This guy came in here and said, "Apple sucks even more than Microsoft" or something along those lines.
----------
Or having purchased those patents...which is probably more likely.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Samsung Stepping Up Attacks on 'Free Riding' Apple in Patent Dispute
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This guy came in here and said, "Apple sucks even more than Microsoft" or something along those lines.
----------
Or having purchased those patents...which is probably more likely.
And your opinion of Apple corporate can be divorced from your opinion of Apple products. I personally do not agree with many of Apple's corporate decision regarding many issues, I still like their products.
Make no mistake, this is a community of Apple users. We all have differing levels of "involvement" into Apple. It doesn't mean we don't have all room to share this forum.
Yet, that is what was done with Webkit and wasn't released from 2003 until December 2005. KHTML is always KHTML, any additions to that in Webkit (which is what makes it Webkit, combined with the other two projects), do not need to be released. KHTML is always KHTML and it is NOT Webkit. Apple didn't need to release Webkit.
Who came up with PVA displays ? Those are a nice compromise between TN panels and IPS technology.
Looks like Samsung is lashing out like a wounded animal, not acting rationally. But then again was it rational to simply rip-off the iPhone/iPad designs in the first place? They're a criminal organization that engages in a massive bribery of the South Korean government and Apple should be rid of them.
And your opinion of Apple corporate can be divorced from your opinion of Apple products. I personally do not agree with many of Apple's corporate decision regarding many issues, I still like their products.
Make no mistake, this is a community of Apple users. We all have differing levels of "involvement" into Apple. It doesn't mean we don't have all room to share this forum.
I actually work for Microsoft, if I'm objective enough to be here and discuss Apple's corporate and product pros and cons, I'd expect a little more from someone else on this forum than just an "Apple sucks".
Apple didn't have to release the source of Webkit from 2003 until December 2005 because they didn't distribute any binaries. The GPL does not force you to release any source code as long as you don't distribute any part of the work. If you're only making changes and improvements, nothing forces you to release those until you're ready to ship your fork.
KHTML is not always KHTML, in fact, the KDE project had a big beef with Apple when Apple finally released Webkit and their modifications were close to impossible to merge back into KHTML.
And yes, Apple needed to release Webkit as open source, at the very least, the libraries which were forks of LGPL code. Otherwise they could not distribute any works based on Webkit (including never releasing Safari).
I think you need to read up some on how all this open source licensing work, you seem to be missing a few points.
They only have to use the Gallery App in the non infringing phones
----------
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Read here.
And yes, they didn't released source code before releaseing any binary as states the LGPL license
Fork Emacs, release the program and tell Richard Stallman that you don't must to release any source code.
Webkit was distributed in 2003 with OS X Panther. It was not released as open source until December 2005. I'm not missing any points here.
What I've noticed over the last 2-3 years if Apple's meteoric rise to the top of the charts has made 1000s of internet users deranged. They can't acknowledge Apple's position in:
* market cap
* tablets
* smartphones
* profits
* cash
* #1 in profit margin on PCs over $1K
* the Apple Stores being the envy of all retail and cultural meccas
* Steve Jobs considered the Thomas Edison of our time
it all combines to make them rather insane.
If it was, they were in breach of the LGPL.
EDIT : They weren't. The parts of the KDE Project used were KHTML and KJS. Apple released their source modifications of KJS renamed as JavaScriptCore with the 10.2 OS X release and they released their modifications of KHTML as WebCore with OS X 10.3, in 2003.
So you're wrong and right. Webkit itself (the meta-project) might have seen release in 2005, but the LGPL'd parts were released at the same time as Apple started distributing binaries. The LGPL doesn't allow distributing binaries without distributing the source, that is 100% sure. Apple never was in breach because they did release their source, only as WebCore and JavaScriptCore and not as the entity known as Webkit.
But WebCore and JavaScriptCore, the forks of KHTML and KJS were open source from the beginning
----------
No because the GPL parts were released
I think it all combines to show that taking time to make a quality product and approach things with an open mind is better than taking shortcuts and riding waves...and I don't feel this stems from any love for Apple, I've always felt this way - and this explains some of the religious reaction towards Apple, you either agree with this philosophy or you don't. In my opinion, those that don't are taking the wrong side but that doesn't mean I'm not open to their opinion...except in the case where they say "Apple sucks", which is just insulting to those who agree with Apple's methods.
Well, all but the last point are objective facts (if smartphones an tablets positions are market share) so I don't know whay anyone can't acknowledge
Right - which is really what I've been saying all along, portions of it need to be released, only the portions that were already created.
LGPL vs. GPL: "What you are permitted to keep private is the proprietary material that you directly link to the software. This allows you change the software, create your own personal twist, and still protect your own material."
Taking a strong stance such as "Apple needed to release Webkit" because KHTML was GPL is wrong, and that's all I'm really saying. The portions of Webkit that are not part of KHTML, in other words just about everything Apple did, are what make Webkit "Webkit".
From the article, "Apple argues that the patents in question are so basic to wireless telecommunications technology that they should be subject to FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) conditions that would require Samsung to license them to all competitors under fair and reasonable terms, which Apple does not believe Samsung has been offering in its discussions over the patents."
Obviously, they've been negotiating. Apple wants RAND, Samsung wants to charge Apple a special price or other terms. This looks very much like the Nokia case.
Sigh. Do you really think that making components is as easy as just setting up a factory? If so, can i please ask where you are from?
One could have all the factories in the world and still not be able to produce quality components. Heck, didnt both China and Japan prove that already?
(No, im not implying that everything made in China and Japan is crap. Lots was (and in the former case still is) though).
It's obvious the guy meant WebCore and not the whole Webkit meta-project. As you've stated, some libraries and frameworks that are part of Webkit are under the BSD License.
Anyway, the point is moot, the whole thing is open source.
Attention mods
Seriously? Can we please have a "Lawsuits" tab now? These lawsuits may be newsworthy, in a way, but the forum posts that follow are as useless as they are predictable. They're enjoyable for no one, and clog an otherwise fun collection of rumors and news. Let's segregate this trash from the good stuff so those who want to read about the corporate soap opera may do so, but just not on the front page.
It's a sad testament that Lawsuits requires its own section, but certainly newsworthy in its own right.
-K
Seriously? Can we please have a "Lawsuits" tab now? These lawsuits may be newsworthy, in a way, but the forum posts that follow are as useless as they are predictable. They're enjoyable for no one, and clog an otherwise fun collection of rumors and news. Let's segregate this trash from the good stuff so those who want to read about the corporate soap opera may do so, but just not on the front page.
It's a sad testament that Lawsuits requires its own section, but certainly newsworthy in its own right.
-K
Fact is nobody made a true consumer tablet market until the iPad came out. Those are facts.
It's purely speculative what would be charged. But sure, I'd pay $399 rather than $199 for an American-built iPhone, absolutely. Why not? Puts money back into the economy, helps Apple perhaps $Save money from foreign supply companies holding it hostage, provides jobs for American workers.
Ab-so-friggin-lutely, I'd pay. I know that's easy to say, but I truly believe I would.
I'm sure there are tons of others who would not; but that's exactly what's wrong with America - the Wal-Mart/Dell foreign-market syndrome. That's why we have the problems we have today. America should be ashamed of itself, as we have no one to blame but ourselves & our Companies for this disaster.
Ab-so-friggin-lutely, I'd pay. I know that's easy to say, but I truly believe I would.
I'm sure there are tons of others who would not; but that's exactly what's wrong with America - the Wal-Mart/Dell foreign-market syndrome. That's why we have the problems we have today. America should be ashamed of itself, as we have no one to blame but ourselves & our Companies for this disaster.