[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Patch Licensing Terms
- From: Coda Highland <chighland@...>
- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:00:41 -0600
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Paige DePol <lual@serfnet.org> wrote:
> My point wasn't about Apple having issues with the distribtion of the
> open-source components of the OS, but rather people running copies of macOS
> on unauthorised hardware... something Apple has always had issues with, and
> rightly so given it is their software to license as they will.
Well, yes. Apple is a hardware company, not a software company, as the
quality of many of their tools will attest. They make beautiful
physical things and shiny up the digital side to match, but
robustness... ehhhhhhh, I might be using a MacBook to type this but
it's hard to take it seriously when core developer tools have bugs
that haven't been fixed in six years.
/s/ Adam
- References:
- Patch Licensing Terms, Paige DePol
- Re: Patch Licensing Terms, Jonathan Goble
- Re: Patch Licensing Terms, Paige DePol
- Re: Patch Licensing Terms, Sean Conner
- Re: Patch Licensing Terms, Paige DePol
- Re: Patch Licensing Terms, Enrico Colombini
- Re: Patch Licensing Terms, Russell Haley
- Re: Patch Licensing Terms, szbnwer@<a href="/cgi-bin/echo.cgi?gmail.com">...</a>
- Re: Patch Licensing Terms, Russell Haley
- Re: Patch Licensing Terms, Paige DePol
- Re: Patch Licensing Terms, Marc Balmer
- Re: Patch Licensing Terms, Coda Highland
- Re: Patch Licensing Terms, Paige DePol