| |||||||||||||
Apple and KHTMLApple and KHTMLPosted May 23, 2005 0:16 UTC (Mon) by miallen (guest, #10195)Parent article: Apple and KHTML
I don't really see how anyone can fault Apple here. Of course they're going to call Quartz libraries wherever they can. If the KHTML people do not approve then they should have picked a different license. Actually isn't KHTML a spinoff of Mozilla's rendering engine? If so, how much cross pollination is there between the KHTML and Mozilla codebases?
Besides, how many Linux users also have a Mac at this point? My mini complements Linux very nicely. Linux will always be #1 when it comes to development and customization but when I just want to do regular mom-on-the-pee-cee stuff Mac rulz.
(Log in to post comments)
KHTML and Mozilla Posted May 24, 2005 13:16 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] No, KHTML is not derived from Gecko (Mozilla's rendering engine).
Apple and KHTML Posted May 27, 2005 2:52 UTC (Fri) by chowells (guest, #30173) [Link] You have completely missed the point.
As is stated in http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/view/1001 (which was linked to in the main story, khtml developes do _not_ have a problem with what Apple is currently doing, e.g. they are ful-filling the licence requirements of the LGPL. What they _do_ have a problem is with users who under estimate the amount of effort it is to take patches out of WebCore and merge them into khtml and complain when this isn't done quickly enough.
And no, khtml pre-dated Gecko.
Apple and KHTML Posted May 27, 2005 6:57 UTC (Fri) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] I don't it would be reasonable to expect Apple to keep WebCore synchronized with KHTML, but it would be reasonable for them to make the full revision history available.BTW, there is a port of WebCore to GTK, and also a port to GNUstep (although this project seems to have been abandoned).
Apple and KHTML Posted May 27, 2005 20:35 UTC (Fri) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] s/I don't it/I don't think it/
|
|||||||||||||