Unix/FreeBSD vs. Apple/Mac

[ThinkRob]

EDIT: more seriously, where is your github/svn repo? you sound like a genius and I might be able make use of your code contributions.

(I don't know if that is directed at me, but my ego tells me to respond anyways... ) I don't do much public open source stuff really. Most of my work is spent working on a closed-source product, albeit one that's not commercially distributed. And yes, it does use open source libraries of various sorts. Naturally, that makes me a *highly* biased participant in this discussion.

How about releasing the whole OSX code under a free license just like Red Hat does with their OS so that others can decide which of it is useful for their projects instead of being limited by Apple's filter in what to release and what not?

Because then people will go and do what Oracle's done with Oracle Linux.

RedHat's model works because for businesses, support is both a necessity and the norm. In a business where minutes can mean millions, having professional support available for an OS is of utmost importance.

In the consumer OS space, support is of minimal importance. The most popular OS in the world comes with pretty much zero end-user support and does just fine.

Since RedHat makes their money on support, Oracle's RedHat clone isn't as devastating as it might otherwise be. With OS vendor/ISV support removed from the equation, Oracle Linux absolutely could destroy RHEL. Oracle could use the product as a loss leader, or even give it away. They'd wipe out RedHat overnight.

What is their reason for keeping things back? Please don't even start to mention business secrets!

Competitive advantage. Right now Apple's got a tremendous advantage in terms of controlling the user experience. They can produce a more streamlined experience for users that are willing to pay the premiums, and they can control what those premiums are. Once users are locked in via data formats and workflow, they can keep them upgrading at a nice steady pace, thereby assuring a constant revenue stream.

If Apple releases OS X as Free Software (or even free software), that advantage goes away. They can't control the user experience, so they'd end up with the problems that Microsoft faces trying to handle all the crazy hardware combinations out there. They couldn't keep people upgrading to the latest and greatest, since they'd no longer be able to control what boxen their OS runs on. And format lock-in? That doesn't work so well when you're talking about an open source product.

[masterchef341]

How about releasing the whole OSX code under a free license

It's all their work, and their prerogative to decide under what license and condition to release their software, not yours. Free open source software is not always the right business model for a business. That should be plain as day, I'm not sure how that idea is failing to get through. Apple is a business. By definition, it is designed to generate profit for the owners (shareholders). They don't have any duty or obligation to provide you with free stuff.

Try walking into McDonalds and start making demands for free burgers for the good of the community.

[debguy]

do you release your personal finance records? because if you did, any random financial consultant could come along in their free time and provide free advice for you. Do you have something against free advice?

No I don't, because this is my private stuff. It helps nobody if I release my private finance records.
But please don't detract from the topic! This thread is about technologic advancement in the widest sense. It has nothing to do with single individuals.

EDIT: more seriously, where is your github/svn repo? you sound like a genius and I might be able make use of your code contributions.

I don't need a git/svn repo because I'm no genius and therefore have no own world-changing projects going on. But you'll find my small contributions in in the repos of Debian, Slax, PureOS or Maemo.
All the work I did in my spare time is released under free licenses ([censored]PL* if I have the choice). I'd like to release my professional work under free licenses too but unfortunately the contract with my employer doesn't allow that.

*) @admins: The forum's censoring system is ridiculous! One can't even name Free Software licenses nor link to the corresponding wikipedia articles.

[debguy]

It's all their work, and their prerogative to decide under what license and condition to release their software, not yours.

That's totally ok, I won't argue with that. But if you decide not to release your work under free licenses don't pretend to do so!

Free open source software is not always the right business model for a business.

Name one!

Try walking into McDonalds and start making demands for free burgers for the good of the community.

You miss the point of Free Software! It's not about giving your work away for free, it's about publishing the foundation your work is based on. To stick with your McDonalds example, the spirit of free software would require them to publish the way they work, not to give away their burgers for free. The same goes for Apple. Nobody asks them to give their OS away for free, they are just asked to release ALL of their source code, just like Red Hat does.
Please inform yourself about the very basics of Free Software at least before coming back for further discussion. It doesn't make sense to discuss with someone who doesn't understand the topic.

[masterchef341]

That's totally ok, I won't argue with that. But if you decide not to release your work under free licenses don't pretend to do so!

Apple does not pretend to release OS X under a free and open source license. They are extraordinarily explicit and transparent concerning the software(s) they release, and the licenses under which they are released, for both proprietary software and FLOSS.

Name one!

Apple. You're free to argue that, in your opinion, it would be a better decision for them to be doing whatever it is you think they should be doing. The volume of evidence suggests that the choices they are making are working well for them. Again, since it's their prerogative, you have absolutely no say in the matter. If I have a successful business doing A, and you think I would be more successful doing B, you're free to give me your opinion on the comment cards I leave on the front desk.

You miss the point of Free Software! It's not about giving your work away for free, it's about publishing the foundation your work is based on. To stick with your McDonalds example, the spirit of free software would require them to publish the way they work, not to give away their burgers for free. The same goes for Apple. Nobody asks them to give their OS away for free, they are just asked to release ALL of their source code, just like Red Hat does.
Please inform yourself about the very basics of Free Software at least before coming back for further discussion. It doesn't make sense to discuss with someone who doesn't understand the topic.

I knew the analogy wasn't perfect. I understand what free software is to an extreme degree of minutiae. I'll say this yet again! Apple does not answer to the spirit of free software. Free software is a movement to which many people subscribe. Not everyone subscribes to that movement, and Apple is certainly not bound to it in any way. That's all there is to it. You are talking about a philosophical movement, and Apple as a hardware and software business. Apple is just as bound to the free software movement as it is to Occupy Wall Street, as it is to the Eco-feminism movement. That is to say: not at all.

If you and I do business, and we make an agreement, and fulfill our obligations to each other (let's say each sold each other a patent) - and then I decide you aren't living up to the spirit of the Slow Food movement, where should we stand? Should I start pestering you about how you aren't living up to the spirit of the slow food movement? You would probably give me a blank stare and look at me like I'm crazy. I'm giving you that look, right now, through the internet.

[debguy]

Apple does not pretend to release OS X under a free and open source license. They are extraordinarily explicit and transparent about the softwares they release under FLOSS licenses.

That is commendable. Yet they keep vital parts of their work closed and as a consequence nobody can really comprehend what they are doing because even if you try (and have the skills) you'll encounter borders which will prevent you from proceeding.
You're right that's their prerogative. But some people who see Apple from the viewpoint of proprietary systems being the standard think that what they do to support Free Software is enough. I come from the opposite direction, where free (as in freedom) systems should be the standard and from my point of view what they do is a good starting point but it's by far not enough.
I know this is an extreme position but in my opinion there is no such thing like "being a little free" just like there isn't "being a little pregnant". One is either the one or the other.

Apple.

When I said "name one" I was asking for a business model where FLOSS is not a suitable business model. If your answer is "Apple" I have to ask: Why is FLOSS no business model for them? Why wouldn't it work for them?

If you and I do business, and we make an agreement, and fulfill our obligations to each other (let's say each sold each other a patent) - and then I decide you aren't living up to the spirit of the Slow Food movement, where should we stand? Should I start pestering you about how you aren't living up to the spirit of the slow food movement? You would probably give me a blank stare and look at me like I'm crazy. I'm giving you that look, right now, through the internet.

I don't get your point. What do patents and slow food have to do with each other? If you're referring to patents on food like genetically altered grain then I'll assure you that we'd never make a business like the one you suggested. I wouldn't sell my patents to you. I'd keep them and give you a license use my patents. This license would look pretty much like the GPL (I'd have to think about it if it should look more like v2 or v3).

[masterchef341]

Since you didn't pick up on it, let's do a slightly simpler example. Instead of trading patents: I sell you a house, and you pay me in cash. That's a more common transaction that you could hopefully imagine for the sake of a thought experiment. The same situation applies from that point on. I decide after you sign the contract that you aren't living up to the spirit of the Slow Food movement.

"Where should we stand? Should I start pestering you about how you aren't living up to the spirit of the slow food movement? You would probably give me a blank stare and look at me like I'm crazy. I'm giving you that look, right now, through the internet."

Any day now, the realization should set in on you that you have no obligation to uphold the spirit of the Slow Food movement, regardless of the fact that the sale the house was done through me, and that I am a member of the Slow Food Movement. That still gives you no direct connection to the Slow Food Movement, and certainly no obligations therein.

Are you successful or unsuccessful in abstracting this relationship and realizing the equivalency to the topic at hand?

[ThinkRob]

When I said "name one" I was asking for a business model where FLOSS is not a suitable business model. If your answer is "Apple" I have to ask: Why is FLOSS no business model for them? Why wouldn't it work for them?

Ooh, ohh, pick me!

Bink Video!

They hate software patents, and they don't prevent people from reverse-engineering their formats (Smacker has been figured out for a while now, and IIRC some progress has been made on Bink), but they still keep their core products as non-Free.

If they offered Bink as FLOSS, say under the LGPL, what exactly would they sell? Support? Yeah, there's some money in that (that's why they still sell Smacker licenses and why some very few people still buy them), but not nearly as much. Do you really think that every one of their users would pay for support if Bink was under the LGPL or BSD license or some-such? Support is a necessity for business app. platforms, but for middleware it's not. There's plenty of open-source libraries used in the game dev. world that come with absolutely zero support, yet still see widespread use.

[masterchef341]

But ThinkRob- Bink Video obviously doesn't support the spirit of free software. Don't you see? Isn't it obvious that they should be publishing their work under free and open licenses for the benefit of the free software movement?

[ALLurGroceries]

*) @admins: The forum's censoring system is ridiculous! One can't even name Free Software licenses nor link to the corresponding wikipedia articles.

What? Be more specific and maybe I can help...