quote:
Originally posted by Panos:
I would like to see you respond point to point like Faust did on my previous post as well as psyjax's. Let me remind you that I run a whole site about free and open source software and that I also donate to the FSF. Now, go on read my other post as well and respond.
[ April 15, 2003: Message edited by: Panos ]
quote:
Before answering, let me just say that I do not in any way support proprietary software. I wish everything was GPL'ed but above all I'm trying to be realistic.
But later on you say:
quote:
Can you imagine what would happen if Apple released that or Aqua's code or Quartz's?
Are you saying here that you specifically *do* support their not making it free software?
I'm not saying that you can't be pleased to see Apple making forays into free software projects (or *useful* open source projects), if that's what they're doing. Though that seems unlikely. Safari is free because they needed to use software from the FS community to build it, not because they want to make a contribution to our community. And as we've seen, although Darwin is open source, it's not really any use to anyone because it's to restrictively licenced and it isn't the whole OS that's open anyway. If, as you seem to think, this is just the first step in 'opening up' or freeing more or all of their software then great, but I doubt it is.
And even if you are happy with Apple's work on open source projects, it doesn't mean you can't criticise them for not going far enough, or at least not be fully satisfied with how far they have gone. Don't forget that MS now has some GPL'd software, so should we be commending them for that?
quote:
2. I disagree there. Apple is a corporation, meaning that they're trying to sell. I don't see anything wrong there. The same thing could be done amongst Linux vendors who have in the past and are still competed and competing against each other.
3. I also disagree. Thanks to the hard work invested by Apple's software engineers into Darwin, as well as the close cooperation between the latter and BSD developers has brought positive results as well as improvements on both and will continue to do so.
4. Oh, it is and Safari is already a big step towards that direction. The rumoured arrival of iWorks and the arrival of Keynote, will have a great impact on M$'s profits.
I don't agree with Faust's points there and I don't have any problem with them competing fairly either.
quote:
5. Again I urge you to present me a case of violation of the GPL, LGPL and other FSF licenses.
He wasn't suggesting that they have actually violated FSF licences (and I wouldn't suggest that either), merely that they've done nothing more than they're bound to by law.
Psyjax:
quote:
It's only natural that they should do it bigger and better agian. And I honestly thing linux/*NIX users are a bit jeulous, and salivate over the Aqua source, because KDE/Gnome do not work nearly as well, and Mac users only need the terminal when they WANT to use it. Not when the HAVE to.
To suggest we're jealous is a bit of a childish argument. I've never touched OSX so have absolutely no idea how good Aqua is, though by all accounts it's excellent, and I have no reason to think otherwise. I also couldn't care less (personally I prefer the terminal and only reach for the mouse when I want to, not when I have to.) What I resent is the arrogance of Apple thinking "Aqua is so good, it doesn't need to be free software. People will happily trade their freedom for a piece of software that works well."