Apple Denies Closing Kernel

That's really interesting.

Especially since he didn't actually clear up what was going on.

Sooner or later Apple have to sell OSX86 for PC's they would earn more money that way.

That's very interesting - does this add more fuel to the fire that apple may be thinking of ditching the Mach kernel in 10.5?

Yay!

I think the rumors about the 10.5 kernel are really just "we want this to happen" blog posts that have evolved into "we think it will happen." Maybe not, but I don't remember hearing any "insider info" on the topic.

They'll have to do something major for virtualization, though.

It's a good think

Wundervoll! :):) For a minute there I actually thought they were going to close the source code!

I think they are closing the kernel. Read between the lines of his statement. He said that they are still releasing non-kernel source code for Intel-based machine. What happened to the kernel source code?

They are obviously planning to close the kernel for Intel machines, that's what they're saying, and quote "We continue to release all the Darwin sources for our PowerPC systems, and so far have released all the non-kernel Darwin sources for Intel." what else do we need to be sure, they key phrase here is "all the non-kernel Darwin sources for Intel"

interesting if they close XNU for Intel, which is partially based on open source BSD kernel(s)?

dont they violate GNU GPL at minimum?

what is the connection between the BSD license and the GPL one?

what is the connection between the BSD license and the GPL one?

ok I confess I dont know those license details so much in depth, but OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD etc...

I read Apple have "borrowed" kernel sources from those open source projects (what ever is thy license, GPL or other). OS X XNU partially old Mach, partially BSD?

Edit:

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/D..._section_3.html

The BSD layer is based on the BSD kernel, primarily FreeBSD.

http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/

The BSD kernel is based on a BSD license, waaay less restrictive ....

The BSD kernel is based on a BSD license, waaay less restrictive ....

which means that Apple can take open source, and use it in their closed source without violating the license?

Edit:

looks like it (http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html):

Copyright 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.

 

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

 

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:

 

This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.

 

4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

It's clean and simple, BSD means you can close your sources whenever you want. As the MacOS is not based on any OS that has the GPL licence it's not in violation with it.

I hope that they keep it open...

max