I am so sick of derivative works not supporting their native platform.
Safari and Chrome both use WebKit which started as KHTML and was developed by the awesome KDE team.
Taken from http://webkit.org/ "WebKit's HTML and JavaScript code began as a branch of the KHTML and KJS libraries from KDE."
So why is neither browser available in Linux. The only reason they can support Windows is because KDE ported everything to QT4 which supports windows. Leaving Linux out when you are stealing code from Linux projects is Lame. You can't do that with Windoes or Apple code because they are closed source. Linux being wonderfully open and free allows this. It is really frustrating that commercial entities can do this and not contribute back. By contributing back I mean create a Linux build. Linux is open and can be virtualized on any platform so it isn't like you have to buy a Linux box like you would to compile for OSX.
Yes this is a rant, and yes there are open source projects picking up the slack so that you can run both browsers on Linux. I just think there should be a new Open Source License. GNU-ScrewYou or GNU-Mirror where you are free to use the code and make derivative works, but you have to charge for it on proprietary platforms, and you must provide the source code and it must compile on open platforms or you must provide a binary for open platforms that the original project provides binaries for. This might sound like a lot, but most projects have build systems and since you can virtualize the open platforms it really wouldn't be that big of a deal.
Yes, I said it.
IF WebKit used such a license, then you would have to pay that project a royalty everytime you distribute a derivative work based on that project on a proprietary system. So apple would have to charge for safari and apple would have to pay BSD for their kernel.
Gimp on Windows would not be free.
All of the money would help support the project, and if you want to run it for free then you simply switch to an open platform like Linux or BSD.
so you want open licensing
so you want open licensing but only when it benefits you?
The use was approved by the developers
Based on the license chosen, the developers actively chose to allow their work to make computing better for everyone.
The sad fact is: Linux has hundreds of thousands of users, OS X has millions, and Windows has billions. The hard working developers now have their code on more machines than would ever have been possible without derivative works.
As a small time programmer I would be stoked to see what is happening, and my resume would immediately be more impressive.
If you are curious how charging goes, ask Opera.
As someone who uses Linux, OS X, and Windows, I would never pay for a browser or the Gimp, but I do donate to free/libre software and donate time and effort where possible.
Many projects get more support and more donation because they don't limit themselves to the Linux world.
Interesting post and I respect your views, but I think your idea would hurt open source developers more than help.
Uh, except WebKit is the
Uh, except WebKit is the closest thing we have to a pure, standards based browser and they both have insane javascript VM's...so suck it
LOL
Not saying they can't make derived works, I am just saying that there should be a fee for closed source distributions.
And yes you are right, WebKit is the closest thing to a pure standards based browser and KDE should be compensated for their work.
They built WebKit originally KHTML for KDE and Linux, not so Apple could create Safari and act like it is their shiny new baby without any mention of the source.
At least chrome gives credit where credit is due. I assume you are on a Mac since you took offense. No need to dig back, Apple is already doing that for me.
Post new comment