Indeed, but with that kind of licensing there’s nothing stopping them. We already found limitations of GPL with RedHat, I think all of these licenses need an overhaul
If they wanted their code to be sharealike, the developers could have chosen a different license. Apple is contributing more than is required so don’t complain?
The point is Apple doesn’t actually want to help the community - they might be hoping that someone goes through their dumps and finds a vulnerability and reports it to them. Free community sourced labour.
If they really wanted to help, MacOS should have been GPLv3. But we know that’s not how Apple functions.
Even ORACLE is calling out Red Hat.
Who’s next, Apple?
Currently testing Debian in a VM, I have lots of files so I need to set everything straight before I switch.
Not because Oracle likes open source, but because they like to profit from RedHat’s hard work.
I suppose Apple uses Linux in some of their servers, so maybe. But their desktop product is Darwin so I don’t think that’s getting any votes
Their desktop product is a stolen BSD.
Indeed, but with that kind of licensing there’s nothing stopping them. We already found limitations of GPL with RedHat, I think all of these licenses need an overhaul
deleted by creator
True, but from what I hear, the dumps don’t really help much. Better than nothing, I suppose
If they wanted their code to be sharealike, the developers could have chosen a different license. Apple is contributing more than is required so don’t complain?
The point is Apple doesn’t actually want to help the community - they might be hoping that someone goes through their dumps and finds a vulnerability and reports it to them. Free community sourced labour.
If they really wanted to help, MacOS should have been GPLv3. But we know that’s not how Apple functions.