Apple Releases Update to Mac OS X Lion Developer Preview 2

[KnightWRX]

Bash is under the GPL license - not GNU. Never has been GNU see source link -> http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-106/

BTW - No part of MacOSX is distributed under GNU licensing...

Uh ? GNU is a project, not a license. GNU stands for GNU's Not Unix. It includes things like the GNU Libc, Bash, Emacs, a full OpenSTEP implementation known as GNUStep and various fileutils. It also includes licensing, like the GPL for instance.

This GNU project that includes amongst many things Bash and the GPL license were launched by the Free Software Foundation and Richard M. Stallman as part of the man's vision of software freedom.

Don't correct me if you aren't at least going to provide factual and true information. Again, I know what I meant and I know this stuff as I've been dabbling in it for the last 12 years if not more.

Here are some links you might find interesting if you really want to learn about this stuff, none of these will be on Apple.com (please don't use Apple.com to prove points about Free Software) :

GNU GPL : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
List of GNU projects : http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/ (notice Bash)
An explanation of the GNU project : http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html

So to correct your post which attempted to correct mine : Bash is a GNU sub-project that is licensed under the GPL. Thank you, I knew all of that already. And technically, you're quite wrong, every GPL package that Apple ships is under GNU licensing since the GPL is a GNU project license.

 

[samcolak]

Uh ? GNU is a project, not a license. GNU stands for GNU's Not Unix. It includes things like the GNU Libc, Bash, Emacs, a full OpenSTEP implementation known as GNUStep and various fileutils. It also includes licensing, like the GPL for instance.

This GNU project that includes amongst many things Bash and the GPL license were launched by the Free Software Foundation and Richard M. Stallman as part of the man's vision of software freedom.

Don't correct me if you aren't at least going to provide factual and true information. Again, I know what I meant and I know this stuff as I've been dabbling in it for the last 12 years if not more.

Here are some links you might find interesting if you really want to learn about this stuff, none of these will be on Apple.com (please don't use Apple.com to prove points about Free Software) :

GNU GPL : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
List of GNU projects : http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/ (notice Bash)
An explanation of the GNU project : http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html

So to correct your post which attempted to correct mine : Bash is a GNU sub-project that is licensed under the GPL. Thank you, I knew all of that already. And technically, you're quite wrong, every GPL package that Apple ships is under GNU licensing since the GPL is a GNU project license.

I can read Wiki too...

GPL is a license. GNU is a foundation. I corrected as to the licensing terminology..

Per your 12 years, trump - my 25...

 

[KnightWRX]

I can read Wiki too...

GPL is a license. GNU is a foundation. The guy i quoted said about GNU - i corrected him as to the licensing terminology..

I didn't read any Wikis. None of my links are to wikis. And again, you're wrong. GPL is a license. GNU is a project. The Foundation behind this project is the FSF, the Free Software Foundation.

The guy you quoted was me. You didn't correct me at all, you posted a ton of wrong information.

And licensing terminology ? I didn't even get it wrong. I said Bash was part of the GNU project, you said "No, Bash isn't GNU, it's GPL", which is both very wrong and quite misunderstands the terminology used by the FSF.

Look, you were wrong, drop it, you're only digging yourself deeper into your hole here.

 

[samcolak]

I can read Wiki too...

GPL is a license. GNU is a foundation. I corrected as to the licensing terminology..

Per your 12 years, trump - my 25...

By the way - openstep is an evolution of nextstep when next went "open source". it may of been put of the GNU license, but it wasnt there back in 1984 when it all started... Per Saiman, If you know WHY he left MIT in the first place (after all you might want to read the whole wiki), youd know what was going through his mind in the creation of GNU.

Lastly, the Minix kernel came from Posix. So the path Posix->Minix->Linux is valid.

 

[samcolak]

I didn't read any Wikis. None of my links are to wikis. And again, you're wrong. GPL is a license. GNU is a project. The Foundation behind this project is the FSF, the Free Software Foundation.

The guy you quoted was me. You didn't correct me at all, you posted a ton of wrong information.

And licensing terminology ? I didn't even get it wrong. I said Bash was part of the GNU project, you said "No, Bash isn't GNU, it's GPL", which is both very wrong and quite misunderstands the terminology used by the FSF.

Look, you were wrong, drop it, you're only digging yourself deeper into your hole here.

Go look at Apple source repository for OSX 10.6 -> http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-106/ - states GPL LICENSE -> i said License -> GNU evolved into a foundation -> started off as a project.

Enjoy your day & easter

 

[KnightWRX]

By the way - openstep is an evolution of nextstep when next went "open source". it may of been put of the GNU license,

Stop it please, you're hurting me... OpenStep is a specification of which GNUStep is a GPL licensed implementation released by the GNU project. Foundation and Cocoa are the NeXTSTEP acquired implementations that Apple is using.

OpenSTEP is not licensed under a GNU project license at all...

Lastly, the Minix kernel came from Posix. So the path Posix->Minix->Linux is valid.

POSIX is not a kernel. It's a standard programming interface that UNIX systems used to make sure that one program written for a UNIX system would compile another as long as the standard was followed.

Minix, while being a POSIX compliant OS, was a complete implementation done by Andrew Tannenbaum for a book he was writing.

Your grasp of all of this history is quite muddied. Seriously, who are you trying to convince here ? You've gotten about every fact wrong about this whole thing. The plain fact remains, I was right all along, your correction was quite wrong when you said :

Bash is under the GPL license - not GNU. Never has been GNU see source link -> http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-106/

BTW - No part of MacOSX is distributed under GNU licensing...

You completely misunderstood my post when I said Bash was part of the GNU project. Bash has always been GNU, always will be. The GPL is very much "GNU licensing".

Enjoy easter yourself and use the days off to work on your grasp of the whole UNIX and open source histories.

GNU evolved into a foundation

From GNU.org :

The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop the GNU operating system, a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software—software which respects your freedom.

Again, the Foundation is called the FSF, from their site, FSF.org :

What we do :
...
We drive development of the GNU operating system and maintain a list of high-priority free software projects to promote replacements for common proprietary applications.

Stop getting it wrong, we're on the Internet, the sites are there to correct you.

 

[samcolak]

Coincidentally, a couple of days ago was recompiling the kernel and it appeared that OpenDarwin (DarwinBuild) was directing the latest plists to a 10.7 kernel.

Completely wiped out my MBP and as a result, no joy whatsoever in bless'ing the System as all. You have any experience in the past re the Darwin build process?

 

[samcolak]

Stop it please, you're hurting me... OpenStep is a specification of which GNUStep is a GPL licensed implementation released by the GNU project. Foundation and Cocoa are the NeXTSTEP acquired implementations that Apple is using.

OpenSTEP is not licensed under a GNU project license at all...



POSIX is not a kernel. It's a standard programming interface that UNIX systems used to make sure that one program written for a UNIX system would compile another as long as the standard was followed.

Minix, while being a POSIX compliant OS, was a complete implementation done by Andrew Tannenbaum for a book he was writing.

Your grasp of all of this history is quite muddied. Seriously, who are you trying to convince here ? You've gotten about every fact wrong about this whole thing. The plain fact remains, I was right all along, your correction was quite wrong when you said :



You completely misunderstood my post when I said Bash was part of the GNU project. Bash has always been GNU, always will be. The GPL is very much "GNU licensing".

Enjoy easter yourself and use the days off to work on your grasp of the whole UNIX and open source histories.




From GNU.org :



Again, the Foundation is called the FSF, from their site, FSF.org :



Stop getting it wrong, we're on the Internet, the sites are there to correct you.

Ok maybe you are drinking a bit too much coke, so calm down a little - I said the Bash was under the GPL license - this is correct. You are equally correct in saying its under GNU (i just clarified in saying GPL). My mistake in saying you were wrong.

2. I said the GNU was a project started in 1984 - we both agree on this.

3. The FSF (a foundation) was what GNU evolved into - we both agree on this.

4. Per Bash, i never said it wasnt part of GPL/GNU - it is - I agree.

5. OpenStep is the open source repository of NextStep - per GNUstep, couldnt care less.

My unix history is pretty clear but thanks for the heads up.

 

[samcolak]

Stop it please, you're hurting me... OpenStep is a specification of which GNUStep is a GPL licensed implementation released by the GNU project. Foundation and Cocoa are the NeXTSTEP acquired implementations that Apple is using.

OpenSTEP is not licensed under a GNU project license at all...



POSIX is not a kernel. It's a standard programming interface that UNIX systems used to make sure that one program written for a UNIX system would compile another as long as the standard was followed.

Minix, while being a POSIX compliant OS, was a complete implementation done by Andrew Tannenbaum for a book he was writing.

Your grasp of all of this history is quite muddied. Seriously, who are you trying to convince here ? You've gotten about every fact wrong about this whole thing. The plain fact remains, I was right all along, your correction was quite wrong when you said :



You completely misunderstood my post when I said Bash was part of the GNU project. Bash has always been GNU, always will be. The GPL is very much "GNU licensing".

Enjoy easter yourself and use the days off to work on your grasp of the whole UNIX and open source histories.




From GNU.org :



Again, the Foundation is called the FSF, from their site, FSF.org :



Stop getting it wrong, we're on the Internet, the sites are there to correct you.

Lastly - yes you are correct re POSIX - my bad.

 

[KnightWRX]

4. Per Bash, i never said it wasnt part of GPL/GNU - it is - I agree.

Look, I'll just ignore you. Your knowledge of all of this is lacking and now you're backtracking. To answer that specific point. Yes, you did say Bash wasn't part of the GNU licensing, quite clearly showing you have no understanding of the situation :

Bash is under the GPL license - not GNU. Never has been GNU