Open source means allowing the usage of code. Putting code under a license that does not allow any kind of usage is definitely not open source. And then why should Apple allow people to view their proprietary code when it has no intention to allow 3rd party usage? Chinese firms are already aping Apple's design. Everyone knows what they will do if they can see all the code.
Open Source only means the code is available to be seen by the general public. Free Software means you have specific rights, like the right to view, modify, and distribute the code.
A possible license could be APSL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Public_Source_License
Here's a 2002 version of their website essentially admitting as much: https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.openso...
>The OSI Certified mark is OSI's way of certifying that the license under which the software is distributed conforms to the OSD; the generic term "Open Source" cannot provide that assurance, but we still encourage use of the term "Open Source" to mean conformance to the OSD.
It’s extremely difficult to enforce this and hence, the decision.
Why doesn’t Apple just opensource iBoot? It could be under a very restrictive license; one that doesn’t allow the code to be redistributed or used by anyone in any project. The assets and tradmarks would also be protected. However, it would let people study the code — yes, some people will use that knowledge to make jailbreaks, but you know some will tell Apple.
Apple has opened projects like ResearchKit before.
I guess my hope is the iOS community would be able to take a more direct approach to contributing to platform security that we depend on. How much code has been smuggled out? Probably way more than this if it’s so easy.