On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:30:48 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
(snip)
>
> Apple failing to understand open source
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | There is a cost for not being a good Open Source citizen and that |
> cost is loss of goodwill in the community. That loss is more | expensive
> in the long run than Apple realizes. `----
>
> http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2007/03/
apple_failing_to_understand_op.html
<http://developer.apple.com/opensource/internet/webkit.html>
>
>
> Mozilla exec calls Apple's Safari plan 'duopolistic'
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | In the speech predicting how Apple would expand its market share, Jobs
> showed | a slide with Safari dominating almost a quarter of the
> market--a market | shared only with a single other browser, Internet
> Explorer. |
> | Lilly says he doesn't believe that this was an omission or
> simplification, | but instead an indication that Jobs is hoping to steal
> people who use Firefox | and other smaller browsers in order to run a
> "duopoly" with Redmond. `----
Of course he's trying to "steal" customers. he always has.
>
(snip)
>
>
> Wozniak hates Open Sauce
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | In an interview with eWeek, Woz said that there are always people who
> want | things to be free and the open-source movement starts with those
> sort of | people.
> `----
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/09/25/wozniak-hates-
open-sauce
>http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/07/03/steve-wozniak-v-stephen-colbert-
and-other-pranks/>
RU: The whole idea of Open Source has been a long running dialogue in
computer culture. Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation see
it as a crusade. Is it necessary? Or can you have Open Source and
proprietary stuff going on at the same time?
SW: A lot of people think that Open Source means "free." It was never
intended to mean free and it shouldn't mean free. People should be able
to develop software and market it and have control over what they build.
But when you sell a product that has a lot of software in it, being Open
Source means you publish your source. And if somebody else wants to take
your product and make a specialized version of it that does their few
special things for their application; or does something a little
different; or leaves pieces of it out; they can do that and they don't
owe you a license fee. It just means they were able to improve either
your mistakes, or the things that you left out that they want.
RU: Sure. But do you consider that a moral necessity, or...
SW: I consider it a moral right-ness. I don't know how to speak for
everybody in society about necessities. But I think it's very honorable
and it's very good for the customers.
--
Rick
|
|
