Unfortunately, the reason why Apple ships with the very old and very 
limited versions of the various command line tools is mostly a legal 
one.   In particular, a lot of effort has been expended on *not* shipping 
any GPL'd tools in the base system because of the extreme limitations of 
the GPL itself.

        The problem is that the GPL fairly strictly prohibits one from 
shipping a proprietary system that uses GPL'd software as a foundation.  
At least, that is one possible interpretation and the one that the Apple 
legal team chose to take.   Obviously, there are other companies that have 
chosen a different interpretation-- TiVo, for example-- but the bottom 
line is that the whole issue is rather fuzzy, hasn't been challenged in 
court, and could cost Apple *millions* if it were challenged, regardless 
of whether they won or lost.

        The theory is that it is OK to ship dev tools that are largely GPL 
based because the system itself is not built upon those tools.

        Or something like that.

        What it gets down to is that we now have two meanings to the concept 
of 'open license'.   BSD follows one, GPL the other.

        Under the BSD license, you are free to pretty much do anything you 
want with the code in a for profit context with only minor caveats on 
usage and credit.   That is, you can build a closed system on top of the 
open foundation of the BSD assets.

        The GPL is open in a context that expressly forbids one from building 
closed/proprietary systems with it.

Personal Opinion:  I think the GPL is having exactly the opposite affect 
that was intended.  It is stifling innovation.  Specific example:  Apple 
was going to use the debian package manager as the basis for installation 
in Darwin and, eventually, OS X-- this was years ago in the very early 
days of the Darwin project-- and had to basically abandon that effort 
entirely *because of the GPL*.  So, instead of Apple spending tens of 
thousands of $$$ expanding on and improving dpkg-- all effort that would 
have been open source-- they had to reinvent the wheel (or, actually,  
completely abandon making a wheel at all).   I have seen this happen time 
and time again.  It is frustrating.  It sucks.   It is counter productive.
   It benefits *no one*.

        In any case, don't blame Apple entirely for shipping outdated or 
underfeatured versions of the various BSD tools.  At least, don't blame 



Fink-devel mailing list

Reply via email to