Unix/FreeBSD vs. Apple/Mac

[naticus]

....to make this short and a bit sweet, I have been using Unix/freeBSD for about 10 years now. I don't agree with ALL decisions ( as well as it should be) BSD and unix in their previous and current forms ( love ghostBSD), but I have a question.

I do not work in an environment where computing/OS environment is really a topic of discussion -- working on my M.A in Applied Philosophy. But my signifacant other has a ''app'' on her Apple MAC Air that is almost identical to a program that I used several years ago that is rather identical to the counterpart that I used over ten years ago that is FOSS in BSD -- the Apple version is USD 200$, yet the FOSS is free and is exactly the same. Does Apple just use FOSS and give it a "skin"/"facelift" and sell it to MAC users as creative software?

This is incredulous and close to what I would consider as immoral business practice on Apple's part.

* I am a new user of Apple products but to me this feels like taking code from FOSS and selling it, re-skinned, on proprietary software without an inkling of recognition to those that created the software, with no creative credit given -- all-the-while making a huge profit from said software.

This is a rant of sorts, but there is a question here that I am interested in with an answer I just don't have.

[debguy]

It's a pretty common thing that companies take FLOSS software for free, make some minor changes (from the developer's viewpoint) and sell the result as something new and spectacular.
Or they take a FLOSS base system and put their proprietary software on top of that to sell the result as a whole under their trademark.

One might find that immoral. This is why most Free licenses require at least to give credit for the original author. So if you find some Apple software that is based on BSDL software (which is pretty likely) you should find a hint to the original software somewhere (in the about window, in the manpage or whatever would be the standard way to find out who wrote this software). If that isn't stated where one would usually expect it it's a clear violation of the BSDL.
If you find the whole practice of copying other people's software without returning anything to the Community immoral your way to go for your own software are licenses like the GPL or CDDL.

[masterchef341]

Apple does contribute to the flossing community, and they are transparant to the degree in which they use open source components: Apple - Open Source

What's the particular app in question?

[ThinkRob]

Originally Posted by masterchef341

What's the particular app in question?

I'm interested in this too, as I can't think of any example of this except for perhaps dtrace. Then again, I haven't used OS X seriously since early 2009, so perhaps something's come along in the interim.

That aside, I think that the BSD license is one of the most free for precisely this reason. When I've contributed BSD-licensed code, I've not only done so with the understanding that it might make its way into commercial products, but with the hope that it does. Obviously YMMV, and I get that some people don't like that idea too much.

[weinter]

Originally Posted by masterchef341

Apple does contribute to the flossing community, and they are transparant to the degree in which they use open source components: Apple - Open Source

What's the particular app in question?

Grab that source and compile me a working System then I will say it is opensource. Otherwise it is opensource when it is convenient, close source true intentions.

[cardriver]

isnt OSX VERY roughly based off BSD?

[ThinkRob]

Originally Posted by cardriver

isnt OSX VERY roughly based off BSD?

xnu uses a fair bit of FreeBSD in its kernel, and most of the *nix userland is adapted from FreeBSD.

Virtually none of the graphical stuff is from FreeBSD though. Nearly all of that is Apple's.

[weinter]

Originally Posted by ThinkRob

Virtually none of the graphical stuff is from FreeBSD though. Nearly all of that is Apple's.

Yea and all of that is closed source. So much for OpenSource.
All of mine is mine and all of yours is mine.

[masterchef341]

Apple isn't obligated to make all of their software open source. I'm a bit confused by the sarcasm. Do you have some sort of expectation in that regard?

Originally Posted by weinter

Grab that source and compile me a working System then I will say it is opensource. Otherwise it is opensource when it is convenient, close source true intentions.

Being open source means that the source is public. It doesn't mean they are going to hand hold you or provide with support for compiling those tools to build a working unix system. They are just components. There's no obligation to provide a complete working unix system at all. They've simply open sourced some components. Those components can be compiled, or derived works could be implemented for similar systems or systems which are not similar, or those components could merely be studied. It's not up to them what you do with it. It's just open source.

You could take the same idea as far as you want until it's preposterous.

- Unless they guarantee wide compatibility with all systems, it isn't really open source
- Unless they comment every line of of source code, it's not really open source.
- Unless they provide free classes which demonstrate the meaning behind the source code, it isn't really open source

[weinter]

Originally Posted by masterchef341

Being open source means that the source is public. It doesn't mean they are going to hand hold you or provide with support for compiling those tools to build a working unix system. They are just components. There's no obligation to provide a complete working unix system at all. They've simply open sourced some components. Those components can be compiled, or derived works could be implemented for similar systems or systems which are not similar, or those components could merely be studied. It's not up to them what you do with it. It's just open source.

You could take the same idea as far as you want until it's preposterous.

- Unless they guarantee wide compatibility with all systems, it isn't really open source
- Unless they comment every line of of source code, it's not really open source.
- Unless they provide free classes which demonstrate the meaning behind the source code, it isn't really open source

Seriously you are misguided

1. 90% of what listed are ALREADY well-known opensource components It is like grabbing a bunch of grass off the public field handing it over to you and saying "Hey here is a bunch of grass compliments from us"
2. What is the point of giving you a bunch of non-usable code and claim it is opensource? I could give you patches of code (with lots of lines missing in btw) and claim I am opensource? "Here is a plan of our car it is missing the engine, and transmission and some gears but hey we shared didn't we?"
3. Ask Red Hat what they mean by OpenSource.