COMMENTARY--In the computing world we come across countless exaggerations, and listsof promises we know can never be kept. Rarely, but still too often, wecome across an instance of what can only be called the Big Lie. It's anassertion that is utterly obvious in its falsehood but that somehowencourages hope through frequent repetition.
The year's Big Lie is the assertion that Apple has embracedopen source software. Sure, Apple's next generation OS X is based onits Darwin project, which is based on the open source Mach operatingsystem. But the embrace is actually a chokehold. Apple's only interest inopen source is what it can extract, both in technology and publicity.Despite appearances, Darwin's dependence on free software doesn't indicatethat Apple has changed its self-serving attitude towards the community.Because Apple is using technology licensed without restrictions, ratherthan under the GPL commonly found in Linux software, the company can useMach code, exploit what the open source community has done, make proprietarymodifications, and give back nothing of substance. And that appears to beexactly what Apple has done.
While researching last week's column on the problems of font handling within open sourcesystems, I noted that some of those problems have their roots in Apple'sorchard. The main reason TrueType isn't supported as well under freeoperating systems as it should be is that developers fear they mightrun afoul of Apple's patents onTrueType. The folks at Apple haven't offered any clarification to theFreeType project (which is trying to improve font handling on open sourceoperating systems) or to anyone else. Because of this, TrueType supportunder Linux and FreeBSD lingers under a cloud of uncertainty.Another significant area in which Apple's actions hurt the open sourcecommunity is in its refusal to offer any open source support for itsQuickTime streaming video format. While some open source players supportAVI files, certain vital components, such as the SorensonVideo Codec that provides QuickTime's data compression, are notsupported. Apple has never released a binary player for Linux or a binarymodule for the XAnim videoand animation player, and it has no stated plans to do so. Moreover, thecompany won't allow open source programmers to make their ownSorenson-aware players.There have been rumblings from various corners to get Apple to allow the open source community to support TrueType andQuickTime, but so far the only answer has been silence. This matches myown experience with Apple's PR department. Bill Evans, Apple's mediacontact on the company's open source initiatives, replied to my initialcontact with "I will see if we are available for comment." After I sent myquestions, asking about Apple's willingness to give back to the opensource community by at least allowing support for its proprietary fileformats, Evans replied that the company had no position. While he wascertainly polite about it, the official silence was nonethelessunsettling.I can't say I'm surprised. Apple has always been a company of closedsoftware and closed hardware. It was one of the few companies to have beenboycotted by the Free Software Foundation. It may be impossible toclue the company in to the advantages of working with the open sourcecommunity rather than against it. No one outside the world of Mac advocates actually buys into the myth thatexploiting Mach represents a change in Apple's closed corporate attitude.Apple simply found a source of cheap high-quality systems software that itcould make its own without needing to give back so much as a bug fix, letalone useful software projects. Apple's approach guarantees that it won'tattract as many open source programmers as it would like to advance itscauses, such as porting Darwin to Intel CPUs. And the company's distastefor the GPL means that Apple likely won't port most open source GUIapplications, as they are based on the GPL- and LGPL-based KDE and GNOMElibraries. Such ports may not even be legal, depending on the combinationsof licenses involved.
Certainly developers who create software under BSD-type licenses know thattheir code could be sucked into proprietary systems from which they maynever see improvements. But projects based on too much taking and notenough giving won't be able to sustain themselves for long.
Maybe Bruce Perens, while onhis quest to convince IBM and HP to help the open source communitythat in turn helps them, ought to make a stop at Apple in Cupertino. SinceApple plans to leverage open source more than many mainstream computercompanies, shouldn't Apple be giving back too?Do you think Apple will give back to the open source community? Let me know in the TalkBack below.
