I think the belief is based on the fact that it was released as closed source into a world where open-sourcing languages has become the default. This implies a strongly made business case for keeping it closed source at Apple.
[IANAL]
I doubt that case is based on any whizbang technology that gives Apple a competitive advantage. I expect that the decision is based on opinions from the legal department and a risk assesment of the potential for being smacked with someone's patent portfolio. Unlike a from the ground up open source project, Apple has a lot of cash on hand and makes an attractive target for lawsuits.
Also unlike a from the ground up open source project, pull requests are a hassle because of licensing and patent issues...again all that cash makes Apple a target for lawsuits.
Finally, the fact that there is a user manual rather than a language specification suggests the possibility [but does not prove the existence] of kludgey implementation compromises for performance/compatibility/expediency reasons. Because Apple is a products company, this sort of code could be construed in a legal argument as Apple having knowledge of latent product defects.
Against all this, what is the upside for Apple? Love from the general development community maybe. But from their business practices in recent years it does not appear to be something upon which the corporation places a high value.
I doubt that case is based on any whizbang technology that gives Apple a competitive advantage. I expect that the decision is based on opinions from the legal department and a risk assesment of the potential for being smacked with someone's patent portfolio. Unlike a from the ground up open source project, Apple has a lot of cash on hand and makes an attractive target for lawsuits.
Also unlike a from the ground up open source project, pull requests are a hassle because of licensing and patent issues...again all that cash makes Apple a target for lawsuits.
Finally, the fact that there is a user manual rather than a language specification suggests the possibility [but does not prove the existence] of kludgey implementation compromises for performance/compatibility/expediency reasons. Because Apple is a products company, this sort of code could be construed in a legal argument as Apple having knowledge of latent product defects.
Against all this, what is the upside for Apple? Love from the general development community maybe. But from their business practices in recent years it does not appear to be something upon which the corporation places a high value.