[asxless]

Apple's use/contributions to Open Source has come up in various threads but AFAIK has never been explicitly discussed.

The most frequently cited examples of Apple's use / contributions to the open source community are...
* Mac OS X -> Darwin (BSD Unix)
* Safari -> KHTML
* X11 (for Mac OSX) ->XFree86

Surely there are other (perhaps better) examples where Apple (who's very existence today is arguably dependent on a foundation provided by open source contributions -- BSD Unix) has contributed back to the open source community. So...

1 - What other open source project(s) that produced (or is producing) a Mac OS X native application has received a 'significant contribution'* from Apple ?

2- What other open source project(s) that produced (or is producing) an unix or X11 (on Mac OS X) application has received a 'significant contribution'* from Apple ?

* In my view a 'significant contribution' is more than 'encouragement', 'help with contacts/communications', etc. A 'significant contribution' involves dedicated resources (e.g developers, hardware, money, etc.).

-- asxless in iLand

Edit: for clarity

[Developer]

Originally posted by asxless:
Surely there are other/better examples. So...

Not sure why you believe there are better examples than those mostly cited.
You can read about Apple's open source projects here:

http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/

[asxless]

Originally posted by Developer:
Not sure why you believe there are better examples than those mostly cited.
You can read about Apple's open source projects here:

http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/

Thanks.

The link you provided does a good job of listing Apple's publicly acknowledged Open Source projects. Most Mac OS X users are aware of the more obvious associated Mac OS X 'applications' which were in my original list. Some may be aware that CUPS is the Jaguar print engine and have used it's Mac OS X GUI front end -- Print Center. But AFAIK the remaining projects do not have obvious associated applications that would be used by a garden variety Mac OS X user (e.g. the the GCC compiler is obviously an 'application' but most Mac OS X users are unlikely to crank it up and take it for a spin).

I've edited the original post attempting to clarify that my intent was to ask the MacNN forum community to help produce a list of Apple's open source contributions that resulted in _applications_ used by the average Mac OS X user. And also to roughly sort them by whether the resulting application was a Mac OS X native (Aqua GUI) application or a unix CLI / X11 application. And maybe hear about a few that Apple does not yet have listed on developer.apple.com

-- asxless in iLand

[asxless]

I think the reason we haven't seen a single post listing an open source application project which has received a 'significant contribution' (e.g. developers, hardware, money) from Apple is because there are none - nada - ziltch.

AFAIK Apple -- a company whose commercial viability today is based on a foundation of Open Source contributions to its OS -- does not provide significant contributions to Open Source projects which are developing/porting applications to the Mac OS X platform.

As the link provided by Developer demonstrates, Apple's 'significant contributions' are generally restricted to Open Source projects working on the low level unix 'nuts and bolts' required by OS X, but not OS X end user 'applications' projects. In other words, Apple makes significant contributions to the Open Source community volunteering their time/resources to work on the low level nuts and bolts, as long as they don't get uppity and try to build/port full fledged Mac OS X applications for the garden variety Mac user. In that case, an Open Source application project is largely on its own*. This leads me to believe that Apple does not really want to see Open Source MacOS X applications developed/ported. And would prefer that the Mac OS X Open Source community focus on Unix CLI and X11 applications that don't infringe on Apple's control of the 'free' applications for Mac OS X. After all, these nut cases in the Open Source community just might produce useful (and free) applications that do not require OS X upgrades every year.

FWIW I'd love to be proven wrong. If someone knows of an Open Source Mac OS X application project that has received (or is receiving) a 'significant contribution' from Apple, post the details. I'll be glad to eat crow in public.

Well, that's my take on "Apple's use/contributions to Open Source" as a former Open Source application project contributor. What do you think?

-- asxless in iLand

* From my experience, Apple does provide limited support (e.g. encouragement, help with contacts/communications, etc.) for Open Source applications projects.

[clarkgoble]

One should also point out that Apple allows a lot of Apple employees contribute to individual open source packages. In a way their employment helps these packages. Exactly how much (if any) Apple time is spent on these packages I don't know.

One Open Source package Apple offers that is very significant is Rendezvous. Tres Cool.

[LeeG]

Agreed, low level stuff like kernal, webcore, etc. But this stuff is the foundation. If apple gives that back, then all players are on the same field with an efficient code base, and good functionality. Then its just up to individual companies to add bells and whistles - (ie gui, look and feel, features) which is where apple shows it still rules.

But look at Omniweb - they are doing just that - using the excellent functionality of webcore, and building a 'better browser' around it.

We'll have to see where it all goes. I'd love to see Apple release quicktime components (low level) that can be incorporated into linux, unix, other osx apps - they need to prevent WMP9 from becoming the de facto standard, as it will be installed in 97% of shipped computers...


Lee

[Ludovic Hirlimann]

Originally posted by asxless:

1 - What other open source project(s) that produced (or is producing) a Mac OS X native application has received a 'significant contribution'* from Apple ?

Mozilla has, It was Apple's Carbon testing Application

2- What other open source project(s) that produced (or is producing) an unix or X11 (on Mac OS X) application has received a 'significant contribution'* from Apple ?

All projects hosted on sourceforge. Apple Gave some machines so people could test/build for Darwin/OSX.

[asxless]

Originally posted by Ludovic Hirlimann:
Mozilla has [received a 'significant contribution' from Apple], It was Apple's Carbon testing Application

All projects hosted on sourceforge [received a 'significant contribution'* from Apple]. Apple Gave some machines so people could test/build for Darwin/OSX.

Thanks for these examples Ludvic.

It's good to read of Apple's support for OSS projects. Providing machines to sourceforge is a very ecumenical means of supporting OSS which helps the projects working on the 'nuts and bolts' as well as 'applications'.

It is also nice to read that Apple helped with the Mozilla port. But this is the same Apple that uses Netscape/Mozilla & Camino in their Safari browser speed comparison graph and ad copy -- "...Safari whizzes past the rest of the competition, too." (emphasis mine). At best, this provides the OSS community with mixed messages. Why does Apple (the _owner_ of the platform) characterize the ports of free cross platform browsers as 'competition'? Is Apple trying to encourage & support OSS application development/porting or is it trying to 'complete' with these projects?

FWIW after seeing how Apple treated Mozilla & Camino with the surprise release of Safari at MWSF 2003, I decided to drop out of the OOo Mac OS X porting team (with the release of the X11 port). The idea of donating more of my time working on a stalking horse for a rumored Apple proprietary Apple 'office suite' was not attractive. What's more, I didn't like the prospect of seeing a similar comparison chart for 'iOffice' vs 'M$ Office and the rest of the competition' at MWSF 2004. Interestingly, the OOo team remains woefully understaffed. Perhaps other potential OOo port contributors got the same message.

So I hope you won't mind if I just publicly gnaw on a bony crow wing (or two) for now. I'd like to save the meatier crow bits for meatier evidence of Apple's significant contribution(s) to specific OSS application project(s).

-- asxless in iLand

[Angus_D]

Apple contributes heavily to GCC (PCH support springs to mind).

[fat mac moron]

Originally posted by asxless:
But this is the same Apple that uses Netscape/Mozilla & Camino in their Safari browser speed comparison graph and ad copy -- "...Safari whizzes past the rest of the competition, too." (emphasis mine). At best, this provides the OSS community with mixed messages. Why does Apple (the _owner_ of the platform) characterize the ports of free cross platform browsers as 'competition'? Is Apple trying to encourage & support OSS application development/porting or is it trying to 'complete' with these projects?

I might be confused, but I thought one of the purposes of OSS software is to provide "choice" for the consumer?? So it's now suddenly bad to compete against OSS? I thought competition was good for a healthy, diverse market...

[asxless]

Originally posted by fat mac moron:
I might be confused, but I thought one of the purposes of OSS software is to provide "choice" for the consumer?? So it's now suddenly bad to compete against OSS? I thought competition was good for a healthy, diverse market...

You're not confused. Competition on a level playing field is "good for a healthy, diverse market...".

The issue is that Apple, as the owner of the platform, has a commanding field position even when it competes with commercial vendors. From what I have read, Omni was as surprised as the rest of us, when Apple announced Safari/WebCore. To their credit, Omni has responded very quickly with a WebCore based version of OmniWeb. Meanwhile Safari has enjoyed the significant advantage of reduced competition from the previous OS X browser darling.

The tilt of the field is even greater when Apple competes with OSS projects. By their very nature, OSS projects telegraph their ideas and plans months (some times years) in advance. Any commercial vendor who can't produce a better product with that amount of competitor intelligence would have to be a dolt. So I'd be stunned if Apple, with its intimate knowledge of the OS X internals, can't use OSS 'nuts and bolts' to construct a better 'whatzit' than a 'competing' OSS project.

In the case of Mozilla / Camino, the OSS 'nuts and bolts' that Apple used (KHTML) did not come directly from their OSS project (Gecko). But AFAIK Apple has not precluded that event. So for example, an OOo contributor faces the prospect of having their own handwork being used as the basis of an Apple proprietary product, announced without warning and with great fanfare at the next Steve Jobs' show & tell... AND have Apple's slick advert point out how the cross-platform OSS app is not as _fill in the blank_ as the proprietary single platform application written by the company with the best optimization info for that platform - DUH. Obviously there are people who will take those odds and continue contributing to OSS applications projects for Mac OS X -- but not many, as the chronic shortage of Mac OS X OSS application project contributors attests.

Ultimately the question is 'Does Apple want to actively encourage "a healthy, diverse market" via the "choices" provided by OSS application projects? Or does Apple want to use OSS 'nuts and bolts' to produce proprietary, platform dominant Apple applications?'

-- asxless in iLand

[davecom]

Originally posted by asxless:

The tilt of the field is even greater when Apple competes with OSS projects. By their very nature, OSS projects telegraph their ideas and plans months (some times years) in advance. Any commercial vendor who can't produce a better product with that amount of competitor intelligence would have to be a dolt.

So what you're saying is that commercial companies DO produce better software than open source projects in general. I agree!

I don't care too much about ideology, I just care about the best solution, RIGHT NOW(not two years down the line) and in my opinion and experience:
Mac OS X(with open source darwin) is better than Linux(fully open source)
Mail.app is better than Phoenix
iTunes is better than XMMS
AIM is better than Jabber
Shoutcast is better than IceCast
Safari(with open source rendering kit) is better than Mozilla/Camino(fully open source)
Photoshop is better than the Gimp
Civilization 2 is better than FreeCiv
Microsoft Office is better than running Open Office in X11

If one product(an Apple office) is much better than another product (OO.org on Mac) and there's no incentive to port the other, it just goes to show that Apple office is THAT MUCH better. That my friend is a free market.

[asxless]

Originally posted by davecom:
So what you're saying is that commercial companies DO produce better software than open source projects in general.

Contrary to popular belief, all people who contribute to OSS projects do not believe that OSS software is better that commercial software. I certainly don't. But I do think most OSS software is better value than the commercial 'equivalents'.

I don't care too much about ideology, I just care about the best solution, RIGHT NOW (not two years down the line) and in my opinion and experience:
Mac OS X(with open source darwin) is better than Linux(fully open source)
Mail.app is better than Phoenix
iTunes is better than XMMS
AIM is better than Jabber
Shoutcast is better than IceCast
Safari(with open source rendering kit) is better than Mozilla/Camino(fully open source)
Photoshop is better than the Gimp
Civilization 2 is better than FreeCiv
Microsoft Office is better than running Open Office in X11.

I'm guessing that most MacNN forum users would agree with you. In fact, I agree that the commercial app "is better than" the OSS 'equivalent' for everything in your list (except AIM/Jabber, Shoutcast/IceCast, and Civilization 2/FreeCiv which I have never used). But being "better than" isn't the whole story... I own a 3yr old BMW X5 and a 15 yr old Nissan PathFinder. I'm sure some you would debate the issue, but many people think the X5 "is better than" the PathFinder. And I agree. But I also know that the PathFinder (with 5 speed, manual windows, no radio, etc.) is a 'viable alternative to' and 'better value than' the X5 (with automatic/power everything, CD changer, etc.) for everything we actually do with both vehicles. Don't get me wrong. I love driving the X5 out to Big Bend and blasting around the back roads but I can do the same thing in the PathFinder. Luckily for me, I have a choice of driving a relatively new X5 or a pretty old PathFinder every time I go anywhere. But not everyone can afford (or wants to own) an X5. Just because something 'is better than' doesn't mean it is the best value. The problem with Apple's current strategy w.r.t OSS applications is that it is delaying (and possibly eliminating) the availability of better value OSS alternatives because of the potential for "better" Apple proprietary software in the future. BTW it is easy to talk of how much better Apple's Safari is now. But think back to the browser world pre-MWSF2003 when Mozilla/Camino were THE Mac OS X browsers of choice for those who thought a browser without tabs wasn't worth using.

If one product (an Apple office) is much better than another product (OO.org on Mac) and there's no incentive to port the other, it just goes to show that Apple office is THAT MUCH better. That my friend is a free market.

Thanks for the economic homily Of course this assumes that Apple is producing "an Apple office" product. What if they aren't? The collateral damage to the OOo porting team is the same. And we will get to wait for NeoOffice (due to understaffing) and keep using/upgrading M$ Office. Meanwhile non-profit orgs and others with restricted budgets will keep exercising their option to buy cheap PCs and run OOo v1.1 natively in Linux or Windows. FWIW I don't think this is a 'good thing (tm)' for the Mac platform.

-- asxless in iLand

[davecom]

You're right again, open source software is a good alternative for the cheap and the poor.

[asxless]

Originally posted by davecom:
You're right again, open source software is a good alternative for the cheap and the poor.

Lets' see now... the corollary would be something like 'commercial software is a good alternative for spendthrifts and the rich.' But that can't be right, because I use commercial software and I am not a spendthrift or rich. And I use open source software and I am not poor or cheap.

May be it's not that simple. Maybe people who recognize value can find both commercial and open source software to be good alternatives

-- asxless in iLand

[fat mac moron]

But I also know that the PathFinder (with 5 speed, manual windows, no radio, etc.) is a 'viable alternative to' and 'better value than' the X5 (with automatic/power everything, CD changer, etc.) for everything we actually do with both vehicles.

I guess that's the difference between OSS and commercial vendors... "It compiles and works" versus "What can we do to make this a better experience for the end user?"

[Mike S.]

Originally posted by asxless:
Apple competes with OSS projects. By their very nature, OSS projects telegraph their ideas and plans months (some times years) in advance. Any commercial vendor who can't produce a better product with that amount of competitor intelligence would have to be a dolt. So I'd be stunned if Apple, with its intimate knowledge of the OS X internals, can't use OSS 'nuts and bolts' to construct a better 'whatzit' than a 'competing' OSS project.

What's all this talk of OSS apps competing with commercial apps? Open Source is a
philosophy not a business model.

Unless you're talking about the GPL, most OSS licenses invite companies or individuals to use the code and make it better.

The stipulation is generally that you acknowledge where it came from and contribute your improvements back to the community.

This being the case, any OSS code that Apple modifies is also being contributed to.

I would think any improvements Apple makes to KHTML make all KHTML based browsers better.

Apple avoids GPLed apps do to the nature of the license that says any app you use it in must be open source as well. LGPL doesn't have that restriction and KHTML is under LGPL if I'm not mistaken.

So for example, an OOo contributor faces the prospect of having their own handwork being used as the basis of an Apple proprietary product, announced without warning and with great fanfare at the next Steve Jobs' show & tell... AND have Apple's slick advert point out how the cross-platform OSS app is not as _fill in the blank_ as the proprietary single platform application written by the company with the best optimization info for that platform

What? That's the whole point of having your code open, so others can use it and make it better.

When the KHTML community heard that Apple was using their code for Safari they weren't upset they were happy about it while the Mozilla community was upset that Apple didn't choose their code base.

If the community didn't want companies to use the code then they wouldn't license out libraries for embedding in other apps or the license would explicitly prohibit the code's use by commercial entities.

Obviously there are people who will take those odds and continue contributing to OSS applications projects for Mac OS X -- but not many, as the chronic shortage of Mac OS X OSS application project contributors attests.

I think the chronic lack of contributers has more to do with where the Mac user base comes from.

They were typically the anti-techs, they didn't have a background in software development.

As more Unix and Linux users find OS X appealing I think you'll see more and more OSS application development going on.

Lots of good stuff has already come about, VLC, MPlayer, Poisoned, etc.. they could have just said "run it in X11" but instead native UIs have been developed.

Ultimately the question is 'Does Apple want to actively encourage "a healthy, diverse market" via the "choices" provided by OSS application projects? Or does Apple want to use OSS 'nuts and bolts' to produce proprietary, platform dominant Apple applications?'

-- asxless in iLand

These two things are not mutually exclusive.

Did Apple have to create their own accelerated X11 environment? No, but they did because it lets people use more of the available OSS applications that are out there.

Do they have to include free developer tools with every copy of OS X? Nope, but they do because they want to encourage software development.

Apple will continue to use the code that's available when it will suit their needs and write their own when that's the best way to go.

[asxless]

Originally posted by fat mac moron:
I guess that's the difference between OSS and commercial vendors... "It compiles and works" versus "What can we do to make this a better experience for the end user?"

Come on folks, if you really have a thing against OSS in general don't hold back, say what you really think

On a more serious note, I'd guess the OSS community will find your trivialization of "the difference between OSS and commercial vendors" amusing.

BTW while you are enjoying your little dig remember that without the OSS community's contributions you would be still be running OS 9.x.x.x.x.x Opps, maybe you are

-- asxless in iLand

[asxless]

Originally posted by Mike S.:
What's all this talk of OSS apps competing with commercial apps? Open Source is a philosophy not a business model. Unless you're talking about the GPL, most OSS licenses invite companies or individuals to use the code and make it better...

First thanks for a thoughtful reply..

In general I agree that most OSS projects "invite companies or individuals to use the code and make it better". My issue about 'competition' is exclusive to Apple because it has the unique position of being a software developer that is also the 'owner' of the platform. AND Apple's apps enjoy a near cult status with Mac users. As we have seen in this thread, many (perhaps most) Mac users would prefer an Apple app to any OSS alternative. So the mere rumor of a potential Apple app focuses attention away from OSS alternatives hence arguably reduces OSS contributions.

I think the chronic lack of contributers has more to do with where the Mac user base comes from. They were typically the anti-techs, they didn't have a background in software development. As more Unix and Linux users find OS X appealing I think you'll see more and more OSS application development going on. Lots of good stuff has already come about, VLC, MPlayer, Poisoned, etc.. they could have just said "run it in X11" but instead native UIs have been developed.

Only time will tell whether your view or mine is correct. FWIW I hope you are right and fear that I am.

Orginally by asxless
Ultimately the question is 'Does Apple want to actively encourage "a healthy, diverse market" via the "choices" provided by OSS application projects? Or does Apple want to use OSS 'nuts and bolts' to produce proprietary, platform dominant Apple applications?'

These two things are not mutually exclusive.

I didn't mean to imply that they were. In fact, Apple is pursuing both strategies today. I should have posed the question as 'which of these strategies would prevail'. My sense is that now Apple is providing minimal resources to the former and maximal to the latter.

-- asxless in iLand

[Basilisk]

As the link provided by Developer demonstrates, Apple's 'significant contributions' are generally restricted to Open Source projects working on the low level unix 'nuts and bolts' required by OS X, but not OS X end user 'applications' projects. In other words, Apple makes significant contributions to the Open Source community volunteering their time/resources to work on the low level nuts and bolts, as long as they don't get uppity and try to build/port full fledged Mac OS X applications for the garden variety Mac user. In that case, an Open Source application project is largely on its own*. This leads me to believe that Apple does not really want to see Open Source MacOS X applications developed/ported. And would prefer that the Mac OS X Open Source community focus on Unix CLI and X11 applications that don't infringe on Apple's control of the 'free' applications for Mac OS X. After all, these nut cases in the Open Source community just might produce useful (and free) applications that do not require OS X upgrades every year.

I've read this (and the thread) several times, and I'm absolutely lost as to what you're looking for... Please understand I'm not trying to be beligerent. It just seems that you're looking in the examples for a specific kind of "support" or "signifigant contribution" that didn't happen for your project. I'd like to know what specifically you think would qualify.

Generally Apple seems to provide as much support to OSS projects as they do for commerical projects. A free development suite, an extensive library/framework, excellent developer docs, etc. etc. It seems to me that this is precisely what one wants/expects from an operating system vendor.

I suppose its true that Apple doesn't contribute code to most MacOS X native OSS applications (above the nuts and bolts), but the same is true of virtually every commercial software title as well.

One can, of course, come up with cases where Apple does contribute more resources to commerical applications. I'm sure Adobe has greater pull than just any random developer, but this has a lot more to do with the value Photoshop adds to the Mac platform than any campaign against OSS applications. If there existed an OSS application that offered similar competitive advantages I'd bet they'd get similar attention.

For the record, OpenOffice does not, in my mind, qualify in this category, and thus the fact that Apple hasn't adopted it is hardly incriminating. Mozilla does , and as was indicated earlier Apple made Mozilla a testbed for Carbon.

The rest of the discussion seems to me to be a rehash of the standard argument that Apple's own applications compete with third-party applications. iTunes limits the market for MP3 apps, etc. This is true, but its not specific to OSS, commercial apps get (potentially) hurt as well. I won't argue the merits of this policy other than to say that its what Apple has chosen to do. It seems popular with most users (who as you say, like the Apple applications) and the market for third party apps still seems to be out there (Watson, iView MediaPro, Photoshop Elements, etc.).

So where is the disconnect?

Alex (Bas)

[asxless]

Originally posted by Basilisk:
I've read this (and the thread) several times, and I'm absolutely lost as to what you're looking for... Please understand I'm not trying to be beligerent. It just seems that you're looking in the examples for a specific kind of "support" or "signifigant contribution" that didn't happen for your project. I'd like to know what specifically you think would qualify.

Alex,
Thank you for your interest in this subject and your thoughtful reply. I'm sorry that the message has gotten lost in the rhetoric. I'll try to clarify it below.

Generally Apple seems to provide as much support to OSS projects as they do for commerical projects....

I suppose its true that Apple doesn't contribute code to most MacOS X native OSS applications (above the nuts and bolts), but the same is true of virtually every commercial software title as well...

One can, of course, come up with cases where Apple does contribute more resources to commerical applications...

I suspect that Apple is providing similar levels of support to both OSS projects and commercial vendors and I have no issue with the amount of support Apple is providing to commercial vendors.

The rest of the discussion seems to me to be a rehash of the standard argument that Apple's own applications compete with third-party applications. iTunes limits the market for MP3 apps, etc. This is true, but its not specific to OSS, commercial apps get (potentially) hurt as well. I won't argue the merits of this policy other than to say that its what Apple has chosen to do. It seems popular with most users (who as you say, like the Apple applications) and the market for third party apps still seems to be out there (Watson, iView MediaPro, Photoshop Elements, etc.).

So where is the disconnect?

Actually the main message is a connection between Apple's support levels for OSS applications projects and the "standard argument that Apple's own applications compete with third-party applications.". So my message is....

1) Apple is uniquely dependent on OSS at both the OS and application level. Therefore Apple, as the owner of the platform (hardware & OS & many popular applications), has a greater responsibility/opportunity w.r.t. the OSS community than most hardware or software vendors.

2) The "standard argument that Apple's own applications compete with third-party applications." applies to OSS application projects in spades. So if Apple wants to see these projects succeed, Apple should not 'compete' directly with OSS application projects that are providing it a critical strategic advantage. For the record, I think an Aqua version of OOo would provide Apple with a strategic advantage by reducing its dependence on M$. And Apple could still produce a proprietary version (e.g. iOffice) in parallel as described in this thread

3) Apple (and Mac users in general) would benefit if Apple took the opportunity to increase its support for Mac OS X OSS application projects which add diversity to the platform. Sorry, the answer to your question "I'd like to know what specifically you think would qualify" as a 'significant contirbution' was covered in a different thread on this subject.

originally posted by asxless in the other thread:
Note: Dan has posted in this thread that "Ed and I are working on getting NeoOffice into shape very very soon. " and Ed has posted on http://trinity.neooffice.org that "I'm hoping to get it to a useful state (e.g. alpha quality) by January". AFAIK these estimates are based on the existing team of a few _part time_ developers and beta testers. If Apple only provided a couple of full time developers and G5 tinderboxes, it would greatly speed up the progress of the NeoOffice (read Aqua OOo) development. Imagine how far along the Aqua port would be if Apple had assigned just one full time developer (w/ tinderbox) to the OOo port back in January 2003.

originally posted by Dan one of the principal OOo port developers in the other thred:
asxless is right, even one developer full-time or loan of equipment like a G5 to either or one of the current developers would speed things up greatly. Who-ever mentioned 50-100 developers earlier, that's insane, since thats almost equal to the # of developers that are on OOo right now, from Sun, from Red Hat, from Ximian, from Mandrake, and from the community. If they did have even 20 developers on an iOffice, and contributed the changes back, that would be enormous and something to really celebrate.

So in my view a 'significant contribution might be a full time developer with a hot tinderbox for each OSS application project which Apple saw as 'strategic'.

-- asxless in iLand

[Basilisk]

I'm sorry that the message has gotten lost in the rhetoric. I'll try to clarify it below.

I appreciate the clarifications, though I can't say I agree with your conclusions

1) Apple is uniquely dependent on OSS at both the OS and application level.

This is true, but you have to remember that Apple is dependent on their own open source. I think there's an unfortunate tendency for folks to forget that when one talks about Apple's open source foundations one is talking in large part about source code Apple wrote and released themselves. Large portions of that open source (Darwin kernel, IOKit, SystemStarter, Rendezvous, etc. etc.) are Apple code.

This is not a case where a vendor took a mature/complete open source system from the ground up and used it for commercial purposes. This is a case where an existing commerical UNIX vendor (Apple/NeXT) chose to open source portions of their OS.

Of course, this is not to say that Apple isn't using a great deal of open source. A lot of that code is BSD or MIT license, and thus there is no direct requirement to return the favor. Nevertheless, as already discussed in this thread Apple makes signifigant return contributions in those areas.

But, of course, these areas of contribution are mostly "nuts and bolts" and thus don't seem to qualify in your thinking as signifigant contributions.

Therefore Apple, as the owner of the platform (hardware & OS & many popular applications), has a greater responsibility/opportunity w.r.t. the OSS community than most hardware or software vendors.

This is a moral argument, and one I simply don't agree with. Apple has a responsibility to comply with the licenses for the code they use. For the most part these are licenses which require nothing more than copyright acknowledgement. Apple does more than just basic license requirements, and this should not be dismissed out of hand as "nuts and bolts" contributions.

Ironically you seem to be most focused on Apple's contributions above the nuts and bolts level, but that is where Apple is least dependent on OSS. Almost everything that makes MacOS X a "Macintosh" in terms of user experience is Apple proprietary code. The notable exception is Safari, but there Apple has been giving the interesting/hard parts of the code back to KHTML, and made it easy for others (OSS or otherwise) to leverage that investment into their own MacOS X applications. The playing field is about as level as one can reasonably expect.

2) The "standard argument that Apple's own applications compete with third-party applications." applies to OSS application projects in spades. So if Apple wants to see these projects succeed, Apple should not 'compete' directly with OSS application projects that are providing it a critical strategic advantage. For the record, I think an Aqua version of OOo would provide Apple with a strategic advantage by reducing its dependence on M$. And Apple could still produce a proprietary version (e.g. iOffice) in parallel as described in this thread

This isn't about Apple's contributions to OSS as much as it is about strategy..

I have no idea if Apple will or won't produce the much-rumored "iOffice". And if they do I don't know if it will be based on OSS (OpenOffice, AbiWord, etc.) or proprietary code (AppleWorks, new code from the former GOBE Productive guys, etc.).

But lets look at the strategy around it...

- The Mac platform already has a low-cost office suite that Apple even gives away with many machines (AppleWorks).
- The Mac platform already has a 100% MS Office compatible office suite (Office X).

These are both good things that makes Macs viable Wintel alternatives. Strategically Apple likely doesn't want to disrupt this situation without serious forethought. If they were to publicly throw resources to OpenOffice how much incentive would MS have to maintain Office X? Witness the death of Explorer due (in part) to Safari. Even if MS were not to retaliate how much panic would be sown amongst Mac users who really need Office maintained and supported? MS could promise continued support and folks on this messageboard and elsewhere would still panic.

If Apple really has iOffice in the wings I expect it will appear only when ready, not by letting panic reign while waiting for something to show up. Who knows, maybe it will be OpenOffice based. But its unrealistic to expect them to tip their hand just yet.

As a side note, I also think its disingenuous to complain that Apple is killing valuable OSS third party apps by failing to support development on a project (OOo) designed to kill a third party product (MS Office). More on this in a moment...

3) Apple (and Mac users in general) would benefit if Apple took the opportunity to increase its support for Mac OS X OSS application projects which add diversity to the platform. Sorry, the answer to your question "I'd like to know what specifically you think would qualify" as a 'significant contirbution' was covered in a different thread on this subject...

So in my view a 'significant contribution might be a full time developer with a hot tinderbox for each OSS application project which Apple saw as 'strategic'.

One does not increase diversity by throwing support to one side of the fence. Were Apple to support OSS by contributing resources above and beyond what they offer commercial developers they would be in trouble in two ways:

- They would be favoring OSS over commercial apps, not necessarily in their best strategic interests. Apple wants more developers of all types, not less. A commitment to OSS category-killers will not make commercial developers rest easy.

- They would still be picking favorites amongst OSS applications. They can't support every OSS project. Not even every project in a strategic category. Apple's choice of KHTML still causes a bit of a controversy, and you yourself note its chilling effect on Mozilla development for Mac.

So in short, if your problem is that Apple's entry into a application space tends to reduce diversity, I agree with you. Whether this will be a long-term successful strategy for Apple remains to be see.

If your argument is (as it seems to be) that so long as Apple is doing these strategic third-party-killer applications they base it from OSS code out of some sense of community or obligation, I disagree. If Apple is going to follow this strategy they should do it with the best option available to them, OSS or not. Their strategy depends on these apps being the best possible in their category, not on the correctness of the philosophy that drives the code's license.



Alex

[asxless]

Originally posted by Basilisk:
I appreciate the clarifications, though I can't say I agree with your conclusions

I'd be very surprised if you did. My points are controversial or I wouldn't post them for discussion. I wouldn't expect a very interesting discussion by posting that the status quo is the best of all possible worlds or even a very good facsimile, as your reply suggests

BTW your reply is exactly what I had hoped for -- a thoughtful rebuttal with new and interesting information/insight. Thanks again.

One further clarification -- "But, of course, these areas of contribution are mostly "nuts and bolts" and thus don't seem to qualify in your thinking as signifigant contributions.". For the record, I do think that Apple's contributions in the 'nuts and bolts' areas is significant. What I have been trying to say is that although Apple provides significant contributions to the 'nuts and bolts' OSS projects that are the foundation of OS X and some Apple proprietary apps (e.g. Safari), Apple's support for OSS applications projects is largely 'encouragement' and ' help with communications'.

Hopefully others will join in the discussion with their take on whether this means that Apple is 'doing the right thing' with respect to all OSS projects.

-- asxless in iLand

[Mike S.]

Originally posted by asxless:
What I have been trying to say is that although Apple provides significant contributions to the 'nuts and bolts' OSS projects that are the foundation of OS X and some Apple proprietary apps (e.g. Safari), Apple's support for OSS applications projects is largely 'encouragement' and ' help with communications'.

As you've pointed out, Apple walks a fine line.

They are a virtual monopoly (monopolies are not illegal) in their own space but at the same time they are a small player in a much bigger field.

They have to balance their own best interests as a competitor in the bigger space with the interests of those who develop within their monopoly arena.

I don't think they enter any new field without a lot of deliberation. It seems to me that when the make a new product it's usually filling a void that 3rd party Mac developers didn't do well enough that hurt the Mac platform in comparisons to Windows.

Take iTunes, the "digital music revolution" was happening on Windows. There were full featured, free apps available to Windows users that were keeping that fire burning.

The Mac pretty much had MacAmp/Lite, SoundJam and Audion. All costed money and none were a total solution like you could get on Windows. (WinAmp is still the benchmark MP3 player and it's still free) MusicMatch and Real were pushing jukeboxes and there were no Mac jukeboxes.

Enter iTunes and the Mac arguably shot to the top of the heap. It pretty much killed the market for those other apps but it was a major boost for the Macintosh.

It's a very similar issue with Open Source, Apple has to walk the line between being an ally and a competitor at the same time.

It's really not such a big deal in this space since you're not really trampling on anybody's livelihood with OSS projects. They're freely contributed to so the only thing they hurt is somebody's feelings.

OSS projects are usually built as free alternatives/solutions to proprietary products or implementations.

Take VLC or MPlayer, they were built because Linux users couldn't enjoy proprietary video/audio since the companies behind them didn't support Linux.

Now, If Apple were to do something like integrate ffmpeg with QT (unlikely since they don't want to jeopardize official Real or MS multimedia support on the Mac) would they be hurting OSS projects VLC and MPlayer or supporting them by making ffmpeg better? This is the nature of Open Source.

The OSS advocates what to see their projects eventually replace proprietary vendors such as Microsoft, Sun or Apple and in some ways as Apple, Sun or IBM make OSS products better they actually risk making themselves irrelevant by creating free alternatives to their own products.

It's a gamble but they're probably betting that it's the user experience more than the underlying code that will keep them relevant which is why they'll continue to use this open code to their advantage.

Linux may one day be fully compatible with everything under the sun and be completely free but when the proprietary stuff is much better looking and easier to use with better support most users are going to choose that.

The OSS community would have everything they've ever wanted thanks to the corporate types getting what they wanted from open sourced code.

It's a great balance when you think about it.