Apple's free pass on open source

Some open-source backers, including myself, have noted in the past Apple's ironic "free pass" when it comes to sharing code.

Despite using copious amounts of open source, Apple remains the most proprietary company on the planet. You can hardly say the name "Apple" without signing an NDA.

And yet many in the open-source world love Apple. I am one of them. Some suggest that open-source development is better on the Mac, and I've offered reasons for this. However, TechCrunch is right to question the love affair with all-things-Apple:

[Apple] built OS X on FreeBSD..., they built Safari on KHTML, and are now using libraries such as SproutCore in MobileMe. They have taken open source and everything it built and leveraged it to get to market faster--yet they have now, with iTunes and the new SDK, built a layer on top of it that excludes others. For Apple, open source is great when it furthers their own goals, but not when using it with Apple software where it may further the goals of others.

My own explanation is that I use what works on the desktop. I don't care so much about desktop politics (and never have). File formats matter a great deal on the desktop, but the license on the application itself? Not nearly as much.

At any enterprise level (e.g., servers), it's a different story.

But that's likely just self-justification. I love my Mac. Period. The bigger question, however, is why Apple gets a pass, while I and others slam Microsoft and, more particularly, Google for adopting open source without contributing commensurately back. For this, I have no answer, but it's a question that deserves to be asked again and again.

Google has started to contribute a lot of code. Perhaps with enough pressure, Apple will too? The company claims, "As the first major computer company to make Open Source development a key part of its ongoing software strategy, Apple remains committed to the Open Source development model." To an extent this is true, but where much is given, much is expected.

Apple does contribute open-source code back, but not commensurate with what it gets (i.e., an excellent foundation for its browser, operating system, etc.).

[john55440]

Apple gets a "free pass" on just about everything.

[john55440]

Apple gets a "free pass" on just about everything.

[The_Decider]

Because they actually do things right unlike MS.

[bigmc6000]

Were they not the first major company to push forward with H264? You've got the iPhone SDK freely available to anyone who has a Mac. The OS comes with very good free developer tools. It's a bit of a cat and mouse game - Once you get a Mac they open up a lot of stuff to you but it only works on the Mac. Perfect example is XCode - easily one of the best programming suites out there and it comes free with the OS. They also put effort into advancing WebKit because, lets be honest here, without a major browser supporting WebKit it would have died a while ago...

[The_Decider]

You are confusing free with open source.

Free software is not necessarily open source and open source is not necessarily free.

[Xyzzy613]

QuickTime streaming Server is open-source.

[Zen-Masta]

The only mac I ever had is too old for me to say I'm in the know so I"ll take your word about them opening up once you're "in". It's a double standard and it plays along with the elitism hype that mac crams down consumers throats.

[Perry_Clease]

"Apple gets a "free pass" on just about everything."

That is because it has 95% of the personal computer market share

[Vegaman_Dan]

. . .

[Penguinisto]

@Dan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm ;)

[Perry_Clease]

Thanks Penguin Man, I think our friend Vegaman Dan got it too, but the hyper left brainers apparently didn't

[Vegaman_Dan]

My apologies. I did not recognize this as sarcasm. Really, the majority of the Mac zealots here DO think this way, so.. well, I wouldn't want to make any assumptions.

Thanks for clearing that up though.

[sandor_f]

the base os OS X - here is the source code

http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/

[bigdbag]

apple definitely does not have 95% of the "personal computer market share". What are you talking about.

[Penguinisto]

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

[Perry_Clease]

No they don't. So if they are not the 500 pound gorilla, or the 200 pound Leopard as the case may be, why the tempest in the teapot over open source. Besides as Sandor pointed out the source code for OSX is available just how much do you all want back?

[Penguinisto]

@Perry - true, but not quite perfectly so... OSX separates the Darwin kernel (which is open source) from the Aqua UI (which is not).

Otherwise it would be trivial to build an OSX emulator to run OSX apps in, say, Linux...

[sandor_f]

and some more apple software released under Apple's public source license
http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/

http://developer.apple.com/opensource/server/streaming/
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/tools/headerdoc.html
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/dirservices/
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/internet/openplay/
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/security/

It's certainly a good question to ask and probe about. But you also need to present some balanced information about Apple's Open Source contribution. See http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html for more information. You can get their Darwin/BSD based core OS and lots of other open source related work.

By building on top of BSD and continuing to support it, Apple has provided Open Source developers the ability to write apps that will work on a mainstream and user friendly operating system. Also, you cannot question their contribution if they are complying with the licensing policies of whatever open source software they use.

Open Source is not necessarily GPL. Almost every company I know finds GPL to be too restrictive to their business model. "Sure we like to get the benefits of Open Source and would also like to contribute to it, but we cannot just give away all our effort to a competitor for free". There has to be a middle ground where companies can innovate based on Open Source code and still be able to contribute to the community. BSD and some other licenses enable this. GPL is too complex to understand, for normal people, and restrictive.


The "castle" model of building software has proven that, in general, it trumpets a completely community driven development model. There is plenty of research and analysis in favor of this. What we need is a better middle ground, where open source work can be leveraged for a tighter finish towards a product and still encourage open source developers.

[Penguinisto]

"Almost every company I know finds GPL to be too restrictive to their business model." - In other words, they want to lock down their changes to it while giving nothing back in return.

You do realize that the GNU GPL only demands that you distribute the source code for the apps you re-distribute (including modifications that you made to that source code), right?

Without the GPL (and Linux using it), the term "open source" would've never gotten out of a few esoteric paragraphs in a computer history book, and you'd still be paying thousands of bucks for the privilege of an OS license.

/P

[davemc]

any specific reports you could point to for the castle versus cathedral development?

[Everlovin G]

RE: "Apple does contribute open-source code back, but not commensurate with what it gets..."

Hmm, I'd say developing and producing some of the finest personal computing products on the market and offering them at competitive prices (apples for apples, pun intended) is a commensurate return.

Or, you can go buy, GULP, Dells or HPs with XP or, GULPx2, Vista.

Get a clue!

[jture]

95%? I think your math is a little off ...

[Perry_Clease]

Yeah...like about 95 points off :)

[REKHB]

They get a pass for a couple of reasons.

1) They play by the rules. They life up to every Open Source commitment sharing code etc.

2) They are major company (if you can call 5% market penetration major) that even acknowledges Open Source.

[hawkeyeaz1]

The answer is really rather simple: Apple "wisely" (from a non-contributory/proprietary stand point) chooses BSD style licensed code, whereas Google chooses GPL and Apache style licensed code. BSD essentially say you can do what you want, just give credit. Google complies with licensing by submitting code back, Apple complies by putting the appropriate name in the fine print.

And Microsoft uses BSD style licensed software in their products as well, as do many others.

[alegr]

IIRC, Windows TCP/IP stack was based on BSD source, but around XP SP2 it was completely rewritten. And let me tell you. BSD TCP/IP code is written horribly. It's a pain to read and modify. How do you like tcp_input() function that is several thousands lines long?

[Zimm2]

Apple actually gives quite a bit back; they just do it, at least in some cases, anonymously (this is true in several open source projects that I know of...).

[tymiles]

This is the delema of the BSD license. It's open, people can take from BSD licensed code and then don't have to give anything back. Apple is the perfect example of this.

Apple has a 150 Billion dollar market cap. but a lot of the sites that make BSD code are asking for donations. http://www.freebsd.org/donations/

Nothing wrong with that but there is a BIG gap there.

[Dalkorian]

by sandor_f July 16, 2008 9:05 AM

and some more apple software released under Apple's public source license
http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/

http://developer.apple.com/opensource/server/streaming/
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/tools/headerdoc.html
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/dirservices/
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/internet/openplay/
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/security/

--------------------------------------------------------

by tymiles July 16, 2008 1:02 PM

This is the delema of the BSD license. It's open, people can take from BSD licensed code and then don't have to give anything back. Apple is the perfect example of this.

---------------------------------------------------------

Hmm. Methinks you both can't be right. One of you supplied sources to back up your statement, the other didn't. Guess which one I'll believe.

[technewsjunkie]

Fundamental BUSINESS decision.

Get real. Run a Business, then see if you complain.

[jameskatt]

There is nothing wrong with what Apple is doing.
You have to make money to make a living.
And Apple gives back for every open source project it uses - as each open source project's license requires.

If you give away everything you create for free, no one will buy from you.
If you give away everything you create for free, no one will respect you.

If all you expect is free, then you feel entitled to the works of others for free.
If all you expect is free, then you whine a lot.

[EmilySwanson]

Apple gets a pass because their design rocks and their stuff works, but they do need to give what they get, anything less is irresponsible in an era of participation. Opening up more would only increase their standing with fans, and likely help them bring a lot more folks into the tent.

That said, not sure they ever will. Apple loves being on the mountaintop, If they opened up, they might have to mingle with the common folk. I think the "elitism and hype" around their products as noted in an earlier comment, sadly , contributes to the whole thing--who wants to get mad at the cool kid?