Apple will be among several U.S. tech giants to attend a meeting at the White House today to discuss cybersecurity and possible security threats posed by open-source software, Reuters reports.
The meeting will be held by U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and will focus on "concerns...
You must log in or register to comment.
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It’s FOSS
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
- 0 users online
- 5 users / day
- 14 users / week
- 19 users / month
- 6 users / 6 months
- 22 subscribers
- 584 Posts
- 1.24K Comments
- Modlog
this sounds like a great idea, invite the big tech corporations who make almost all their profit off of closed source software to discuss the security of open source software with the US government
considering Darwin (unix/BSD) is open source and what MacOS, iOS, watchOS, tvOS, iPadOS and bridgeOS runs on (and by law, they can’t close that source code), I can’t see Apple arguing in favor of closed source software. Assuming they don’t have an entirely new inhouse OS in the pipelines that they’re planning to replace Darwin with.
They created their own CPUs. A new OS doesnt seem out of the realm of possibility.
not to nitpick, ‘core’ parts of that cpu were licensed. not saying they didn’t do a good job with it, they certainly did.
Darwin is open source to avoid having to open source other components to macOS while still adhering to various licenses for software it depends on for. If Apple could legally close source that part of the OS they would in a heartbeat, they’ve already gone out of their way to make it nearly impossible to use by (iirc) obfuscating the compiler forcing users to reverse engineer the compiling process for newer versions of darwin.
they would if they could. which is my point. without a replacement OS in the pipes, apple would be shooting themselves by demonizing open source software in front of the government.
Mr president there’s a huge risk we’ll struggle to profit if this open-source rediculosness is allowed to get out of hand. A real hotbed of anarchy shakes head dangerous stuff.
how the conversation should go “so you fuckers were making millions off these projects you refused to support?”
Apple to cry foul when people call bullshit on their unverifiable privacy claims and prefer open, auditable, reproducible software instead.
Apple:
-create walled ecosystems
-make developers pay an pricey subscription fee to publish app on proprietary app store
-disallow alternative appstore
-extend review time for open source software as a security review (especially for security updates)
-people will then lose trust in open source software
-PROFIT
I’m assuming the “risk” is to their indiscriminate dragnet spyware
“men bileve not lyghtly hym whiche is knowen for a lyer”
Make it illegal! /s
My, what a great idea… surely these big tech corporations should know best /s
An apple, an orange and a preacher walk into a bar…
Nothing will happen from this. Apple can’t influence politics.
Or that’s at least the impression I get from reading the comments.