Jump to content
Welcome to InsanelyMac Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


Just Joined
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About pinatubo

  • Rank
    InsanelyMac Protégé
  1. Is OSx itself even ethical?

    Mach was developed at carnegie mellon - with yet more federal grants I'm sure. Yes, I have done my research. There is more irony to be had in that Jobs was forced out of apple because he was going in a direction the rest of the board didn't like (NeXT). So he founds NeXT. Subsequently Apple starts to have big problems with THEIR direction and he comes back, bringing his NeXT technology with him. But aside from the irony involved, I'm not disputing your point. Perhaps when I said "based on" I was using the term in the loosest sense possible May be "utilizes apis from BSD" would be more like it, but your description fits too. Besides, I wasn't preaching, so don't be so abrasive.
  2. Ok, bear with me for a sec, there are many parts to this rant. Firstly, I have been studying the GPL, LGPL, etc for some time now trying to grasp its real intentions. And let me tell you, I'm even more confused now than I was before. Part I - Built on Open Source OsX is built on open source software, licensed under GPL. The core value of the GPL is to ensure Freedom. As in free to use, modify and distribute. As far as I can tell, everything supports this argument, that if you use GPL software to make a derivitave, then the GPL license also applies to that derivitave. Thus, OsX should really be "GPL". I know, that's an oversimplification. But if you look back far enough, BSD, and FreeBSD owe their roots to Berkely, which gets funding from guess who, Federal Government in the way of research grants. WIthout BSD or Freebsd, there would be NO osx in its current shape. There's no way for me to know the percentage of code in OSX that is truly BSD/FreeBSD/GPL/LGPL, but looking at Apple's opensource page, there is a significant amount of source available. So that makes you wonder, is it just the UI that makes OSX "OSX"? Part II - US Gov vs Microsoft - Internet Explorer and Windows Recall when the Justice Department bent Microsoft over the kitchen table for tying IE to Windows (among other things)? They literally forced Microsoft to detach IE (before IE6/7) from Windows. They (DOJ) said you Microsoft could not require IE as part of a Windows Install (anti-competitive with Netscape because Netscape lost ground when IE was bundled with Windows). Thus, one could argue that Apple cannot require OSX to be tied to their hardware since they indeed sell OSX separately without said hardware. Part III - Microsoft's stake in Apple "In August 1997, the Company and microsoft Corporation entered into patent cross license and technology agreements. In addition, microsoft purchased 150,000 shares of apple Series A nonvoting convertible preferred stock ("preferred stock") for $150 million. These shares were convertible by microsoft after August 5, 2000, into shares of the Company's common stock at a conversion price of $8.25 per share. During 2000, 74,250 shares of preferred stock were converted to 9 million shares of the Company's common stock. During 2001, the remaining 75,750 preferred shares were converted into 9.2 million shares of the Company's common stock." So that put's Microsoft's ownership at 18 million shares out of 885 million in play. Not a huge stake, not even a controlling one. But Bill G did save Apple's behind and rescued them in the 90's. Let's pretend for a second that Apple decided to market OSX not to the consumer masses, but the tech elites like those in this forum, those that have the tenacity to install it. Admittingly, I doubt this would carve into Microsoft's pie. But if OSx were marketed as a competitor to Vista, That would be awkard given the previously mentioned bailout of Apple by Microsoft wouldnt u think? So thats my three points. From your armchair lawyer [no, not a real one, just an imaginary one]