Re: Patch Licensing Terms

[Coda Highland <chighland@...>]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Marc Balmer <marc@msys.ch> wrote:
>
>
>> Am 27.11.2017 um 08:53 schrieb Paige DePol <lual@serfnet.org>:
>>
>> Russell Haley <russ.haley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Big chunks of BSD code run in many OSes, including Android.
>>
>> Don't forget OSX, now once again macOS, which was derived from NeXT so the
>> core of macOS is essentially BSD. In keeping with the license there are
>
> The core of macOS, aka the kernel, is Mach, which is not BSD.  Some of its userland are BSD derived, but macOS certainly is not BSD.
>
>> parts of macOS that Apple does release the source code[1] for... like the
>> Mach kernel, for example. This has allowed the Hackintosh[2] community to
>> thrive, much to Apple's chagrin I am sure! ;)
>>
>> ~Paige
>>
>> [1] https://opensource.apple.com
>> [2] Computers that run Apple's macOS on non-Apple, but compatible, hardware.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

macOS doesn't use the Mach kernel. It uses the XNU kernel, which is a
hybrid kernel combining parts of the Mach kernel and parts of the
4.3BSD kernel. macOS uses the Darwin userland, which is a derivative
of the NeXTSTEP userland, which was built upon the BSD userland since
day one. So yes, macOS is a BSD descendant.

Apple's complaint about Hackintosh has nothing to do with
redistributing the open-source parts of the operating system -- they
have absolutely no problem with the PureDarwin project, for example.
The problem is that building a Hackintosh in the first place requires
obtaining a copy of the closed-source components of macOS in
contravention of THAT license agreement.

/s/ Adam