# Opensource vs. Safari



## iconara (Jan 8, 2003)

So Apple has released a web browser. And a fast one. Great. And it's opensource? Great!

But wait a second.

Something seems not really right here.

Aha. Safari is NOT open source. But two of the frameworks it links to are... that's nice. But not _that_ nice. Both WebCore and JavaScriptCore are nice things to be able to use some day. But what about the application, what about Safari itself?

Apple may say that they like the open source movement, but just as long as it's providing them with free code. When it comes to sharing their own, the only go half-way.

KHTML, which WebCore is built on (and JavaScriptCore too, I assume) is licenced under the GNU Library (or Lesser) General Public Licence. That licence makes it possible to use code in proprietary applications, unlike the regular GPL which requires applications using GPL'ed code to be GPL'ed themselves (GPL is sometimes described as a "viral licence" for obvious reasons).

Had KHTML been GPL'ed Safari would have had to be GPL'ed too. Now it proprietary. I want that code so badly. I want to tinker with it, make a fullscreen button (like there was/is in Explorer for Windows) and other things, but now I can't.

I don't know if I should be glad that Apple has made a stunning browser, or mad because they have used the open source community for their own purposes. Now it's a mix between the two. I'm writing this in Safari, and I started loving it five minutes after I used it the first time. But I'm very disapointed with Apple for not making the whole application open source.

Theo/Iconara


----------



## dlloyd (Jan 8, 2003)

So, my question is: is it possible to add Tabs to Safari by editing the package using the Developer's Tools, or is it necessary to have the source code to do this?


----------



## iconara (Jan 8, 2003)

No, you can't add tabs. Period. Apple could have been nicer to us.


Theo/Iconara


----------



## dlloyd (Jan 8, 2003)

Darn. Oh well, I can live with it


----------



## zerorex (Jan 8, 2003)

With safari, apple has provided us with a fully developed and mature html rendering engine and javascript module.  Sure it would be nice for them to do all the work of putting a browser together and then provide it to us, but I just dont think its resonable to expect them too.  

Apple took the khtml rendering engine, made changes/improvements, and returned the open source code they used back to the open source comunity.  The rest of safari, is code they developed, and though it would be nice if they gave it to us, I dont think we have the right to expect them too.


----------



## scruffy (Jan 8, 2003)

zerorex - thanks for introducing some reasoned discussion.

In general, I wouldn't expect much of safari just yet, this is after all the first public beta release...


----------



## xaqintosh (Jan 8, 2003)

Since chimera is fully open sourced, couldn't you tinker with and do whatever you want to it, instead of safari?


----------



## strobe (Jan 8, 2003)

If KHTML had been GPL that would have made it more likely that Apple would have chosen to use a different code base. 

As for Safari, it's a very thin app. Most of the code is in the Frameworks. Safari doesn't offer much except a way to organize bookmarks.

It's like saying Windows was open sourced but didn't include the source to Notepad.


----------



## scruffy (Jan 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by strobe _
> *It's like saying Windows was open sourced but didn't include the source to Notepad. *



But that's the only stable program in the whole distribution!


----------



## Jason (Jan 8, 2003)

oh now i see this thread after i start messing with it lol

oh well i got half way there


----------

