[riotingpscifis]

1) Replace GPL code with BSD code 2) Release a subset of the features to open source community

Why would Apple be so allergic to GPL unless they want the ability to close stuff? If really you think Apple would stay open if they dominated the market look at the iPhone.

[mindcrime]

This is only "hurting free software" if you are a complete radical like rms, who believes that any closed source software is an affront to humanity, blah, blah. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what Apple closes, as everything that was Free before, is still Free afterwards. If you don't like Apple's stuff, fork it. If you don't like closed source software, don't use it. I don't see anybody putting a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to use Apple stuff.

[tedks]

This is a shallow view of the situation.

Your metric is essentially "no knowledge is lost from the Free world." However, this means that all free software developers could die tomorrow and your metric would be satisfied.

A better metric is "the most free software that could be made is made." Switching from a GPLd compiler platform to a non-copyleft "freemium" Apple platform is worse for this.

If you don't care about free software as a political goal, there is no purpose to have this discussion in the first place, as you don't care about free software being hurt.

[mindcrime]

I think you're setting up a false dichotomy here. "You care" or "you don't care". Reality is more nuanced than that. Also, the idea of "all free software developers dying tomorrow' is just hyperbole, since the chances of that happening are essentially nil.

Yes, we'd all like to maximize the amount of F/OSS software in the world. F/OSS is a Good Thing, and I founded a company based around F/OSS for a reason. But it's not this horrible tragedy / affront to humanity, if Apple (or whoever) takes a step away from a purist "Free" software position.

To put it another way: no one owes you (or me, or anybody else) a world full of all the Free software we want. And even more so when plenty of people in the world don't care about software freedom. As long as those of us who do care have the option to fork and continue development of projects, then the actual freedom remains, as far as I'm concerned.

[tedks]

> Also, the idea of "all free software developers dying tomorrow' is just hyperbole, since the chances of that happening are essentially nil.

That is exactly my point. You proposed a metric for the health of the free software culture: "Nothing that is free now is non-free in the future." This is a bad metric because if you eliminate all free software development, it reports "everything is okay."

[mindcrime]

You proposed a metric for the health of the free software culture: "Nothing that is free now is non-free in the future."

It seems to me that you're turning something analog into something binary. "Nothing that is free now is non-free in the future" is true, relative to any particular project, and is - as a worst case - not so horrible. But applying that to "free software culture" in general, as a comparison to the idea of ALL free software development stopping, doesn't sound reasonable to me. It's like you're suggesting that, say, Apple, moving away from GPL'd "Free" software towards BSD software (and possibly a "free core" model) automatically implies that everybody else does too. But that's just as likely to happen as your hypothetical of every Free software developer dying tomorrow.

[tedks]

The "every free software developer dying tomorrow" is a hypothetical statement that has nothing at all to do with Apple. It was in my comment because it's a great way to illustrate that even if things aren't explicitly subtracted from the Free world, the Free world is harmed if its growth is slowed.