>> I'd argue with your "very nice guy" a little even for OS X, though, >> since there is a substantial amount of Unix basing in the libc >> layer, which is used by much more than just the CLI; of the three >> components listed, it would have to be part of the core. > What percentage of the core would you consider to be open source?
I don't know. There are two reasons for this. (1) It depends on where you draw the line that bounds "the core". I don't consider the "core/GUI/CLI" breakup a particularly useful one, so asking me to draw it is unlikely to produce very useful results. (There are pieces, such as libc, that I would separate out as not really belonging to any of those three portions.) (2) I don't know enough about how much of OS X is open sourced anyway to answer that even if I had a clear and useful definition of "the core". Indeed, "open source" is one of those fuzzy terms that has almost as many definitions as there are people using it (though it's better than "free software", at least) - while there are some things that practically everyone agrees on, it's hard to find any two people that totally agree on where to draw the boundary lines, and indeed some people draw the line at different places in different contexts. Guessing based on what little I've heard about Darwin and what's been said in this thread, I would guess that all, or at least almost all, of "the core" is "open source", for most likely values of "the core" and "open source". /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [email protected] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
