you pick something that is free and open and you steal it, modify it slightly and then repackaged it and sell it for $2000 (the only reason people buy macbooks etc is because they have os x, if they had win7 they would just be another one in a long line of laptops)
Believe it or not, there's actually people who believe that macbooks are better hardware wise than PCs with the same specs. 0_o
Or like the design sometimes(not that it's worth that much).
tell me have you fucking appletards even opened your mac computers????
let me tell you: cpu is exactly the same and interchangeable (yes you can pick that undervoltage i5 and replaced it with one from a pc and it's the exact same shit)
ram same exact brands, same exact shit, ssd and hd drives SAME BRANDS SAME SHIT..
graphics card models nvidia amd intel exactly the same shit used in pc's. audio etc ec
motherboards made by foxconn (and yes you can't "buy" them same as you can't "buy" a asus zenbook motherboard)
the only thing that can fuck you up when you try to fix a broken mac is if the motherboard is fried lolololol trying to buy a motherboard from apple is like trying to get a stripper to blow you if you don't have coke.
apple = pc hardware + shiny boxes with beads and lights
os x = bsd + shiny boxes with beads and lights
apple consumer = gullible sheep with more money than inteligence.
Well, since the authors of the code actively chose a licence which allows proprietary companies to take the code, modify it and not return those modificatons then it can hardly be called stealing as it's exactly what is allowed by the licence.
Chances are that the code authors 'hope' that code enhancements be returned but they obviously don't require it. I personally think BSD/MIT-style licencing is generous to a fault, and for some code I find it to be a great licence, for others (mainly large collaborative projects involving lots of companies or full applications) not so much.
But my personal opinion is of no consequence, it's the choice of licence made by the code author(s) that matters. Those choosing to licence their code as BSD/MIT or any other permissive licence are (most likely) well aware of the fact that they may never see any return of any code improvements made.
It's their code, their choice, and using that code in accordance with the licence cannot be called 'stealing'. An exploiting douchebag...? perhaps
Hope you didn't misunderstand, I neither have any Apple product nor do I find them better in any way.
But I've found both on the internet and in real life that some people [wrongly] believe that Apple hardware has better quality/durability or something, even though it's the same model also used in PCs actually. And practically the same in everything.
Often underclocked on Macs though ..
Also I think they use rebranded ARM processors on their iPads. I mean they're ARM, but they're called Apple-something ..
Please relax, don't get upset.
"Well, since the authors of the code actively chose a licence which allows proprietary companies to take the code, modify it and not return those modificatons then it can hardly be called stealing as it's exactly what is allowed by the licence."
hence why bsd is and will always remain a pile of fail.
but what abou the oher stuff that apple has stolen like x11, etc... those are released with a gpl license right? so how come you never seen ANY commits from apple ?