Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple's Spotty Record of Giving Back To the Tech Industry

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the giving-back dept.

Businesses 268

chicksdaddy (814965) writes "Given Apple's status as the world's most valuable company and its enormous cash hoard, the refusal to offer even meager support to open source and industry groups is puzzling. From the article: 'Apple bundles software from the Apache Software Foundation with its OS X operating system, but does not financially support the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) in any way. That is in contrast to Google and Microsoft, Apple's two chief competitors, which are both Platinum sponsors of ASF — signifying a contribution of $100,000 annually to the Foundation. Sponsorships range as low as $5,000 a year (Bronze), said Sally Khudairi, ASF's Director of Marketing and Public Relations. The ASF is vendor-neutral and all code contributions to the Foundation are done on an individual basis. Apple employees are frequent, individual contributors to Apache. However, their employer is not, Khudairi noted. The company has been a sponsor of ApacheCon, a for-profit conference that runs separately from the Foundation — but not in the last 10 years. "We were told they didn't have the budget," she said of efforts to get Apple's support for ApacheCon in 2004, a year in which the company reported net income of $276 million on revenue of $8.28 billion.'"

cancel ×

268 comments

LOL nerds (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46739767)

Wow this whole thing reads like impotent nerd rage and jealousy.

"Waaaah someone uses FOSS 100% according to its license but doesn't follow a bunch of ad-hoc unwritten rules!! Waaaaaaah!!" *throws toys out pram*

Yes, because of your selection bias (3, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | about 4 months ago | (#46739769)

Google doesn't contribute to (insert some random pet project of mine) but apple does.

Microsoft ONLY does it to gain control, the fact that you mention them hurts your point more than helps it.

You have selection bias, there isn't actually anything to see here, Apple contributes to just about every OSS project they themselves use themselves in the form of code contributions.

Just because they aren't buying favors doesn't mean they don't contribute.

This post will be followed by many people throwing out long lists of Apple products that are OSS and the contributions back to those projects from other posts so I feel no need to bother reposting the various pages that show their contributions but ... LLVM would be a really good place for you to start.

Selection bias doesn't make your point valid.

Re:Yes, because of your selection bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46739823)

Huh, slashdot non-beta has started injecting noisy ads on the pages.

Slashdot is really getting awesome these days.

Re:Yes, because of your selection bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740487)

http://soylentnews.org/

Re:Yes, because of your selection bias (4, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about 4 months ago | (#46740137)

Microsoft ONLY does it to gain control, the fact that you mention them hurts your point more than helps it.

Does Microsoft really control Apache now? Why wasn't this news splashed all over the news sites?

If I have it wrong, and it is not Apache that the company bought, which open source project did it take control of?

Re:Yes, because of your selection bias (0, Troll)

BitZtream (692029) | about 4 months ago | (#46740247)

No, I didn't mean to imply Microsoft has any influence on the ASF, though in hindsight it's clear that it will be read that way. I should have written that differently; my mistake.

What I meant was that MS didn't do it for the same reason a Google does it. Microsoft will do this for a while then try to exert pressure in various ways to get their way. Due to the structure of ASF, it's probably hard for them to get anywhere because there are so many different projects lead by so many different people. They will most certainly try however.

Re:Yes, because of your selection bias (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 3 months ago | (#46740579)

Agreed completely. I am no fan of apple or its walled garden, but this post to me just seems like clickbait. I am sure apple has contributed to projects in the past, just because its not the project the sumbitter wants it to be doesnt make it non existent.

-1, Flamebait (4, Insightful)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 4 months ago | (#46739779)

Does this article exist for any purpose other than fanning the flame?

Yes, Apple should probably throw some cash at the Apache foundation, but that's not why this was posted to Slashdot.

Re:-1, Flamebait (2)

fche (36607) | about 4 months ago | (#46740159)

It must be awkward for the ASF/OASIS fundraiser folks to have helped a reporter make it sound like they feel entitled to Apple's charity.

Cherries (3, Insightful)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 4 months ago | (#46739783)

So Apache is now is equal to the entire tech industry? Nice title there.

Re:Cherries (0, Troll)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 4 months ago | (#46739819)

If you have an example that proves otherwise, feel free to share and enlighten those of us who naïvely expected some informative/insightful comments.

Many beyond counting? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 3 months ago | (#46740715)

Isn't the "example" the fact that there is even one open source consortium outside Apache...

So, NCSA mean anything to you?

Free as in fuck you! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46739793)

If you want money for it charge for it you retards.

Re:Free as in fuck you! (2)

Bugamn (1769722) | about 4 months ago | (#46739851)

Parent has a certain point. Apple has no real obligation to pay. If one really wants a return, they should either charge for it, or maybe use a license that includes a return, e.g. GPLv2 with return of code. Unfortunately GPLv3 scared most serious users, Apple included.

Re:Free as in fuck you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46740871)

Apple still contributes a lot of code, even if they don't give much monetary support. See CUPS or LLVM.

Steve Jobs' culture (1)

Andrio (2580551) | about 4 months ago | (#46739835)

I imagine this is due to the influence Jobs had on Apple's culture. It's my understanding he wasn't big on giving money away.

I think in time we'll see Apple more prone to contributions.

Re:Steve Jobs' culture (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46739859)

It's my understanding he wasn't big on giving money away.

Well your understanding is wrong. He donated anonymously [dailymail.co.uk] .

Re:Steve Jobs' culture (5, Interesting)

BitZtream (692029) | about 4 months ago | (#46739897)

It's my understanding he wasn't big on giving money away.

Your understanding is incorrect.

He didn't like telling everyone about his donations.

He didn't like doing it to show off or for politics, he preferred to donate to the actual cause, not so other people would think he was a good person.

He didn't donate so you liked him, he donated to accomplish things.

Re:Steve Jobs' culture (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46739997)

It's my understanding he wasn't big on giving money away.

Your understanding is incorrect.

He didn't like telling everyone about his donations.

He didn't like doing it to show off or for politics, he preferred to donate to the actual cause, not so other people would think he was a good person.

He didn't donate so you liked him, he donated to accomplish things.

But still, somehow, you know and it makes him even better in your eyes. Interesting that.

Re:Steve Jobs' culture (4, Informative)

BitZtream (692029) | about 4 months ago | (#46740535)

Well, he was a shrewd business man so maybe it was part of his plan.

Of course, the reason I know is because I get interested in learning more about why people are assholes ... And in this particular case, I found out that he wasn't nearly as bad as the haters want to make it out.

The organization his wife created ... Many of its employees don't know that she created it nor that she donates massive amounts to it ... Because it was designed from the start to hide her contributes.

That could be a money laundering scheme of course, but considering the scrutiny you get as a member of the Job family, that would be surprising.

It's more likely that this is just an extension of the fact that they are very private people.

Why We Know (1, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 3 months ago | (#46740747)

But still, somehow, you know

We know because people researched the hell out of Jobs, for both good and bad reasons. There are very few things someone as heavily analyzed as Jobs can hide.

I don't care about Jobs personally, but he seems to have drawn the utter fascination of many - ironically including yourself, or you would not bring him up. How does it feel to have someone you hate controlling your head from beyond the grave anyway? Just curious.

Re:Steve Jobs' culture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740031)

How about some examples of projects that he contributed to and the amounts. Absent some evidence, why should we believe you?

Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46739855)

Why would I contribute to open source, when Apple - and Google - use it to build walled gardens and make millions - billions - of dollars I'll never see a penny of? The exploitation of open source by companies that use it to build products that are the opposite of the open source philosophy - I mean walled gardens - is getting hard to take. You can say that they're free to do whatever they want with open source as long as they comply with the licenses, but that's not my point. What could possibly motivate me to donate my time and skills to making Apple and Google more money? The walled garden is going to destroy open source. The funny thing is no one seems to care. People are abandoning GNU's forced openness and going to licenses that basically let big companies exploit the software any way they want to. I guess the days of principled opposition to what Apple and Google are doing are over.

Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (4, Insightful)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 4 months ago | (#46739875)

You can't stop someone from using the software the way they want. That's an essential part of how free software works.

Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46739963)

I am not a fan of Apple, but for objectivity they contributed to some open source projects: webkit, clang for example.

Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (5, Interesting)

The123king (2395060) | about 4 months ago | (#46740517)

Apple didn't just "contribute" to Webkit, they pretty much created it (from KHTML, also open-source). Apple might not contribute financially to open-source projects, but they certainly contribute code-wise. The whole Darwin kernel is open-source, that's how the Goto fail bug was found. I don't see many other big-name corporations developing their own kernel in-house and then open-sourcing it (Android doesn't count)

Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (3, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | about 4 months ago | (#46740227)

You can't stop someone from using the software the way they want.

Yes you can. You can release it under a restrictive license such as the GPL Version 3, then they either cannot legally use it, OR they must distribute the source back.

You can also choose a GPL-incompatible free software license with even more restrictions, if you like.

Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (3, Informative)

The123king (2395060) | about 4 months ago | (#46740555)

And that's why i believe the BSD licenses are the most open of all open-source licenses.

1) Do what the f**k you want with it
2) If it breaks your stuff, we're not liable
3)if you want to redistribute it, in any way shape or form, give us credit

Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46739889)

You can say that they're free to do whatever they want with open source as long as they comply with the licenses, but that's not my point.

What is your point? Jealousy?

People are abandoning GNU's forced openness and going to licenses that basically let big companies exploit the software any way they want to.

Apache and BSD have nothing to do with "abandoning GNU".

I guess the days of principled opposition to what Apple and Google are doing are over.

Such days never existed outside of your mind.

Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 4 months ago | (#46739901)

People are abandoning GNU's forced openness and going to licenses that basically let big companies exploit the software any way they want to.

Which people/projects have switched away from GPL? I'd really like to know.

Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (0)

BitZtream (692029) | about 4 months ago | (#46739917)

LLVM

Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46739933)

LLVM was never GPL.

Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 4 months ago | (#46740055)

I think you are talking past one another. Much of the interest in LLVM has come at the expense of GCC. So while GCC is not "abandoning" the GPL, certainly there seems to be a certain flow in actual users toward less-restrictive licenses. I have personally been affected by this, choosing FreeBSD rather than Linux for my server because of ZFS.

Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740075)

Ignoring that BSD is 37 years old and predates GNU? And the Apache Foundation itself is 15 years old. That people use and go towards more permissive licenses is neither nothing new nor has anything to do with GNU.

Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 4 months ago | (#46740129)

Now you are talking past me as well.

If a project has no users, what matter is it which license it uses?

Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 4 months ago | (#46740317)

Change IS to WAS in your sig for a perfect score.

Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (2)

The123king (2395060) | about 3 months ago | (#46740631)

BSD has many users. The OS for the PS3 and PS4 is based on BSD, Darwin (basis of Mac OS X and iOS) is based on BSD. There's two big corporations using BSD.

And then you can spin it round and mention the many millions of Android devices there are, all running Linux. And all the webservers, IBM mainframes, scientific supercomputers, home routers etc etc etc.

Each license has it's strengths and weaknesses, but all can be monetised in some shape or form. This alone, in a capitalistic world, is the only way licenses will survive

Zontar the sockpuppeteer: Eat your words... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740373)

"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

PROVE YOUR FALSE ACCUSATION: Show me a quote of me posting off topic on hosts where they did NOT apply... go for it!

---

You avoided backing up your accusation where YOU said I say you are Barbara, not Barbie = TomHudson (same person http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] , & sockpuppeteer like you) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

Funny you can't back up your "bluster" there either, lol...

---

Why?

You're crackers! See here multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org] + manic depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

---

Lastly:

You said my "APK Hosts File Engine" is a virus/malware http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org] but it's EASILY PROVABLE it's not, right there in that link too.

APK

P.S.=> So, THIS quote below is my policy on sockpuppeteers like you Zontar = TrollingForHostsFiles (your sockpuppetry):

"The only way to a achieve peace, is thru the ELIMINATION of those who would perpetuate war (sockpuppet masters like YOU, troll -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org] ). THIS IS MY PROGRAMMING -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com] & soon, I will be UNSTOPPABLE..." - Ultron 6 FROM -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

Which quite obviously, I am, since none of you DOLTISH TROLLS are able to validly technically disprove my points on hosts enumerated in the link to my program above of how hosts give users of them more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity... period!

(Trolls like YOU that use sockpuppets http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org] (your sockpuppet "alterego" TrollingForHostsFiles) & TomHudson - Barbara, not Barbie too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] before you)

... apk

Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 4 months ago | (#46740297)

Exactly, and that's why it's displacing GCC, and why RMS loses his shit about LLVM. People are moving to LLVM BECAUSE OF GPLv3.

Same reason some are moving away from Samba.

The list is rather long. Every time a project coverts to GPLv3, the lose people, they never gain people because of it as the GPL fans are already there. The more restrictive they get, the more people leave.

I'm not really sure why you can't understand it?

$1b corps (2)

colfer (619105) | about 4 months ago | (#46739867)

They all need to be contributing to OpenSSL or a fork.

In a typical year the OpenSSL project receives about US$2000 in donations.

This week we have received roughly 200 donations totaling nearly
US$3000. Amounts have ranged between $0.02 and $300, and I notice that
some individuals have made multiple contributions.

https://groups.google.com/foru... [google.com]

Security theater is sometimes more like security exhaustion.

Re:$1b corps (1)

Goaway (82658) | about 4 months ago | (#46739971)

Apple has deprecated OpenSSL on OS X a long time ago, and provide their own replacements.

Re:$1b corps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740027)

Apple has deprecated OpenSSL on OS X a long time ago, and provide their own replacements.

What replacement? It was my understanding that when they depreciated OpenSSL they just asked software vendors and users to bundle/get the latest version themselves. Which means that a lot of OSX servers _are_ vulnerable while Apple can claim OSX is not.

Re:$1b corps (5, Informative)

Desler (1608317) | about 4 months ago | (#46740059)

What replacement?

CommonCrypto [apple.com] .

It was my understanding that when they depreciated OpenSSL they just asked software vendors and users to bundle/get the latest version themselves. Which means that a lot of OSX servers _are_ vulnerable while Apple can claim OSX is not.

Nope, they said to use CommonCrypto.

Re:$1b corps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46740665)

So we should trust a closed source crypto framework with no public audit trail, implemented by a company that may or may not cooperate with government(s)?

Re:$1b corps (4, Insightful)

immaterial (1520413) | about 3 months ago | (#46740763)

Really, did you miss the whole goto fail thing, where everyone was looking at the source [apple.com] ? Of course, the number of ACs back then crowing "stupid Apple should have stuck with OpenSSL, which is thoroughly vetted by thousands of eyes!" gives me the feeling that ACs will have a very selective memory about the whole thing now.

Re:$1b corps (2)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about 4 months ago | (#46740291)

"...when they depreciated OpenSSL..."

I don't think you can claim OpenSSL as a write off on your tax form.

iOS/OSX developers use Apple's crypto library (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 3 months ago | (#46740685)

It was my understanding that when they depreciated OpenSSL they just asked software vendors and users to bundle/get the latest version themselves.

No, developers use the Apple provided cryptography libraries where most people would import openSSL.

Which means that a lot of OSX servers _are_ vulnerable while Apple can claim OSX is not./em?

Now that may be so, if you're running an OSX server you probably have a number of open source programs running that were brought over by MacPorts or the like, and they would probably include a more recent verso of SSL.

Also, I don't know if Apache that ships with OSX uses the Apple crypto library or not... that could be an issue.

But honestly how many public facing OSX servers are there likely to be? And most home users do not run Apache. Most of the software consumers will be running on OSX is safe.

Wait...what? (2, Interesting)

Chas (5144) | about 4 months ago | (#46739891)

Okay, you're stunned that a company as culturally blinkered and rapacious as APPLE isn't turning over some of their huge cash hoard to fund Open Source projects that are outside of their control and might sabotage their patent warchest?

Why not just walk up to Smaug, kick him in the eyeball and demand the Arkenstone "OR ELSE" there Bilbo!

As long as you are witholding something Apple wants, they're either charming as fuck or litigious as hell in an effort to acquire it.

Once they have what they want out of you, you're a one-night-stand, it's the next morning and they can't be rid of you fast enough.

Re:Wait...what? (-1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 months ago | (#46740107)

"Why not just walk up to Smaug, kick him in the eyeball and demand the Arkenstone "OR ELSE" there Bilbo!"

Oh wait! I know this one! It's because Smaug and Bilbo are fictional characters in a story!

Re:Wait...what? (1)

Chas (5144) | about 3 months ago | (#46740897)

And this simile negates the REST of my point...uhm. HOW?

another round of charades or die (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46739915)

payper rock candy hard places http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlCS-qf7yaM beauty runs through & through as misery cuts to the bone

Net Income is only 3.3% of revenue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46739937)

Somebody is wasting a lot of money if net income is only 3.3% of revenue.

Or hiding the money off-shore.

Re:Net Income is only 3.3% of revenue? (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 4 months ago | (#46740005)

she said of efforts to get Apple's support for ApacheCon in 2004, a year in which the company reported net income of $276 million on revenue of $8.28 billion

Read that more carefully.

Re:Net Income is only 3.3% of revenue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740103)

276,000,000 / 8,280,000,000 = 0.033333333333 = 3.3%

It's like I sold a 800 million hammers for $100 each but it cost me $96.67 to manufacture each hammer when administrative costs, rent, salaries, insurance are figured in.

I assume "the company" refers to Apple, not ApacheCon

Here's what troubles me about Apple and the media (0)

bogaboga (793279) | about 4 months ago | (#46739939)

When it comes to Apple, the media trumps it as 'the most innovative" tech company. No body adds the fact that the "innovation" is built on the backs of others.

Re:Here's what troubles me about Apple and the med (4, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | about 4 months ago | (#46740045)

Innovation is always built on the back of others. Nothing pops out of the blue. It is only the lack of education that makes on believes otherwise. The entire affordable microcomputer industry is based on Compaq's reverse engineering(stealing) of the IBM OS. The free browser for everyone is due to MS conning a profitable firm, then giving away the browser and forcing that firm into bankruptcy. Innovation has never been about pulling a product out of you ass. A knife was not suddenly one day made. We had to figure out how to mine the melt, smelt it, and then how to make it a knife that is not brittle.

Re:Here's what troubles me about Apple and the med (0, Flamebait)

yodleboy (982200) | about 4 months ago | (#46740065)

"Innovation is always built on the back of others"

But when it's Apple, it's just a logical progression of technology. When it's some other company, it's all rape and pillage. double standards are fun.

Not puzzling at all ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46739945)

How the heck do you expect to retain the title as world's most valuable company and retain an enormous cash hoard if you give money away? At some level, that much money loses meaning, you have enough but that's not the point ... it's a game, a competition, to have more than the others. It's not enough to succeed, others have to fail. It's not about money, per se. That's only a counter.

Re:Not puzzling at all ... (2)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about 4 months ago | (#46740009)

A big cash hoard is a bad thing. It represents money which could be re-invested in R&D, given to investors as dividends, used to increase salaries/benefits to make it a more attractive employer, given to charity to increase PR, or any number of things.

Re:Not puzzling at all ... (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 4 months ago | (#46740375)

More importantly it represents money raiders can use to buy your company out from under your feet.

Re:Not puzzling at all ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740469)

There's nothing wrong with a big war chest. It can help them through a downturn, allow them to move quickly to acquire a new company, quickly add resources to a critical bit of their business.

Apple got burnt in the 1990s by being a few weeks away from shuttering their doors. With their cash on hand the last iPhone could roll off the assembly line tomorrow, and they would have a comfort zone of a couple years before things got tight. I think it's that experience, above all, that is directing their efforts at keeping lots of cash on hand.

DARWIN (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46739959)

Darwin.... take take take...kill.

Re:DARWIN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29

Re:DARWIN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740033)

A clever double entendre? Or a drunken post, sir?

Re:DARWIN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740311)

Mac OS X v10.0 was the first commercial release of Darwin OS , an open source project hyped by apple as a new way forward for PC's .

They talked about enriching the desktop and open source environments by fostering a close partnership with the community.
The usual marketing BS.

Open source devs provided the OS base and security, allowing apple devs to work on the GUI. The code sharing was a strictly a one way deal.
Darwin was essentially dead once OSX shipped.

I think there have been a few attempts to reboot the endevour. The last release is 6 months old. It is still a command line only release.

Re:DARWIN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740561)

OK. Shut up. It was clearly a 'single entendre'. Sorry to bother you.

Hu? (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | about 4 months ago | (#46739973)

Apache Foundation this days is mostly Java(TM)(R) Foundation.

Why would the Apple want to subsidize the Oracle?

Spotty record? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740047)

Ever heard of LLVM? OpenCL?

Apple has always been "stealing" (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740061)

Apple doesn't have a "spotty record", they have a dismal record. Most of OS X is modified open source software. When Apple has released stuff as open source software, it has either been because they were forced to by the license, or because it was for software that primarily runs on OS X. Steve Jobs even tried to weasel out of the GPL with gcc.

Apple treats FOSS as a zero-sum game, when the intent of FOSS is positive-sum: by growing the pie, everybody should win. FOSS developers should treat Apple like Apple treats everybody else: as a competitor to be destroyed.

You have an odd definition of "Force" (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 3 months ago | (#46740791)

it has either been because they were forced to by the license, or because it was for software that primarily runs on OS X.

What nonsense is this? Pretty much all open source software Apple uses is under BSD style licenses, they don't have to give back anything.

And yet they have for EVERYTHING they use. There is no "force of license". They do this because it is STUPID not to. It costs WAY more money to re-merge your internal mustache-twirling changes to a library with every new release, than it does simply to contribute back and be able to upgrade with everyone else.

As for the OSX thing, just what are you referring to? Just about all of the open source software Apple makes use of (like BSD) is also in IOS,

Re:Apple has always been "stealing" (3, Insightful)

immaterial (1520413) | about 3 months ago | (#46740821)

When Apple has released stuff as open source software, it has either been because they were forced to by the license, or because it was for software that primarily runs on OS X.

Clang puts the lie to this.

Article is flame bait. Or a troll. (4, Informative)

Rick Zeman (15628) | about 4 months ago | (#46740069)

"The company lists dozens of open source projects and components that it contributes code to: from the Apache web server"

And that, my friends, is what open source is all about. You use, you give code back.

The article title should really be "Apple's Spotty Record of Giving Monetarily To The Apache Foundation." To agree with that Apple should be giving them money is the moral equivalent of saying that users should have to pay to use Apache.

Small donations to organizations are one thing (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 4 months ago | (#46740085)

But Apple's contribution to FOSS has been to provide an operating system that is Unix-based. Open a 'terminal window' on any of its computers and you have the real Unix command line to play with. Not locked-down Windows or flavor-of-the-week Linux, but the same consistent Unix on every machine.

Inspiration (0)

krisbrowne42 (549049) | about 4 months ago | (#46740123)

People seem to be forgetting that if Apple didn't have actual UI engineers developing what a system should look like, OSS folks would have no idea how to design one...

Re:Inspiration (0)

Barsteward (969998) | about 4 months ago | (#46740277)

I think thats down to Xerox Parc, not Apple

Re:Inspiration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740415)

Right, 'cause GUIs haven't changed a bit since Xerox invented them.

Re:Inspiration (2)

krisbrowne42 (549049) | about 4 months ago | (#46740529)

Have you ever used/looked at PARC Star? It bears about as much resemblance to what actually released as Mac OS as a Model T does to a Ferrari: The parts are recognizable, but someone has obviously put a lot of time and work into making someone _want_ the second.

Re:Inspiration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46740889)

Should you not then go back to Doug Englebert and his team who really did most if the inventing?

Xerox then gutted his team to start their Parc, and then a lot of those developers moved
onto Apple and yes, Microsoft.

So both companies profited off of that original research.

It's clear however that the Macintosh team did a great job of creating a gui that would become the template
for many others - and then many of the same engineers went on to produce an even better gui at NeXT, of which
the current Mac OS X is the ancestor.

When you find a path to success (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740127)

the first thing you do is close it off behind you so no one can follow.

Apple has always been very pro-active in this.

10.4.8 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740141)

I remember being part of the OSX community and feeling awesome when they 'released' the source to the 10.4.8 kernel.

Come 10.4.9, they didn't release the source, but our COMMPAGE modifications mysteriously made their way into Darwin.

Why anyone holds these people up as innovators of industry is beyond me, they did not invent portable distributed music, or the GUI, or even 'tech as cool'. They just found the people that did and bought them out.

They already "gave back" (3, Insightful)

paulpach (798828) | about 4 months ago | (#46740151)

I absolutely despise the phrase "giving back" when referring to charity, because it implies they took something.

Apple has already given back, every dollar they got was in exchange for either an app, iphone, ipad, laptop or something else that the customer got. They have already given something back for every penny they made. This goes for every single company selling products or services (Except when governments are involved)

I donate quite a bit every year for worthy causes without asking for anything in return, and I hate it when my efforts are diminished by calling them "giving back".

Charity is not "giving back", charity is charity, it is a company or individual willingly giving up profit in order to help someone. Ideally, the company benefits from the charity by getting good PR, so it becomes a win-win; it becomes an investment instead of charity, which makes it more sustainable and will hopefully cause it to repeat in the future.

As far as open source code goes, Apple does invest significantly in projects like llvm and webkit and the world is a better place because of it.

The idea that apple somehow owes me and you or the apache foundation is just entitlement mentality.
If you bought apple's products, it is because you think their product is worth more than the money you paid for it, otherwise you would not have gotten it. In that case, Apple owes you nothing.
If you did not buy apple's product, then what they do does not affect you. In this case, Apple owes you nothing.

If you want to encourage Apple to donate code or money, then highlight, applaud and buy products from companies that behave the way you want them to. If enough people vote with their money and show that charity pays off, then either apple will do it, or the companies you support will do it more thanks to your support.

Re:They already "gave back" (4, Insightful)

Barsteward (969998) | about 4 months ago | (#46740287)

and they've done their best at tax avoidance depriving each country where they trade of valuable tax revenue

Re:They already "gave back" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740531)

and they've done their best at tax avoidance depriving each country where they trade of valuable tax revenue

Why would you blame them for it? If there was a loophole allowing you to avoid taxes this year, would you take it? Because I am pretty sure I would

The loopholes must be closed, instead of asking companies "please, please stop using these _legal_ loopholes to avoid taxes".

Re:They already "gave back" (1, Flamebait)

paulpach (798828) | about 3 months ago | (#46740595)

and they've done their best at tax avoidance depriving each country where they trade of valuable tax revenue

They do not deprive the countries of money. They deprive the governments. This is a _good thing_ as governments are notoriously more inefficient than private companies since they don't have any incentive for saving and investing, but to spend and buy votes for the next election.

Re:They already "gave back" (1)

Uberbah (647458) | about 3 months ago | (#46740849)

They do not deprive the countries of money. They deprive the governments. This is a _good thing_ as governments are notoriously more inefficient than private companies since they don't have any incentive for saving and investing, but to spend and buy votes for the next election.

Like how socialized medicine provides better care at a third of the cost of a system based on profits and insurance?

Re:They already "gave back" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46740909)

This is a _good thing_ as governments are notoriously more inefficient than private companies since they don't have any incentive for saving and investing, but to spend and buy votes for the next election.

Citation needed for how much (in total or as percentage of budget) U.S. government money is spent buying votes for the next election. I realize you're caught up in anti-government delusions, but at least cite some sketchy Fox News source for the idiocy you're spewing.

Re:They already "gave back" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46740769)

Everyone tries to minimize his tax burden. Why should a company pay more taxes than it owes? Minimizing the tax burden helps to maximize the profit, which is the responsibility of the company to its investors.

Re:They already "gave back" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46740607)

"Except when governments are involved"

Get out of the basement. Read more widely. Go enjoy some clean, unlimited tap-water. And marvel at the magical process that keeps it that way.

Basic lack of humanity (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740155)

I do find it so sad that Apple can have as much as 100 billion in the bank but won't put some money into the accounts of the BSD groups.
Last time I jail break my Ipad I found it fascinating to see things like the pf (packetfilter) firewall module loaded in the kernel via the kldstat command, they took the BSD os so heavily and I think they should put some money into these foundations on a regular basis as a basic gesture of good faith.

It doesn't have to be a lot but it certainty lacks humanity and basic class to be so ridiculously greedy to build so much wealth on these open source technologies but be so stingey.

Re:Basic lack of humanity (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 3 months ago | (#46740649)

You bought an iPad... so serious question here...

Why should Apple care what you think or what names you call them? Your view that they "lack humanity" is of course your opinion and you're welcome to it, but what reason can you think of that Apple should share in that opinion?

Hooray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740165)

I thought Slashdot's downfall was slowing down for a while there, but I was mistaken. Hooray! Let the Apple witch hunt commence! Get out the pitchforks and torches...

Apple is crap (1, Insightful)

koan (80826) | about 4 months ago | (#46740193)

That there are still fanbois for this duplicitous corp is amazing, look at their record and how could you support them?

Re:Apple is crap (0)

BitZtream (692029) | about 4 months ago | (#46740345)

Their crap is generally better than whatever crap you think is awesome?

Their record on releasing quality products is why I support them, sorry they do t suck RMS's dick, but most of the world aren't GPL. Fanboys like you.

Re:Apple is crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46740601)

Well said.

The irony is that such anti-Apple comments invariably come from people who support (or are just stupid enough to have sold their soul to) Google.

Re:Apple is crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740453)

well, they do make nice, shiny objects...

get fucked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740285)

ever print anything from a *nix machine?

how about all the code that gets submitted into all kinds of different projects? think those employees writing code are working for free for apple?
they pay. the author is just too thick to recognize that anything beyond dollars is not contributing.

Steve Jobs, spell-checking and Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46740361)

It is the founder effect. Read biographies of Steve Jobs and you'll discover the guy was a skin-flint and a tight-wad, even with employees and former employees. Tim Cook seems to be improving matters, but there's a long way to go. The Seattle Times made a similar investigation of Amazon and found something similar. There the cause is probably Jeff Bezos.

Apple suffers for its miserliness. OS X's built-in spell checker, used by many apps, is Hunspell and the latter's spelling recommendations are so dreadful, a single missing or misplaced letter can leave it without a recommendation. That happens to me about a third the time. Paste that same misspelled word into a Google search and perhaps 95% of the time, Google's will nail the correct spelling.

What for Apple is a most modest sum, invested in giving Hunspell a Google-quality spelling recommendation, would easily pay for itself in reduced frustration for Mac users. Right now it's my #1 gripe at OS X.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunspell

Until that is fixed, Apple should at least give users a "check for correct spelling with Google" control-click option when a word is misspelled.

Re:Steve Jobs, spell-checking and Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46740597)

AppleScript, Automator and text services should let you do EXACTLY that.

It pisses me off too, but I didn't think about doing something about it until your post.

Thanks for the idea!

I'll whip something up and throw it on github!

--BitZtream ... Anon post because I've used my 25 posts in the last 24 hours :/. I should go outside for a bit before starting

WebKit etc. (4, Informative)

greggman (102198) | about 3 months ago | (#46740733)

Apple funds the majority of WebKit which is open source. So they are funding open source to the tune of millions of dollars a year. I'm guessing they have between 50 and 200 programmers on WebKit. I'm guessing they have a few other open source projects as well.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...