I'm not familiar with all of them, but I know several of them are tools. Isn't it in apple's best interest to open source the tools if people use and improve them, and subsequently it means they get more money from the app store? And if these are the only things they open source, they still have a tight fist on the vast majority of their code base.

While on the subject of apple and FOSS. They may open source some tools, but do they give back to other projects? I.e. does apple push upstream? Substantially less than google and ms. And I would go so far to say almost never.

Yup, that's why I asked. I still hate Crapple and everything they stand for, but this is good data to start doing some in-depth research. Thanks.

I have heard of Darwin, and went back to read up on it to refresh my memory. While it is considered open source, it is also useless unless it is used for Apple's closed source operating systems, as can be appreciated in this explanation:

In the beginning, Apple used to make Darwin available as a separate OS, including compiled binaries, installers, ISOs, etc. that you could install on Apple hardware. However, for many years now, Apple only provides a source code dump, every time a new release of macOS comes out. It isn't even possible to compile this source code, because it depends on Apple's internal build tools and build pipeline. There have been some projects trying to patch Darwin to compile it with publicly available tools, but those projects have all died from lack of interest.

Open Source should be compilable and able to be used, at least that's my perspective, and I just may be wrong.

Here's the article this came from on StackExchange:

https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/401832/why-is-macos-often-referred-to-as-darwin

Yeah, but that's just the kernel. Anything above that (window manager, the utilities that they didn't outright copy from BSD, apps, ...) is basically closed source.