Subject: Does Apple deserve credit for opensourcing?
From: Brian Bartholomew <bb@wv.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 18:44:50 -0500

> I think that OSI would better to serve the community, whatever it is
> called, of which I believe both of us to be a part, by working to
> stop the proliferation of open source licenses, and by working to
> bring people into the larger community rather than merely branding
> their license agreements.  For example, to mention Apple again,
> putting the BSD sources out again with new copyrights on them
> benefits few people; encouraging them and teaching them to integrate
> their changes into existing BSD distributions would be better.

If Apple had truly gotten the open source religion, I'd expect them to
open source NextStep or their Mac emulator.  I doubt there is much of
a technical reason preventing them from porting to every Unix.

If Apple was persuing a quality-enhancing/cost-reduction win, I'd
expect them to replace their backwatered version of BSD with a more
mainstream one.  Why should the community fix those bugs again when
Apple can upgrade?

I feel that Apple is dumping their trash on us.  Given the structure
they've arranged, any volunteer work Apple receives mostly benefits
Apple, not the community.  This is a perversion of open source.  I
would like to see the open source guidelines address business
practices affecting community rights*, in addition to license terms.

I would rather see Apple sell the right to use and extend NextStep and
their Mac emulator for money.  Then they can dump their proprietary
BSD and their silly hardware business, or at least build something
interesting like Netwinders.

* They aren't rights yet, that's an idea open source is selling.


League for Programming Freedom (LPF) ftp://ftp.uu.net/doc/lpf/patents.text
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bartholomew - bb@wv.com - www.wv.com - Working Version, Cambridge, MA