been speaking out against it but it doesn’t seem to stop you guys. I hereby dub thee “windbag”.
Frankly, it seems like you just want Apple to fail. If they open-sourced everything then the best parts would be absorbed into Linux and the rest would perish. Not everyone can make money on “services”, especially not on the consumer desktop. Also, w/o the custom apps there would be little force behind the hardware since it’d be ported to x86.
James: Don’t you think they *are* participating in the community to the best of their ability? …
My biggest worry about this is that you might be right here, that this may be all they are allowed to do by Apple, or worse. Between the NDA requests and the lack of change logs, it doesn’t bode well for Apple’s standing in the community.
WebCore not being based on KDE isn’t as much of an issue, as such dependencies were minimised in KHTML in the first place.
I agree completely, switch from khtml to web core are not realistic and giving the KDE developers nothing. Besides lots good code have been developed in khtml since 3.0.1, which is the version Apple forked. Of course they have picked some patches and updated WebCore, but it’s not the same. The suggestion from the Apple developer are just an attempt to save face, bordering on the ridiculous if you ask me.
The real issue here are that Apple fumbled, they could have gained much more from the KDE developers had they bothered to coporate. Even dedicating one developer full time to keep the two codebases in relative sync and communicating with the KDE developers had been a net win situation for Apple. They had gotten the work of 5 to 10 highly skilled developers for the price of one, added with the big QA resource of amount of real world testing ktml gets.
Trolltech is selling software for smart phones. Apple is trying to sell ipod phones. KDE is caught in the middle.
KHTML: “Apple didn’t bother to contribute, they just gleaned and used.”
Apple: “We tried, but KDE sucks cause it doesn’t have our API’s.”
Typical Techie Readers: “That’s evil, but it’s ok because corporations are supposed to be evil and I, as a proud consumer without a clue, intend to allow corporations to be evil thereby ruining any chance of success in an entirely free market. However, I’m not a socialist.”
OSS Zealout: “They must teh die! Kill Apple!”
Me: STOP LETTING COMPANIES WALK ALL OVER YOU. IT’S YOUR JOB TO CALL THEM ON IT WHEN THEY TRESPASS!
Apple doesn’t want to be part of the community. This seems pretty obvious to me. They didn’t want the KHTML community to have any control over Safari, so they forked it. The thing I can’t understand is why everyone is so upset. Apple is releasing their changes to KHTML just like they are supposed to. They have no obligation to port their changes to the KHTML codebase. The KHTML developers have 3 choices…
1. Port the changes over to KHTML themselves
2. Base KHTML off of WebCore so porting isn’t needed
3. Ignore Apple’s changes, develop KHTML independently
This just sounds like whining to me.
FYI, when you release something under GPL/LGPL, you don’t “own” it anymore. Others are free to use it as they please as long as they abide by the contract.
Apple is evil because they don’t give back to the community. Apple is evil because they changed things in a way that it is difficult for the KDE people to make use of it. Apple is evil because they suggest that KDE use there changes.
The truth is Apple has given the changes back, The KDE crowd does not like the way apple changed things. The want apple to be one voice among their many and to participate as most of the others do. They want apple to to piecemill the changes back through the community like everyone else does. I apprieciate this but they are wrong. Apple needs to move quickly, and does not want to wait on decision by commitee. They gave the changes back, they were true to their word and to the license.
Apple does not want KDE to switch to webcore, they know it is not consistant with the way KDE would have gone. But they want it known that they are playing fair. They gave back the source and the KDE group can use it in part or in whole. Apple has been fair and honest in this. Did you really expect them to not use their API’s? Did you expect them to not use Objective-C? If you can say yes, please share some of what you have been drinking.
Apple is never going to cede it’s development to the open source community nor should they. The problem is that people want KHTML to catch up to safari. It is open source if the core KHTML people want to not use it, then fork your own project to follow Apple’s lead. Apple just wants the lies of “they don’t give everything back” to stop. They did if it isn’t used then don’t blame appe, get the source and build it yourself.
Either way, KHTML benifits. Apple gave you a lot of good press as well as a lot of improvements you can take or leave.
Apple is out to make money, and they have written code that was sloppy, patched things quickly, and moved KHTML over to their OS as fast as possible. Why, you ask? To make money. Apple, as a corporation, is liable to pay it’s debts, bills, employees, oh yeah, and to turn a profit for it’s shareholders. What pressure lies on the shoulders of the KHTML developers? Keep that in mind.
Also, why couldn’t Apple help port WebCore over to KHTML? They ported KHTML to OS X, and if they wanted to, they could port it back.
From what I have seen from blogs, articles, and forum posts, is that the KHTML team is being unreasonable. They want Apple to bow down to them, and do what they want. They want control, they want to have the best code/project on the market, and they want Apple to give that to them.
As far as I am concerned, Apple just extended their hand, and said, let’s fix this problem. We will help you adopt WebCore, if you want us to. How is the KHTML team responding? They are saying, no thanks, it’s not good enough. Control, power, greed. Just let the two sides part ways, and be done. It’s getting ridicolous.
Is Apple having the same issues with Darwin?
>From what I have seen from blogs, articles, and forum posts, is that the KHTML team is being unreasonable.
Is it unreasonable to ask people to recognize that safari is not khtml, so that if khtml gets a new feature its probably not because of safari?
Is it unreasonable to ask Apple to at least mark their safari css-addons with “safari-” not with “khtml-“?
Is it unreasonable to ask if one could sign an NDA to be able to see the changelog of webcore, since getting one big diff between versions without any indication what has been done does not help trying to understand the changes?
Is it unreasonable to not be able to port webcore patches when they put objective-c code in the middle of khtml code?
I agree.
When your grandmother gave you socks for Christmas when you were young, did you complain that it wasn’t the game that you wanted? No you thanked her for the socks even if it is not something you want or need.
Remember the old saying: You don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. Well it applies here.
Somewhat on topic :
This is the Best example of why Open Source is crap , Dont get me wrong ( I always say that ,because yes, it needs a lot of repeating ), Open Source is a noble principle but everyone is screwing with it exept GNU/Linux.
OSI : How many license can be closed that are OSI approved …
BSD is the best example , why its crap it the got taken by everyone due to there License , there is BSD code in everything but alsmot everyone is not sharing it back and as closed it ( Just look at OS X and Microsoft as the biggest offender ).
Open Source lost badly to the proprietary in the 70’s they almost entirely destroyed it , because for those who dont know eveything came from something Open Source , in the 80’s it whas absent , and only in the 90’s did it start making a comeback when it got tied in with GNU/Linux.
GNU/Linux is whats winning and whats letting everyone share it , you can fell in a coma wake up in 20 years and still be able to use your code and the improvments of others , cant say the same about any other license.
GNU/Linux is Real Open Source.
And this little tidbits is no surprise at all , come on Apple is built on BSD … Apple whas bound to go back to there old trick …
What does this show exactly :
– Apple is not to be trusted ( they have been closing Open Source project for a long time.
– Open Source is crap if not free ( GNU/Linux )
– KDE , Konqueror , Khtml are badly underfunded. ( its a mircale what come out of there and the dedication of the Free developpers for the investment ( a bit like Mandriva ).
– Konqueror and KHTML need there own Non-profit but acting like for profit org pushing it like the Mozilla foundation is for firefox and like Opera is doing for its own browser.
GNU/Linux should set it sight on doing to Apple what it does to Microsoft.
Oh yes Before I forget : Thanks to everyone who as contributed in any way shape or form in the past to KDE or will in the futur your hard work , dedication and offered solution are apreciated here.
All you OSS whiners complaining about Apple and what they are doing when they fulfill the minimal requirements of the license of the code they’re using are just so full of crap.
If you can show me where in the licensing of the code that it specifies that someone MUST make it easy to add their changes back to the original or another fork of the codebase, then maybe you have something to complain about. However, I’ve never seen such a licensing agreement! Not even GPL requires that, and if it did, you can bet GPL would have been much less successful than it has been.
So, all you OSS zealots complaining about someone abiding by the terms of the license, but not what you think is fair, are just full of crap. The terms of the license determine what the authors thought was fair, and if they complain about someone following those terms, well, that was stupid of those developers, and they have nobody to blame but themselves. Maybe next time those developers will actually *THINK* about what they wish to use for a license, if what users of their code are doing abide by the original terms, and they don’t like it.
When Apple started working with KHTML, they fixed more of the code than anyone else. It wouldn’t be in such a good situation, if it weren’t for Apple.
The fact that Apple makes the changes much more quickly and does them in an organised manner upsets those involved in the open source project. Batching fixes and then, applying them without overlaying good code is a daunting task sometimes…I’ve been there many times. It helps to be organised and the open source community rarely seems that.
Reading the blogs, etc., it doesn’t seem to me that the KDE developers are whining but that they are annoyed with pressure from users to keep up with WebCore and complaints in that regard. I think they would be happy to continue developing KHTML independently, they should receive appreciation from the community that they continue to develop KHTML, not an outrage at Apple or the KHTML team for not syncing the trees.
Quote:
“The truth is Apple has given the changes back, The KDE crowd does not like the way apple changed things.”
The KDE team does like feedback.
It’s HOW the feedback is comming to the KDE team.
Just a simple diff, nothing more, means exactly nothing for such a complex piece of code as khtml.
Some patches may be obvious, others depend on other patches and in the end mean nothing at all when you look at them.
It’s like somebody saying:
“You have to change the word ‘it’ to ‘the’ on page 423 in the second line”.
And here, changes are that the word ‘it’ isn’t even there at that postion.
My opinion though.
> If they open-sourced everything
> then the best parts would be absorbed
> into Linux and the rest would perish.
> Not everyone can make money on “services”,
> especially not on the consumer desktop.
I really don’t understand these sentences. Are we talking about operating system kernels here (“absorbed into linux” -> What does all this stuff here have to do with Linux?) or about HTML rendering engines? We are talking about HTML rendering engines!
Who asked Apple to “open-source everything”? Nobody! And nobody wants Apple to do only “services”. Apple is primarily a hardware vendor and can keep its iTunes and iLife and iWhatever stuff as closed as it wants to, nobody is saying anything else.
Let me explain it once again:
1. Nobody seriously blamed Apple for anything. It was only posted in a weblog that all the slashdot fanboys who say that Apple were involved in KHTML development are wrong. Nothing more was posted. This was not mainly targetted at Apple, but at people who don’t know what they are talking about.
2. Nobody expects that Apple will actively help KDE developers. Some people only said that it would be very friendly if access to some rudimentary documentation were available, nothing more.
3. The LGPL does not explicitly talk about source code. The wording is slightly different: “Source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.”
My interpretation of this wording is: The actual source code + at least a very rudimentary documentation in the form of a changelog. And the idea of NDAs for OpenSouce Software is insane. OpenSource Software and NDAs don’t work together.
—
One completely different thing: The idea of using WebCore outside of Safari is extremely interesting. Nokia has done some nice work on it and produced an unstable, but working port of WebCore to GTK. If you want to compile it, play a little bit with it and so on, look here:
http://gtk-webcore.sourceforge.net/
The most important goals of this project are: “HTML rendering code is almost identical to WebCore by Apple” and “The major goal of the port is to stay source level compatible to the that code if possible”.
This approach is very interesting because it would restore a situation that allows the two parties to work together again. It’s GTK, but if Nokia managed to port WebCore to GTK, then someone might possibly manage to port it back to KDE.
And now the problem: This seems to be exactly what is proposed in this article, but actually it isn’t because this can only work with at least a rudimentary documentation. But let’s hope that this problem can be solved because it seems to be the most adequate solution.
Are they going to open source it then?
“When Apple started working with KHTML, they fixed more of the code than anyone else. It wouldn’t be in such a good situation, if it weren’t for Apple.
The fact that Apple makes the changes much more quickly and does them in an organised manner upsets those involved in the open source project. Batching fixes and then, applying them without overlaying good code is a daunting task sometimes…I’ve been there many times. It helps to be organised and the open source community rarely seems that.”
You have no clue what you’re talking about.
Most of what khtml is today is thanks to the kde khtml developers, NOT APPLE !!!
“This is the Best example of why Open Source is crap , Dont get me wrong ( I always say that ,because yes, it needs a lot of repeating ), Open Source is a noble principle but everyone is screwing with it exept GNU/Linux. ”
You have no clue what you’re talking about.
This is just life, it’s like it is in the real world.
KDE is “non-profit”, while apple is a commercial entity.
Both have opposite goals.
KDE had hoped apple would invest some time in khtml but they didn’t. So be it. Maybe they will change their mind.
I disagree completly.
I will not use any code that is not BSD (or LGPL if i have to). Why? Because the BSD license is about free software. You may do whatever you want to with it … you are free. You may not like that Apple has done this but it is that freedom that made them choose it and you can’t fault them for obeying the license. They release the core OS back to the world – darwin. No they did not release the GUI that is their bread and butter, but they did not need to release what they did under the license. The acted ABOVE and BEYOND the requiremnts of the license.
GPL is not free. They limit what I may do with the code. That is their right, but I see that as a negative not a positive. The GPL crowd think they are the ultimate if free software, but I think they limit the acceptance of open source. The BSD license encourages a company like apple to use, improve and return to the community a lot of code. But allows them to keep enough of it closed to make money selling their computers. The free software benifits me. I can get the best OS out there.
BSD uses freedom to create an environment where companies can use open source to create standards, and proprietary software to make money.
GPL on the other hand makes it very difficult to make money. The number of companies to do so is quite small. In most cases like “Red Hat,” they made their money on public excitement in the stock market far more than on the product.
Re: Kelson
Go and read the blogs the developers provide to get a more detailed account. The real issue is that Apple doesn’t provide a history of their progress only a final module. For the developers to implement anything they need a blueprint. They’re not asking for the keys to the kingdom either. In order to add these features they need to see some kind of source code, they even agreed to sign a NDA but Apple still wouldn’t budge. So if it’s Apples idea for the developers to just simply implement WebCore in place of KHTML is ridiculous. They should be more helpful and grateful to the people that basically allowed them to even have a browser that can compete in the market today.
>that the KHTML team is being unreasonable.
>Apple just extended their hand, and said, let’s fix this problem.
You are really not getting it I see, you have to read little more carefully and also consider who’s comments you are reading.
The khtml developers have been open to the Safari people from the start. They set up a mailinglist for comunication between the groups, they gave the Apple developers full access to their sourcode(read AND write). They have given advice to how Apple can help improve the situation and some have even been willing to sign NDAs to help cooporation. While Apple only have dumped big blobs of code from time to time.
They also point outs that Apple does nothing wrong as thy follow the license correctly, and sees nothing wrong with it.
And as for Apples extended hand, adopting WebCore that’s only a publicity stunt. Had they been interested in cooporating they could have done so for a long time already, in a much more elegant and intelligent way. You have to realize that the khtml developers have not been sitting idle since Apple forked the code, the current codebase of khtml have seen LOTS of improvements since then.
> Is it unreasonable to ask people to recognize that safari is not khtml, so that if khtml gets a new feature its probably not because of safari?
Yes… you can’t make people do anything. Just educate and hope it sticks.
> Is it unreasonable to ask Apple to at least mark their safari css-addons with “safari-” not with “khtml-“?
Can’t say since I don’t know what would be required
> Is it unreasonable to ask if one could sign an NDA to be able to see the changelog of webcore, since getting one big diff between versions without any indication what has been done does not help trying to understand the changes?
Yup… they have given you the changes. Using them is up to you. It is unreasonable to ask for anything else. It is up to them if they want to let you look at the changelog.
> Is it unreasonable to not be able to port webcore patches when they put objective-c code in the middle of khtml code?
They can do what-ever they want. That is open-source for you. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean Apple is doing anything wrong.
K,if you don’t want people taking your code, then don’t leave it open. I mean, close the crap if you are that concerned about it. Create a new license that protects it better.
One thing I learned in life….If you want something bad enough, you will find a way to get it.
apple wanted the KHTML source. KHTML wants Apple to do all the work now (or just give them money). Apple got what it wanted. KHTML is trying to flame Apple, and get what they want.
This is petty and stupid. Is the KHTML group made up of professionals, or high school students? Ot just developers from countries, where, the companies aren’t expected to make money? Do they understand business, or some fantasy about open source software, that they themselves wouldn’t follow.
As far as I am concerned, the KHTML group is what is wrong with open source. They can say that Apple took their code, and that they aren’t giving back all they want. The fact is, the KHTML people need to accept the responsibility of allowing that to happen, and move on. Maybe next time, when someone offers a partnership, they will think more clearly, or maybe even act like professionals.
Quote:
“apple wanted the KHTML source. KHTML wants Apple to do all the work now (or just give them money). Apple got what it wanted. KHTML is trying to flame Apple, and get what they want.
This is petty and stupid. Is the KHTML group made up of professionals, or high school students? Ot just developers from countries, where, the companies aren’t expected to make money? Do they understand business, or some fantasy about open source software, that they themselves wouldn’t follow.
As far as I am concerned, the KHTML group is what is wrong with open source. They can say that Apple took their code, and that they aren’t giving back all they want. The fact is, the KHTML people need to accept the responsibility of allowing that to happen, and move on. Maybe next time, when someone offers a partnership, they will think more clearly, or maybe even act like professionals.”
This is either a pure flamebait, or you’re very ignorant and naive.
the khtml developers code FOR FUN, not for money.
Apple codes for money, not for fun.
Completely oposite goals.
the khtml developers probably don’t care at all what apple does with their webcore. All they had hoped for was a little bit of cooperation, and they did get minimal cooperation.
Stop insulting the khtml developers please.
They are professionals who love to code on khtml for free, for fun, and in their spare time.
And khtml is extremely complex, so I have all respect for them and their refusal to just copy and paste code from apple.
>KHTML is trying to flame Apple, and get what they want.
You know how that whole thing started? A developer complained that the users should not assume that stuff that got in safari will be in khtml soon, because the code-bases are too divergent by now…
So how did you arive at that reasoning:
>As far as I am concerned, the KHTML group is what is wrong with open source.
>Maybe next time, when someone offers a partnership, they will think more clearly, or maybe even act like professionals.
Yeah, maybe next time someone will offer a partnership they will remember apple and tell them to take what they want but leave them alone…
of information. First off, according to the license, you have to publish your changes in a preferred manner, not Apple’s preference, but generally. You can’t just throw code in a hardcopy and say here, type it all in yourself. So, expecting changes logs with a huge patch is not unreasonable by any stretch, as far as anyone with a clue can see. So, yes Apple is expected to provide those patches with something more than just a useless dump.
So to all those saying Apple is well within their rights, you’re completely out to lunch.
Second, KHTML devs, in particular Zach, is saying one thing. “SHUT UP”, this goes to all those that keep on cheerleading Apple, saying how they’re helping KHTML oh so much. They’re not. Most of the stuff Apple is, “giving back” is completely useless. The rest is tangential.
The KHTML devs really want to work with Apple and make something great. Up until recently, Apple has sucked hard in the cooperation department. This isn’t a matter of entitlement, merely fact. They could be doing more and it would also benefit them, since better KHTML just plain helps Apple.
KHTML developers are whining because they’re not in charge any more. Apple decided to fork the code and now KHTML devs don’t have any say. Welcome to open source cry babies.
>When Apple started working with KHTML, they fixed more of the code than anyone else.
You are either trying to troll or you actually don’t have a clue of what you are talking about. The major part of bugs in khtml are fixed by people like Zack Rusin, David Faure, Allan Sandfeld, Thiago Macieira etc and none of them works for Apple as far as I know.
I love Apple and drink the Kool-Aid and all but things like this just f**k up Apple’s efforts. Another case of shooting yourself in the foot.
is whether or not Apple’s KHTML improvements are laced with Apple specific API’s on purpose to make their improvements uselss or whether integrating it that way has technical merit.
If Apple put objc & apple-specific API calls inside KHTML internals (if parts of KHTML are not api specific then why can’t it all be that way?) simply to make their patches to KHTML difficult for competetive advantage, it wouldn’t surprise me, but I wouldn’t say that I didn’t expect it. I think KHTML groups complaints would have some merit, but then again you have to assume that if someone was to fork your code and take it in a different direction then eventually their patches would not be useful against your branch.
Intent will likely never be proven, but it can probably be determined to a good degree by examining the technical aspects; if it makes total sense for Apple devs to have gone this way technically then the KHTML guys should have expected this and never expected patches. If this route is more difficult and without technical merits (only business ones), then its a little underhanded, but the KHTML guys should probably still have seen it coming.
try reading the article on a couple more sites before making conclusions.
Apple used the KHTML code to build safari, then turn around and stab them in the back. The reason they even have a browser is based on the excellent work of OSS, please no one should forget that. This are people who give up their time and effort to create a marvelous piece of software and what do they get in return.
if we go by what andrew said in the last post maybe OSS should go to hell. BSD and *nix should be crapped, they should just turn their code over to windows and apple and let those companies make more money of their effort.
Your anti-GPL and pro-LGPL/BSD stuff is off-topic here because KHTML is LGPL, not GPL.
@andrew:
> KHTML wants Apple to do all the work
> now (or just give them money).
This is either nonsense or a joke.
> Is the KHTML group made up of
> professionals, or high school students?
Both: Professional high school students. Professional enough in order to produce a code base that was more attractive to Apple than Gecko, even though Gecko has a more permissive licensing.
That’s wrong. Here’s your analogy fixed:
When you bought your grandmother a nitting kit two years ago and she gave you half-finished socks for Christmas….how would you feel?
Isn’t to get Apple to contribute, it’s to help people realize that Apple is a company that’s bent for it’s own greed (typical, so we accept it, and say it’s “fulfilling a duty to shareholders” forgetting Adam Smith’s original theses about benefitting mankind and just worrying about the investing part of mankind). There are many people who seem to think Apple is inherantly good….. And I mean good on a moral level!
> First off, according to the license, you have to publish your changes in a preferred manner, not Apple’s preference, but generally.
Where is the definition of “preferred manner”? Apple’s preference may be not to give code at all. KHTML devs preference may be to get every change, in individual patches, with detailed comments. What Apple is giving is somewhere in the middle.
> You can’t just throw code in a hardcopy and say here, type it all in yourself.
Agreed 100%
> So, expecting changes logs with a huge patch is not unreasonable by any stretch, as far as anyone with a clue can see.
I agree that KHTML devs may be limited with what they can do with just a huge patch, but there is no requirement for Apple to do any more. Anything else is just be wishful thinking.
> So, yes Apple is expected to provide those patches with something more than just a useless dump.
So where is this expectation stated?
> Second, KHTML devs, in particular Zach, is saying one thing. “SHUT UP”, this goes to all those that keep on cheerleading Apple, saying how they’re helping KHTML oh so much. They’re not. Most of the stuff Apple is, “giving back” is completely useless. The rest is tangential.
I, for one, am not championing Apple here, but I don’t see them doing anything wrong.
> The KHTML devs really want to work with Apple and make something great. Up until recently, Apple has sucked hard in the cooperation department.
So Apple doesn’t cooperate. Then don’t worry about them and stick with what you are doing (KHTML devs that is). Welcome to the wonderful world of open-source. In a perfect world they Apple would help, but this is not a perfect world. If users complain that Safari does something the KHTML does not, then tell them to use Safari.
> This isn’t a matter of entitlement, merely fact. They could be doing more and it would also benefit them, since better KHTML just plain helps Apple.
They could, but they aren’t. Who cares, worry about what is on your plate (again, referring to KHTML devs).
K, let me ask all the KHTML followers, who’s blogs do you read? Who’s word do you take as gold? How do you know that what the developers are saying in their blos is 100 percent, total, unbiased truth?
News flash…people are decietful, and people do twist the truth. Wonder why you are takin only what those blogs say, and not lookinginto Apple’s side. Or, is it just thatApple is evil becuase they are a for profit corp?
Open Source is nice, but do you actually think that the company industry would survive without for profit companies?
My stand is that the code was out there, and, to the unknowledgable out there, everyone has read access to KHTML code. I can take it and fork it today if I felt like it, and, just do what what I had to do to fulfil my obligations to the license. So, would I be any better than Apple? Let them part ways and be done. Apple hasn’t done anything wrong, and the KHTML people just need to keep working on their product, and not expect Apple to spend more money than need be to please their needs.
> The real question is whether or not Apple’s KHTML improvements are laced with Apple specific API’s on purpose to make their improvements uselss or whether integrating it that way has technical merit.
I doubt that, but…
> If Apple put objc & apple-specific API calls inside KHTML internals (if parts of KHTML are not api specific then why can’t it all be that way?) simply to make their patches to KHTML difficult for competetive advantage, it wouldn’t surprise me, but I wouldn’t say that I didn’t expect it.
they did not care, or even think about KHTML when they put in objc code and anything Apple specfic. They only cared about it working for what they needed. Nothing wrong with that according to the license. It just goes to show that their goals where/are different then KHTML’s.
> Intent will likely never be proven, but it can probably be determined to a good degree by examining the technical aspects; if it makes total sense for Apple devs to have gone this way technically then the KHTML guys should have expected this and never expected patches.
Intent is really not even important. The fact is that Apple could do whatever they wanted (as long as they stick to the license).
> If this route is more difficult and without technical merits (only business ones), then its a little underhanded, but the KHTML guys should probably still have seen it coming.
It is only underhanded if they promised initially (which they may have, I don’t know) to provide patches and then never delivered (I totally remeber putting it in the mail, go home and I am sure it will be waiting for you) and to keep things compatible with KHTML. I doubt this happened since we would have heard many more complaints much soon and much louder, but I could be wrong.
Quote:
” Let them part ways and be done. Apple hasn’t done anything wrong, and the KHTML people just need to keep working on their product, and not expect Apple to spend more money than need be to please their needs.”
That’s what I think too.
Khtml doesn’t need to worry about webcore, both are very different today, as I understand it.
I think that the whole khtml vs. apple debate has grown out of proportions.
I guess it all started with some khtml developers getting upset because some users were demanding them to just copy and paste webcore patches. And one thing leads to another, and before you know it, it’s world war III (khtml vs. apple).
It appears that Hyatt (Safari developer of Apple) seems to be quite reasonable and open. He has his own blog where he encourages feedback from everyone. This is quite unusual for Apple. It has not allowed such communication for any of its other applications.
Look here:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2005_04.html#008054
He has listed all the changes made to Safari to pass the Acid2 test. I don’t understand what the bitching is about (but I am not a technical person)
Making a mountain out of a molehill by the anti-Apple trolls. Remember the article first appeared in c/net which is anti-Apple. I would read the blogs first and then come to my own conclusions instead reading the synopsis on c/net who can (and does) twist the facts to to suit their agenda.
I do use a lot of Linux distros. I do use KDE, and gnome. I do understand the open source movement, and I do understand that people are coding i their free time (most for nothing, but some open source projects are financed), and they are doing it for their own reasons.
And, are you trying to tell me that Apple forking KHTML, is the only fork ever, where the people who did the fork didn’t make sure that all their changes where incorporated with the orignanl code? If you say yes, you are foolish. KHTML people are whining, and that is my problem with the whole situation.
The only thing the khtml developers ask are for people to stop claiming that Apple does great things/saves khtml, when they clearly are not interested in cooporation with the khtml developers. They have taken what they want, and do the bare minimum to comply with the license. No big deal, the khtml developers keep improving khtml regardless. End of story.
Blog post wasn’t ment for Apple. It was for all those Apple fanboys at slashdot who thought that Apple works whit coperation with KHTML team. They did not complain what Apple do or not do. And now all Apple fanboys are blameing KHTML developers, just because Apple fanboys can’t read English.
Now if Microsoft would do something like this all Apple fanboys want to burn Microsoft’s headquarter and hang Bill Gates, but because this is Apple they blame KHTML developers. All Apple fanboys think that Apple never make mistakes and they are the holy grail of software industry.
Sorry for my bad english.
Quote:
” And, are you trying to tell me that Apple forking KHTML, is the only fork ever”
I think that there’s also a port of khtml in gnome somewhere.
BSD is the best example , why its crap it the got taken by everyone due to there License , there is BSD code in everything but alsmot everyone is not sharing it back and as closed it ( Just look at OS X and Microsoft as the biggest offender ).
Aroo? First off, the BSD license does not require the sharing of borrowed code, you just have to give the proper copyright notice, which apple does.
Dood, DARWIN. Though not obligated under the BSD licence, Apple has given back what it has taken.
GNU/Linux is whats winning and whats letting everyone share it , you can fell in a coma wake up in 20 years and still be able to use your code and the improvments of others , cant say the same about any other license.
Well, no, you can void your rights to GPL code if you pull a Maui-X-Stream.
And the UC Berkeley Regents could decide to change the terms of their license … but the chances of that are very slim indeed — no motive.
And this little tidbits is no surprise at all , come on Apple is built on BSD … Apple whas bound to go back to there old trick …
And what exactly would their “old trick” be?
What does this show exactly :
– Apple is not to be trusted ( they have been closing Open Source project for a long time.
Cite me an example please. (And remember, if the code was obtained under the BSD license, the copyright holders have given their blessing. So there’s nothing sneaky or underhanded about that.)
– Open Source is crap if not free ( GNU/Linux )
You’ve just insulted everybody who codes for and/or uses a BSD derived OS.
– Konqueror and KHTML need there own Non-profit but acting like for profit org pushing it like the Mozilla foundation is for firefox and like Opera is doing for its own browser.
Dood, Opera (which is the browser I’m using at the moment, btw) is not open source. (Although they’ve got some agressive [and fun] marketing going on at the moment.)
GNU/Linux should set it sight on doing to Apple what it does to Microsoft.
And what would that be?
“> So, yes Apple is expected to provide those patches with something more than just a useless dump.
So where is this expectation stated? ”
Well, I believe the issue is not that Apple MUST do this, only that for a company that pretends it is friendly to open source (despite taking far more than they give back), they could me a little more cooperative. It wouldn’ t kill them. It wouldn’t run them out of business either. Apple is supposed to be the “cool” company, not ungrateful, thieving jerks like those folks up in Redmond. They could have built their OS and their browser from scratch if Open Source is really so unworthy of their attention. They don’t owe in legal terms, only in the spirit of being reasonable.
But that’s something neither they nor most Mac users seem to understand. Once again we have a steady parade of Mac users in here crying that people are picking on Apple, as opposed to defending Apple when they’re the ones doing the harrassing.
“This are people who give up their time and effort to create a marvelous piece of software and what do they get in return.”
What are they supposed to get in return? When you give stuff away for free, do you complain because nobody paid you for it? If so, why are you giving it away for free in the first place?
“if we go by what andrew said in the last post maybe OSS should go to hell. BSD and *nix should be crapped, they should just turn their code over to windows and apple and let those companies make more money of their effort.” That’s just complete nonsense. Microsoft and Apple using BSD code doesn’t hurt BSD any. BSD doesn’t have anything against businesses; BSD developers use open source because they believe in writing quality code of technical merit so that people can benefit from its use. They’re not concerned about driving proprietary software companies out of business or how many people are using their code. Whether a person benefits from their code by using Windows or *BSD is irrelevant, the point is that there is a benefit. Even if Microsoft or Apple can improve upon the code to the extent that everybody using the *BSDs now drops it, (which has a snowball’s chance in hell of happening; Windows and OSX don’t even come close to any of the *BSD’s in the *BSD’s goal areas), the *BSDs would survive as long as there were developers interested in working on them.
Just cause I think Apple didn’t do anything wrong, doesn’t make me a mac user.
As for users complaining to KHTML dev, that’s a moot point. There are better ways to handle the situation, than to blame Apple for not making KHTML better. Again, comes down to responsibility, and both sides have different responsibilities. And I suck at spelling
Quote:
“”This are people who give up their time and effort to create a marvelous piece of software and what do they get in return.”
What are they supposed to get in return?”
>> a simple “thank you” will do.
Otherwise, nothing is expected.
“When you give stuff away for free, do you complain because nobody paid you for it?”
>> No, but I can tell you that when you do give something away for free, something you worked very hard on, for many years… and some users DEMAND you to do something that can’t be done, and start getting unfriendly, then the fun stops.
So, no, there are no complaints that somebody didn’t pay.
“If so, why are you giving it away for free in the first place? ”
>> Because it’s fun and in the hope that other people might find it useful and learn something from it.
And again, a simple thank you for this is sufficient.
A “You suck because you didn’t implement feature X from webcore” is not expected.
>KHTML developers are whining because they’re not in charge any more. Apple decided to fork the code and now KHTML devs don’t have any say. Welcome to open source cry babies.
Wrong!
khtml developers are whining because everybody assumes apple is helping them in tremendous ways, and every new feature they integerate is supposed to come from apple…and to late at that.
>blame Apple for not making KHTML better.
No khtml developer has done that either, they have only said that Apple does not give anything tangible back to them. And people should realize that and stop claiming different. They should also stop claiming that khtml developers are blaming Apple in any way.
“Just cause I think Apple didn’t do anything wrong, doesn’t make me a mac user. ”
If you’re talking to me, I didn’t call you a mac user. Nevertheless, my statement about them remains unchanged. They are unable to find fault with Apple under any circumstances, and are only too happy to show up in force whenever they think Apple is being “picked on”. Nevermind that the KHTML team are the little guys here, and nevermind that Cupertino is the lawsuit capital of the world. They have this image that they’re always the underdog and therefore can do no wrong. It’s no doubt a result of them losing the “look and feel” lawsuit.
Again, by saying that this and this feautre doesn’t exist in KHTML, because Apple isn’t giving them tangible (and some people say readable, and some say useful) code, is saying that it’s Apple’s fault that it’s not in here.
Apple is not “evil”, everything is fine. KDE doesn’t have a problem with Apple. Khtml devs didn’t choose the wrong lisence and have no intention to change it, and they are not stupid or lazy either. This is not about free software which gets exploited by a corporation. No legal issues, nothing. Nothing.
One only three issues I see are:
a) a little bit disappointment because some people have hoped for more commitment from Apple (nothing big)
b) annoying users who have no comprehension of the problems involved but keep pressing khtml developers to backport those “cool webcore patches” and have no understanding for when a webpage is rendered correctly with Safari but not with Konquerer.
c) Too many people say “cool” to Safari and praise Webcore improvements but only few appreciate it when khtml developers implement something
Result? Some frustrated developers. Understandable. But some comments here about legal issues or devs who use the wrong lisence are absolutely inappropriate.
They sound more like winblows users here stirring up problems.
apple’s not linux. they’re a mini-microsoft.
and they act accordingly.
Saying that this feature doesn’t exist in khtml because Apple did not put it in there, and reimplementing it would be a whole lot of work due to trying to understand from apple code-dump how they implemented it…
…is saying just that: Apple did not put it in there, and reimplementing …well you get the drift…
So in a way it is apple fault. Apple could have implemented it directly in the khtml tree. But they did not and they did not have to.
In another way it is the kde developers fault. They could have stoped eating and sleeping and could have reimplemented every feature apple implemented from a rather different code base. But they did not and they did not have to.
So talking about fault is not really interesting here…
>is saying that it’s Apple’s fault that it’s not in here.
Now you are twisting words, no one are blaming Apple for not doing anything more than the license demands. The reason some features Apple implements are not ported to khtml are Apples lack of cooporation, and that’s a verifiable fact and has nothing to do with blaming.
Big deal. Its just like MS using mosaic for the bases of Internet Explorer! The only difference is that Apple is releasing the source code.
Apple implemented the feature’s using a different language and different API. So, it would have cost them a few precious dollars to rewrite that code, and place it into the khtml tree. And, just in case you didn’t know, programmers aren’t cheap, so they probably didn’t justify rewriting everything everytime. And if I were to speculate, maybe they thought that the khtml dev’s could figure out the code on their own.
@moulinneuf
you are completly arrogant and full of crap. BSD is a really free license. And what do you think you are going to accomplish by bringing down Apple, Microsoft, and any other company that makes money? Do you have a job programming? Do you want to obtain a job programming? Well, you take down every company that makes money, and you wont have a job programming. you will be at the local fast food joint, flipping burgers.
On the other hand, i use Linux a lot, and I like it, but I still have to use windows for some things. And, the major downfall of Linux, is a lack of software that people want. I know linux has almost everyhting you need, but, the quality of a lot of the products does not compare to the quality of commercial apps.
The GPL is partially to blame for the lack of commercial apps for linux, as well as a small market share. But the GPL is not commercial friendly, and if you want your precious open source OS to succeed, it will need commercial apps.
BSD, LGPL, better for commercial purposes. True, companies and steal code, as you would say, but you can’t steal something that is free. Also, a company us a library like GTK to produce GUI’s under the GPL, without having to give their sourcecode away, which would allow pirated versions like crazy, and undermine the whole point of a commercial app.
Use the license you want, but I believe that GPL is slavery more than BSD, and LGPL. How can you say that it’s freedom, when it tells you what you HAVE to do with your code. That you HAVE to publish your code. That’s more on the line of slavery than telling someone just to give us credit for what we did.
GPL = forced open source
BSD = choice open source
how about this analogy. Say you are a book publishing company, and you make a book that uses a quote from another book. Using the same mentality of the above two licenses, this is how it would play out.
BSD:
You would give the orignal author credit for the quote, where it was found, who published it, etc. That’s it. That’s freedom.
GPL
You would give the orignal author credit for the quote, where it was found, who published it, etc. Then you would also have to allow the orignal publisher the right to publish the book also. Providing two companies publishing the same book. Futhermore, if that publisher has the means to out market you, then, you will lose money, possibly go out of business, and the other publisher will benefit more. Call that freedom? Or Slavery.
Whatever license you use, is your preference. I hate the GPL, others love it. Open source shouldn’t be restricted, and likewise, you can’t protect everything. Hell, their has probably been plenty of code lifted from several open source apps, that ended up in propertiery software, that no one even knows about.
Microsoft paid for the source of Internet Explorer (bought it from a company called Spyglass, and one reason, I hope not the only, why Apple is releasing the code is because they have to.
So what were you saying?
Apple wrote a Qt Compatibility layer under the khtml layer to port it to the Mac. The khtml engine could have been kept in pure c++ without problems and the qt compatibility layer is of no use to the khtml people since they use the original Qt.
So the question is only: why did apple implement the features using a different language and different API?
And since programmers are not cheap, wouldn’t it be better to work with the khtml people and get some people working on it…for free?
> If they open-sourced everything
> then the best parts would be absorbed
> into Linux and the rest would perish.
> Not everyone can make money on “services”,
> especially not on the consumer desktop.
My point about absorption was if i* was OSS then people would be running iTunes and iPhoto and GarageBand on GNU/Linux and there would be less reason to buy OS X which would mean less reason to buy Apple hardware and Apple can’t live off of services alone.
lol, they already did their work with open sourcee people and got their browser off the ground…lol. The only thing is, is that the expectations that the khtml people had, were unmet. So, therefore, we have some let down people who aren’t happy.
The different language and API does not mean very much, had Apple actually been interested in coopoirating. And it had not needed to cost Apple much, if anything at all. They could have given the khtml developers access to their changelogs and incremental patches. Making much it easier to, as you put it, figure out the code on their own. Rather than from time to time provide a large snapshot of the code, containing large numbers of undocumented changes.
The Goals as nothing to do with whats happening here , Apple took it , improved it and closed it.
They most certainly did not close it.
Guess what this does this give me a very big example of why GNU/Linux need to take out Apple first , and we got money and pull togheter an buy it , it might take time but in the end we will do it. Because if we take out Microsoft and let Apple do this all the time we end up facing Apple instead.
So you’re quite obviously a zealot.
No , Some people tought wrongly that Apple whas on there side. Problem is corrected now 😉
So, people like you who are bent on driving them out of business realized that Apple doesn’t feel the same way as you?
“I disagree completly”
Thanks for sharing it , now I dont care about your lies and opinion , you see my name avoid it in the futur.
Looks like you’re an e-thug as well as a zealot.
“Because the BSD license is about free software. ”
BSD License is not free software at all. BSD is about ownership , and slavery , you obviously dont know your history or your license.
How is their ownership or slavery with the BSD license? If anything, BSD is more free as in speech. However, since it’s not hellbent against proprietary software, it could be perceived to be less free as in beer, since although BSD code itself is absolutely free as in beer, there is nothing to ensure that the derivative works will be.
“You may do whatever you want to with it …”
No , thats GNU/Linux , BSD is :