Um, WebKit?<p>Granted they forked and renamed KHTML, and take maybe a little too much credit because of it, but they really propelled KHTML/WebKit to the top in the last couple of years. IMHO, WebKit is <i>the</i> premiere browser engine at this point, and I doubt it would be without Apple's involvement.
Isn't this just a huge load of crap? I thought every time one of these got posted, 5 people from open source projects Apple basically funds chimed in and said, "just because Apple didn't rename it Apple KHTML doesn't mean they aren't key contributors".<p>You know what else isn't open source? PageRank. Shut up, CNet.
Not THAT discussion again. If open source developers give away their code for free, it is free. They shouldn't come around a couple of months later and say "we do want something back after all".
<a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.5.3/" rel="nofollow">http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.5.3/</a> might be worth taking a look through.
"""You can hardly say the name "Apple" without signing an NDA."""<p>This is so true. The iPhone is out. Everybody can (and could) become an iPhone developer and download the SDK.<p>Yet, developers are <i>still</i> not allowed to talk to each other about programming on the iPhone. Not in public forums. But also not even in person with you colleague or friend who also downloaded the SDK.<p>In my opinion they are taking it too far. Way too far. I just don't see the point of this NDA.
I think what is in question here is the "spirit" of open source. Legally you can do anything with BSD code and some companies just use it without giving anything back. That isn't breaking the law, but it isn't really being a "good" member of the open source community.<p>It seems to me that the issue could be related to the fact that Apple uses a lot of open source code (granted they do give back), but quite a bit of their software comes with technology that restricts usage by consumers.<p>The GPL (v3 even more so than v2) tries to address these types of issues. The downside being that everything needs to be shared so it reduces private company incentive to pour money into features/technology that competitors can just snag.<p>In the end it is one of the downsides of working on BSD/MIT licensed open source code. In one sense it is an act of altruism, but it can sting to see someone snag the code and make lots of money with hardly an acknowledgment in your direction or to take and use it to restrict people.
"The bigger question, however, is why Apple gets a pass, while I and others slam Microsoft..."<p>"I love my Mac. Period." That sortof answers your question, doesn't it? For good or ill, some people just want to get in on the Apple love fest. But don't cut off your nose to spite your face: I think Sun's actually done, on the whole, a decent job at working with and for the open source community. For both Apple and (sometimes) Google, I merely say: Beware Greeks bearing gifts.