About

Welcome to Panela, Matt Harrison's take on mostly Open Source, Linux, Python, innovation in those areas, other buzzwords and Dick Proenneke. It comes complete with the illustrations as needed. Note the opinions expressed here are merely my opinions and not the opinions of my employer.

about Matt

Calendar

««Mar 2010»»
SMTWTFS
  123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031

Mailing List

My RSS Feeds








Forking the LGPL into the BSD

posted 2005.04.28 Thu
Bear with me for a moment. Let's say I have a fruit tree that has pretty good fruit on it. It also never ceases to bear fruit. And I give away the fruit for free out of the goodness of my heart. (I'll even let you take my fruit and dip it in chocolate and sell it). And being a hardy tree, anyone can take a branch and put it in their yard, provided they also let people take the fruit. Sound familiar? Now let's say you transplant a branch of my tree in your garden. Secretly 6 months later, you allow others to take the fruit. Only now the fruit is a little different, maybe a little tart for my stomach. Plus it also has a hard shell on it. In fact even make use of the fruit I have to use a tool that you sell to me (it's a really nice tool and a few people are willing to pay for it, not only does it work nice it looks pretty too). Sound familiar? Something similar to this happened with KHTML and Safari. The basic story being Apple hired a really smart guy (Dave Hyatt, who worked on mozilla) to create a web browser. The decided to use KHTML instead of gecko for a starting point, but instead of working with KDE, Apple has worked in a forked environment. Just recently Hyatt has posted in his blog how recent changes to Safari have made it the first browser to pass the acid2 test. No mention of konqueror which renders the test as shown below (version 3.4).
Who is at fault? KDE for not having dedicated KHTML developers to track the changes? Apple for moving (forking) too fast? I don't know but there are opinions from kde and apple flying around. This appears to be a case where open source is not really benefitting as intended. I guess it could be worse, Apple could not release any code at all, but it could be a lot better. I'd love to see both Safari and KHTML helping each other out, rather than just KHTML giving Apple a big jump in developing a web browser. Is Apple really that afraid that KDE will take over it's market share? It appears to me that Apple has forked the code of KHTML so fast that KDE developers cannot merge the changes back in, essentially changing the license into more of a bsd style. The scary thought is that some big company might pull a similar tactic on a bigger piece of more important code (kernel perhaps?). Or maybe that is why big companies (Google, IBM) are all hiring Mozilla developers....(or maybe they just believe the browser is an important platform. We all know Google is a company that does no evil). Ok enough conspiracy theory. Maybe KDE can re-fork the fork... Note: I don't have a personal vendetta against Apple. I have school friends, old co-workers, neighbors and ultimate pals who all work for apple (none in the browser division though). I even recommend Macs to friends and family and even almost bought a mini.... Thoughts?

links: digg this    del.icio.us    reddit




1. a reader left...
2005.04.29 Fri 8:04 am

The LGPL anticipates situations such as these and doesn't prohibit them. It is a feature/weakness of the license.

My guess is that Apple isn't afraid of KDE or even Linux in the short term. I think the short term concern is one of resources. It is simply easier to make Mac OSX specific changes to KHTML than to make changes in a cross platform manner. It probably also leads to better browser performance. Now the nice thing to do would be to hire a developer whose full time job is to port changes back into KHTML, but the license doesn't require this, and in fact if it did it would not be a "Free" license.

It seems that Apple is doing more than is required by submitting changes at all, not that this is either hard for them to do or especially helpful for KHTML.

In the long run, is Apple afraid of Linux or KDE? Probably. It wouldn't surprise me if there is a long-term plan to neglect certain projects. At the very least Apple could help them with web-hosting. It is nearly impossible to get to the KDE web entry right now.

a random John [johnharrison@gmail.com]


2. a reader left...
2005.04.29 Fri 8:51 am

I should probably add that while this might appear to be a defacto conversion of LGPL code into BSD, this is probably an oversimplification. If it were BSD code they could simple close it. That is not what has happened. I can be argued that it is closed in practice because the changes are Mac-centric and don't easily port, but you can still read the code and learn from it, which is one of the benefits of it being open that gets mentioned so often.

a random John [johnharrison@gmail.com]


3. Matt left...
2005.04.29 Fri 10:42 am

Yes, I oversimplified since the code is STILL open, and KDE developers can get hints from Apple's code. Derek Kite summarizes this pretty well here and pulls the browser war into the picture.


4. a reader left...
2005.04.29 Fri 11:02 am

Derek makes a good point in that at some point Apple might drop Safari and it will die. Somebody else won't be able to pick it up because most of it isn't LGPL. I honestly don't know if the rest of it is APSL or whatever it is.

In any case, now that /. has picked this up it seems that many people are taking the kde blog entries as a complaint that Apple isn't "going the extra mile", when that isn't what is being complained about. The complaint is over the perception that Apple is doing work that isn't happening, not that they aren't doing the work. It seems that Apple was getting Open Source cred that they weren't earning. I certainly thought that the changes were such that they could be easily incorporated into KHTML. This has been eye-opening for me.

a random John [johnharrison@gmail.com]


5. aol left...
2005.06.15 Wed 2:38 am :: http://aol.topnewscast.com

Derek makes a good point in that at some point Apple might drop Safari and it will die...