While the person to who you responded to was obviously an anti-Apple troll you seem like a pro-Apple troll. I might suggest that you would check exactly from where Webkit came from. Apple doesn't keep Webkit as free software just because they feel generous, but because KHTML was GPLed in the first place, so they didn't have any other choice. In that case they might as well play along and look good in the process.
KHTML is LGPL not GPL. So WebCore and JavascriptCore is LGPL but WebKit (the ObjC and COM/C++ shell) is under BSD.
They didn't have to play nice with the upstream but they did. Play nice with the upstream isn't a requirement and Apple spent a lot of money doing so.
KHTML and KJS were adopted by Apple in 2002 for use in the Safari web browser. Apple publishes the source code for their fork of the KHTML engine, called WebKit, as required by the LGPL.
And technically, you are right - WebKit as a poor man's Safari is licensed on BSD. But, nobody uses that. By saying "WebKit" people refer to WebCore and JavascriptCore, since that's the part of the project that is actually useful to anyone that is not Apple.
So you are saying that it's only Apple's goodwill to release that shell as open source? Then tell me, does it make sense to release an engine without any shell, without any way to use it?
If there was no readily way to actually *use* the engine then no one would want to contribute; it would be pointless if it would actually parse HTML or make pancakes, since there would be no easy way to actually see that.
I wish people would cut with the crap someday - Apple is not a saint. They are a company like any other, and the first objective of *any* company is to make money, not to be a charity. That is, whatever they do, they do it either because it's beneficial for their shareholders or because they are forced to. In this case I think that the GPL is a pretty good hint which one is it. (And LGPL is a GPL too; 'Lesser GPL' if you don't know.)
Lars got his code back in a usable form. Lars is the upstream and if he's mostly happy you're just a clueless whinging freetard.
Quote:
And technically, you are right - WebKit as a poor man's Safari is licensed on BSD. But, nobody uses that. By saying "WebKit" people refer to WebCore and JavascriptCore, since that's the part of the project that is actually useful to anyone that is not Apple.
Technically, you've been wrong on two points. KHTML was LGPL not GPL. There was an upstream: Lars and the Konqueror team.
Webkit, the BSD portion, is the framework for Webkit based apps. They've also open sourced Core Foundation as CF-Lite which Brent has combined with Webkit (and the older tiger based CFNetwork).
The Nokia S60Webkit uses some of the BSD Webkit. Nokia has provided the S60Webkit, their memory manager and Reindeer browser (note: browser, not framework) as BSD licensed components.
Quote:
So you are saying that it's only Apple's goodwill to release that shell as open source? Then tell me, does it make sense to release an engine without any shell, without any way to use it?
I'm saying it was Apple's goodwill to unfork the project and make it usable for the Trolltech folks on their own products. Many open source projects fork and never become usable again for the upstream.
How many openoffice forks have really contributed back to the core?
Quote:
If there was no readily way to actually *use* the engine then no one would want to contribute; it would be pointless if it would actually parse HTML or make pancakes, since there would be no easy way to actually see that.
I wish people would cut with the crap someday - Apple is not a saint. They are a company like any other, and the first objective of *any* company is to make money, not to be a charity. That is, whatever they do, they do it either because it's beneficial for their shareholders or because they are forced to. In this case I think that the GPL is a pretty good hint which one is it. (And LGPL is a GPL too; 'Lesser GPL' if you don't know.)
So? Linux without these self-serving companies would be nothing. You think IBM is a charity?
The only charity company is Canonical.
LGPL is GPL but a weak copyleft and one that the FSF prefers you didn't use and is significantly different in behavior (partially vs wholly viral). Even so LGPL is a pain in the ass (like most FSF licenses) vs other weak copylefts . If it wasn't for jailbreaking some freetard would probably have sued Apple for a LGPL violation for Safari on the iPhone.
Apple has no obligation to open source anything not part of the core LGPL library. Anything extra is extra and they do so for a variety of reasons. Amazingly, sometimes just to be a good open source citizen.
Comments
While the person to who you responded to was obviously an anti-Apple troll you seem like a pro-Apple troll. I might suggest that you would check exactly from where Webkit came from. Apple doesn't keep Webkit as free software just because they feel generous, but because KHTML was GPLed in the first place, so they didn't have any other choice. In that case they might as well play along and look good in the process.
KHTML is LGPL not GPL. So WebCore and JavascriptCore is LGPL but WebKit (the ObjC and COM/C++ shell) is under BSD.
They didn't have to play nice with the upstream but they did. Play nice with the upstream isn't a requirement and Apple spent a lot of money doing so.
KHTML is LGPL not GPL. So WebCore and JavascriptCore is LGPL but WebKit (the ObjC and COM/C++ shell) is under BSD.
They didn't have to play nice with the upstream but they did. Play nice with the upstream isn't a requirement and Apple spent a lot of money doing so.
Oh god, another fanboy. -_-
Upstream? You might look up the definition of that word. There is no upstream. They forked the project.
From Wikipedia:
KHTML and KJS were adopted by Apple in 2002 for use in the Safari web browser. Apple publishes the source code for their fork of the KHTML engine, called WebKit, as required by the LGPL.
And technically, you are right - WebKit as a poor man's Safari is licensed on BSD. But, nobody uses that. By saying "WebKit" people refer to WebCore and JavascriptCore, since that's the part of the project that is actually useful to anyone that is not Apple.
So you are saying that it's only Apple's goodwill to release that shell as open source? Then tell me, does it make sense to release an engine without any shell, without any way to use it?
If there was no readily way to actually *use* the engine then no one would want to contribute; it would be pointless if it would actually parse HTML or make pancakes, since there would be no easy way to actually see that.
I wish people would cut with the crap someday - Apple is not a saint. They are a company like any other, and the first objective of *any* company is to make money, not to be a charity. That is, whatever they do, they do it either because it's beneficial for their shareholders or because they are forced to. In this case I think that the GPL is a pretty good hint which one is it. (And LGPL is a GPL too; 'Lesser GPL' if you don't know.)
Oh god, another fanboy. -_-
Upstream? You might look up the definition of that word. There is no upstream. They forked the project.
From Wikipedia:
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/n...and-webkit.ars
Hey, look ma...unforking.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...r-of-khtml.ars
Lars got his code back in a usable form. Lars is the upstream and if he's mostly happy you're just a clueless whinging freetard.
And technically, you are right - WebKit as a poor man's Safari is licensed on BSD. But, nobody uses that. By saying "WebKit" people refer to WebCore and JavascriptCore, since that's the part of the project that is actually useful to anyone that is not Apple.
Technically, you've been wrong on two points. KHTML was LGPL not GPL. There was an upstream: Lars and the Konqueror team.
Webkit, the BSD portion, is the framework for Webkit based apps. They've also open sourced Core Foundation as CF-Lite which Brent has combined with Webkit (and the older tiger based CFNetwork).
http://whtconstruct.blogspot.com/
The Nokia S60Webkit uses some of the BSD Webkit. Nokia has provided the S60Webkit, their memory manager and Reindeer browser (note: browser, not framework) as BSD licensed components.
So you are saying that it's only Apple's goodwill to release that shell as open source? Then tell me, does it make sense to release an engine without any shell, without any way to use it?
I'm saying it was Apple's goodwill to unfork the project and make it usable for the Trolltech folks on their own products. Many open source projects fork and never become usable again for the upstream.
How many openoffice forks have really contributed back to the core?
If there was no readily way to actually *use* the engine then no one would want to contribute; it would be pointless if it would actually parse HTML or make pancakes, since there would be no easy way to actually see that.
I wish people would cut with the crap someday - Apple is not a saint. They are a company like any other, and the first objective of *any* company is to make money, not to be a charity. That is, whatever they do, they do it either because it's beneficial for their shareholders or because they are forced to. In this case I think that the GPL is a pretty good hint which one is it. (And LGPL is a GPL too; 'Lesser GPL' if you don't know.)
So? Linux without these self-serving companies would be nothing. You think IBM is a charity?
The only charity company is Canonical.
LGPL is GPL but a weak copyleft and one that the FSF prefers you didn't use and is significantly different in behavior (partially vs wholly viral). Even so LGPL is a pain in the ass (like most FSF licenses) vs other weak copylefts . If it wasn't for jailbreaking some freetard would probably have sued Apple for a LGPL violation for Safari on the iPhone.
Apple has no obligation to open source anything not part of the core LGPL library. Anything extra is extra and they do so for a variety of reasons. Amazingly, sometimes just to be a good open source citizen.