Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Think Safari Reader looks familiar? That's because Apple used open source Readability code
If that sounds an awful lot like the open source Readability bookmarklet we've covered on Download Squad in the past, that's because it is. The Register reports that Apple used some of the code from Readability -- originally written by Arc90 and licensed under an Apache 2 license -- in Safari Reader.
There's probably nothing legally wrong with what Apple did, because they put a tiny nod to Arc90 in the Safari license. But still it's a bit lame of Steve Jobs and Co. not to even tell the original authors of the code that they were using it.
That would give the developers something to brag about, at least. Instead, the people who made Readability were praising Apple for paying attention to web content in Safari 5, without realizing until later that it was their own code being used.
D'oh!
Comments
16
Subscribe to commentsMisturSrsJun 8th 2010 4:50PM
While they didn't make a formal acknowledgment to the company, they did put a reference to them in their license like you said. Seeing as this is open source, I don't see why anyone should get up in arms about this. Maybe I'm just reading the post wrong, but this just feels like a drama stirring article. Great to know that the Open Source community has an impact on a pretty good browser like Safari though.
toxfortwoJun 8th 2010 8:03PM
It's not even that, it's just the fact that they're acting (once again) like they revolutionized.
I think most of the credit here should go to this team, they worked incredibly hard on this, and it came out fantastic. The fact that Apple says "Safari is superior because we have this awesome tech" is simply nullified. Everyone has it, and everyone can use it.
MikeJun 8th 2010 8:21PM
Acting like they revolutionized? Did you even read their presentation of the feature?
http://www.apple.com/safari/whats-new.html
All they do is describe the feature, with absolutely nothing on how only Safari has it or anything of the sort.
nicholascronwrightJun 9th 2010 2:44AM
Very wrong! This kind of steam-roller approach is exactly why big companies like Facebook & Apple get so much stick from open source communities. Doesn't Apple have Tthe time to send 1 (just one) email and say "Hey, we're gonna 'borrow' some code!"
No...let alone consider working with the developer! Just to high and mighty for that...money warps just about all businesses eventually...
LinkJun 8th 2010 8:56PM
Web-Kit is Open-Source too.. and made by Apple.. so whats the point?
Apple share and use codes.
www.apple.com/opensource
JoePalmaJun 8th 2010 9:07PM
Yeah but instead of just sending the fixes back upstream to the KHTML project they forked. Sure it resulted in a great engine but it was a real dick move. Which is pretty much what Apple is know for.
cammarinJun 8th 2010 9:17PM
Also Darwin (the core behind Mac OS X) is open source.
benJun 8th 2010 10:23PM
@Joe Palma
They probably forked it because they wanted to push development further than what the KDE devs could handle. And it all worked out in the end because KDE is now using Webkit anyway.
DeadlyRageJun 9th 2010 12:49AM
I sense some anti-apple sentiment here. Apple bashing because of the lack of porn apps or something? o0
mcbeavJun 9th 2010 2:35AM
Google doesn't shoot Apple any credit for using the webkit engine in the chrome browser, so stop whining and shut up. It isn't like this is the first time it has happened. in fact, it happens everyday and plenty of times a day.
sharkyncJun 9th 2010 5:53AM
Just tried it with Safari 4.0.3 - works fine. Not yet sure how frequently I'll be using it though.
Name:Jun 10th 2010 5:02PM
How do you use Safari Reader? Where is it in Safari?
Name:Jun 10th 2010 5:04PM
Found it. You have to open a single post for the Reader Icon on the address bar.
Simon WrightJun 10th 2010 8:24PM
"still it's a bit lame of Steve Jobs and Co. not to even tell the original authors"
If the original authors wanted to be told, they would have added it to the license. Apple followed the letter **and spirit** of the licence to which the readability code was released.
What's the problem?
Duncan BabbageJun 29th 2010 4:43AM
If you want the "pander to my ego prior to release" treatment, release your open source software under the WhineAndComplainGPL License, which specifically requires this. If, on the other hand, you have released your Open Source software under a license that doesn't require another user to do anything of the sort, why would you complain about it later?
Open Source is fabulous—I contribute to an Open Source project myself. But if we are going to hold our Open Source licenses in such apparently high regard, the least we could do is actually read what they say and realise that people are going to actually do those things. That's not rocket science.
Duncan BabbageJun 29th 2010 4:45AM
Or what Simon said. You can't expect me to actually *read* the other comments properly, can you? :)