Re: Blocking Gmail ads
On 16/05/2008, Gregory Seidman <gsslist+debian@anthropohedron.net> wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 09:44:50PM -0500, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
> > On 15/05/2008, Gregory Seidman <gsslist+debian@anthropohedron.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Looks like Apple did terrible harm by devoting resources to improving
> > > the functionality and releasing them to the world, eh? Oh, but it
> > > isn't getting back to KHTML quickly, you say? That sometimes happens
> > > in a code fork.
> >
> > Well, the rules (LGPL) say that they have to give back the code.
>
>
> No, they don't. They say that if you distribute something built with the
> code, you have to release the code.
That's what I meant.
> That they did it by taking it in-house
> instead of trying to convince the people who tied it to KDE that it should
> be more general is utterly irrelevant.
No, that's the whole point. Because they didn't work with free
developers, they actually created a lot of strife for KDE. They took
the code and told the kdevelopers to fork off.
> It's easy for people to take offense. Apple did what it did for business
> reasons,
Ah, here we go. I was waiting for the "profitable==ethical" slant. Whatever.
> Is it hostile to fork code? How about creating an independent, competing
> codebase (e.g. KHTML vs. Gecko)? Again, no sympathy.
Competition is good. Forking fragments efforts.
> a problem with bruised egos,
Did you read the article at all? It's not about egos. It really is
*hard* to put Webkit into KDE. Apple ignored KDE's patches, and gave
the impression that they wanted gratis employees, not collaborators.
They didn't play nice with KDE, whatever other benefits to Webkit may
bring to the world at large, but KDE got a lot of problems because of
the whole thing.
- Jordi G. H.
Reply to: