My guess is a corporate matching gift on employee contributions.
A single employee donated and did the paperwork to get matching funds.
Prob same thing with Chevron
At least the employees feel bad lol
The first time I looked into this, I thought it was fake, but turns out I was checking the wrong year.
I appreciate them donating at all, but that's about the price of one Macbook per year - my girlfriend's most recent Macbook was $5,500
Edit: It looks like these donations may come from Apple matching donations (pdf warning)
Yeah the matching donations was the obvious answer. It's honestly a decent way to do charity as a company (obviously bigger ticket contributions are good, too), because it rewards them for their choices by increasing their value, and your contributions are going places that have some support behind them from your employees. Finding worthwhile causes that don't get money has value, but it's really hard and expensive to do.
What does one get with a MacBook that costs $5,500? Seems crazy expensive
A $2000 laptop with an Apple logo on it.
An Apple sticker from some person on Etsy sold for €10 sounds like a good deal now.
That's actually embarrassing. They could literally afford to donate millions.
I thought you were going to say that it's embarrassing to buy a $5,500 MacBook. Lol
pdf jumpscare
Unrelated to this post at all, I'm a bit out of the loop on this, is there something wrong with PDFs? Just wondering what the PDF warning is about, this just being the first I've ever seen that.
Some browsers (mobile/etc) automatically download PDFs, and PDFs have had security vulnerabilities/exploits in the past
Bold of you to assume they went for the $24 end of that range instead of the $5 end.
And yet it is still a prevalent idea in FOSS that open sourcing without restrictions on corporate use will karma back to you positively somehow.
Non-corporate FOSS should be way more popular.
It's not corporate FOSS that's the problem here, it's the BSD license. If BSD had a stronger license, Apple would be forced to give more back.
I agree it's the BSD license. That's what I mean. It's a license that places no restriction on corporate use without contribution.
The BSD argument (that I don't necessarily agree with) is that a less permissive license would encourage companies to use a different solution or build their own. I suppose this at least guarantees them a few $1000 a year depending on apple employee donations.
I mean, Linux is much less permissive to the Apple/Sony strategy of forking BSD and closing the source, and it's way more popular in every industry
The things a 2 trillion dollars company can afford.
At that point it'd be better PR for Apple not to donate at all lmao
This has no right to be that funny.
Seems appropriate for a generous pizza. You developers love pizza, right?
GNU GPL r0x
:)
Unfortunately not enough. It still allows corporate use with limited restrictions. Only derivative work that gets distributed must be open sourced, and even then, they can choose to provide source only to those requesting it in inconvenient ways (ex: come pick up the flash drive from our office).
For example, android does not require open sourcing, despite GPL'd Linux, but because it's not derivative work.
I agree with the geneal idea that one could do even more than what the GPL does, but i think it does a lot already.
On the case of Android, i think Google doesn't care too much about the kernel code itself, wouldn't mind contributing back to it if they had to, as the entire ecosystem of software around the kernel is what they use to capture users and keep control of their devices... GGL doesnt need the kernel for that, and the linux kernel is a smol drop of code in the ocean of a prison that is android...
See how Google is adverse to the use of the AGPL in their own products https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html this would in practice force them to reveal to their users how they process their data, and would probably scare them to death...
So I am not a proponent of copyright, but it seems that GPL and AGPL are pretty effective tools at discouraging corporations in some cases (not perfect though)
Yeah… Google also wrote toybox to get away from the GPL’d busybox, uses a libc based off BSD, and is trying hard to get their own kernel written in the Fuschia project that isn’t GPL…
This is why I'm fundamentally opposed to what the coreutils rewritten in Rust project is doing. And the guy who started it just claims that he's not interested in the license or legal stuff, he just picked MIT. I mean, maybe he really doesn't for all I know, but he can certainly imagine the implications of what he's doing, no? Personally, I don't believe him.
This FSF guy might sound like he's coming in to be a scold but he's absolutely correct (https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/issues/1781). We can clearly see the implications of an essential (coreutils) MIT-licensed project like in Android where it is "Linux" strictly speaking, in that it uses the kernel, but every other piece of code is some form of MIT or BSD licensed software that allows Google to, rather successfully, jail its users.
Edit: And if you want to do some reading about how this argument over licenses formed, especially with a PR campaign to support the non-GPL style ones, check out the first half of this piece about Tim O'Reilly (as in the O'Reilly books guy) https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler
thanks for the comment. it is exactly how I feel about this and similar projects.
and thanks for the edit, had an insightful read.
Also Chevron.
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
