Slashdot Mirror
Apple Updates The APSL
i, Mac writes: "Apple just updated the APSL to version 1.2, removing most (if not all) of the requirements that irked the Open Source community. You no longer need to distribute modifications made for personal use, you no longer need to notify Apple of your modifications when you distribute them, and the suspension of the license clause now reads more clearly - See for yourself: " The FSF has a response to the previous iterations of the license if you're curious.
The whole rationale behind second source requirements is that you won't be left holding the bag if a company fails to deliver. In the world of corporate purchasing, it is a great comfort to know that if Dell stumbles, Compaq is there to pick up the slack. Your investment in software is secure. No one is there to pick up the slack for Apple. If Apple falls behind in deliveries, you are hung out to dry until they can catch up. If Apple goes under completely, you are tanked.
No, dipshit. If Apple has copyright on the code, it can link it with whatever it likes, and re-license it however it chooses.
It is just good buisness sense.
Good "buisness" sense maybe, but for anything else (including "business") it's fucking stupid.
Sorry to intrupt all the license symantics discussions but I am *extatic* about this. This means that Apple's Darwin Streaming Server might just become truely free. Somthing I have been praying for every night. Thank you Apple and thank you to everyone that has helped this to happen. --a
Here is the most important part: if you link your program with APSL code, and then redistribute it, you must provide the source code with the executable which you distribute, and the combined work must be put under either the GNU GPL (general public license) or the APSL. The choice between the two is up to you. And of course nothing prevents you from distributing your program under both licenses simultaneously (like Larry Wall does with Perl).
When he killed the clone makers, he effectively killed Apple in the corporate world.
I don't see the connection. The Apple clone manufacturers positioned their products as replacements to Apple's. They weren't supplementing the Mac and expanding market share, the clone makers appropriated Apple's market thus sucking off their profits. I'd have written your message years earlier if Jobs let the clone makers live.
Regarding the stock, all techs are in the toilet, especially computer manufacturers after saturating the market. It's a symptom of an ailing industry, not specifically related to Jobs' performance.
As to OSX, never used it. Somehow I imagine Apple has found a way to abstract the complexities of Mach/BSD/whatever to virtual nonexistence in the five billion years during OSX's development (through Copland to Rhapsody to X).
...except for the fact that the iMac came out almost a year after Apple killed the clones
I don't know who modded my post as a troll, but perhaps you should think that a reasoned post is not meant as a troll but as criticism.
Doesn't the GPL contain exceptions for linking with "system libraries" which would be the BeOS code it conflicted with?
--
So don't use GPL'd software in your apps. He who rights the code chooses the license - you don't like that person's license, don't use their code.
Be aware, that under copyright, unless you license your code, default copyright says others can't redistribute (they can copy for personal use, and make changes for personal use). Also, by default, when you write code, it's copyrighted. Thus, without some kind of license (or explicitly making it public domain), no one can use your stuff in code they distribute. So, if you truly don't care, attach a disclaimer stating that you're PD'ing the code.
Dont you just miss they days when people just released the software as OSS and you could do with it what you will. I mean I guess the BSD lic is close to that that but this is getyting out of hand.
How many of these do we need?
GPL 1,1.2,2,3
LGPL
MPL
IBM
BSD
QPL
And so on I mean come on already
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
Many, many corporate and governmental puchasing guidelines require that a second source be available.
That may be true, but Sun and IBM seem to do okay with their enterprise server products regardless.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
If a company chooses to use my code in one of their products, I expect some form of compensation, preferably in the form of updates and improvements to my code. The GPL forces them to do this, the BSD license simply doesn't protect my rights.
Secondly, if my understanding of the GPL is correct, you can still link GPLd code into a closed source binary if you don't need to make any modifications to the GPLd source, and/or if you release any modifications that you make to the GPLd code. (I think that the only people who'd have a problem with this are nutcase zealots like RMS).
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Consider the case of Kerberos.....
Do you think this is right?
What to *YOU* think of people who don't follow others copywrites?
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
For software, at least, I have seen heavy dependence on one vendor. Take away WIndows, and companies would crumble. Take away Microsoft Office, and companies would be brought to their knees.
And it's not just Microsoft products either. Companies have heavy investment (monetary and intellectual) in say, Lotus Notes. Relational Database vendors, Development environments, source control systems, meeting scheduling software. One source. If they fail to deliver, or you want to replace them, you are screwed.
I realize this is off-topic. Any gut feel as to what percentage of Government and private industries have such a policy?
Secondly, isn't Apple considered a second source supplier for desktops a la Compaq or Dell? If Dell fails to deliver, you can bring in more Macintoshes. If Apple fails to deliver, you can bring in more Dell machines. If MS Office or photoshop or Notes is late for Windows, you could get the MacOS version or vice versa.
Getting closer to being on-topic: Apple initiated clones to increase the market share of MacOS hosted systems. The market share of MacOS hosted systems didn't grow, but Apple's market share of hardware decreased. I have no hard numbers to prove this, but I expect most people accept that as fact.
Finally, to be on topic completely, let me just say that I think it is great that Apple is changing it's license based on criticisms from the OpenSource community. Based on the things they've said, I believed they understood the concept of Open Source. Others were not so easily convinced.
No, the GPL is concerned with forcing open other code. It is concerned with telling me that I can can't use GPL code unless I am willing to GPL my entire application. So I have a choice: release under GPL, or reinvent the wheel. I've done both, myself, but I really don't like the choice, either be forced to release GPL because I have no other option, or take the inefficient route of rewriting code I could have reused. (This is the viral nature that you deny; you claim it keeps software in the OSS community. What, if MS incorporates BSD code it will suddenly disappear from millions of computers? The difference between GPL and BSD is that GPL will infect other code, thus forcing the choice.)
My morality never lets me just take the easy way out and use the GPL. It is just better to rewrite it and remove the virus. I think people will sooner or later wake up to what the GPL is, and see that it is in fact slavery and not freedom at all.
"Please, please work on OS X and help us to finally ship this turkey, errr I mean this genius product! I'll be good, I 'll change the ASPL! Please, my stock isn't worth shit at this point and I need your support. Err, I mean I am very interested in supporting the Open Source Community, what's good for Apple is good for all (especially my portfolio). HELP!""
Hey, you think your house is cool?
The GPL only seems to infect everything it touches. If you want to use GPLed code but can't be GPL-compatible, nothing prevents you from contacting the author of the code for permission. Well, at least for smaller projects with easily reachable authors. For code that has hundreds of authors, some deceased, this might be more difficult.
dan
Just because the GPL doesn't grant certain privileges, that's no reason you can't obtain them anyway. Ask the code's author.
The existence of the GPL makes it easy for people to license their code under a certain set of terms. Just because those terms don't include the terms you want, that doesn't make it infectious. It's only an infection if you're too lazy to ask the author of the code for the permissions you want (that aren't included in the GPL), or if authors who are too lazy to answer their email fail to give permission for uses they would have deemed acceptable. If the author of the code would never say no to such a request, then sure, they should have released their code under a more permissive license. If they ever say no, then the GPL is actually protecting something they consider important. If the author is unreachable, then you have to accept their choice of the GPL at face value -- those are exactly the permissions they intended to grant.
Why are corps always making up new software licenses for their 'open-source' projects? Why not just use the proven GPL or BSD license with minor changes where necessary?
:-)
They have to do something with all those lawyers. Be thankful. We just saw a rare occurrence of a corporate entity doing something that made some kind of sense.
I could care less if they used a stock license or paid a bunch of IP lawyers to write their own open source schtick. Maybe Apple really *does* want to be as innovative with software as they have been, lately, with their hardware. It's been a long enough wait.
Don't forget NIH Syndrome, which was invented at Apple.
But... if that were true, then no-one else would be using it, because it wouldn't have been invented there.
It's not that GPL code used in a closed program will cause all other instances of that code to vanish. It's that the origional developer of that code wanted it to STAY public for viewing and criticism. The closed program maker wants to use the resources of the GPL-licensing developer while not contributing their modifications (good or bad) back to the developer.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
You have one very secret option - use Lua - a great language for writing programs fast. http://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/lua/ This will do all that you ask and much more :-) and the license is just plain free (real free) not GPL "free" - Do whatever you want with the source.
On the other hand, Apple's agreement probably is.
"Quiet enjoyment" is a term of art under the law. I'll let you look it up yourself. I'd suggest Black's Law Dictionary, or a google search. UCITA (that evil, bad law) implies a warranty of quiet enjoyment for software consumers. Smart vendors (like Apple) disclaim that warranty because it is not in their best interest to grant it to you. It's not like Apple's the only one, y'know.
BTW, your comment is the equivalent of a lawyer looking at some code and saying "Hey, look how stupid this coder is, he said '==' instead of just '='."
Aren't you glad I straightened that out for you?
The GPL is so hopelessly mired in ambiguity that it will never hold water in court. Believe it or not, there's a reason lawyers get paid big bucks.
I find it ironic that the anti-lawyer types that take contracts into their own hands generally resort to obfuscated, archaic and logically incoherent drafting.
The GPL is a document written by people "playing lawyer." It will never serve its purpose after a challenge in the courts.
That's why Apple wrote its own contract, dude.
That argument against Apple is probably the most laughable. Has anyone noticed that the most serious shortcomings in modern computers are NOT the hardware, but the software? When was the last time your server crashed because the hard drive failed? How much more recently did you get a BSOD? That's one ridiculous argument I hope I never hear again, as it is an extreme insult to the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
Lose essential liberties to get temporary safety = get only hassles and security theater.
AAAAHHH!!!!
It's CHOWDAH!! Say it right!
I'll kill you! I'll kill all of you, especially those of you in the jury!!!
:)
- MFN
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
No, there's another problem.
If Darwin would be GPL, they couldn't base Quartz on it, because it's closed source. And the last thing Apple will do is opening Quartz/Aqua.
if incompatible means they cant use each others code, why is gnutar included in the default install of mosx?
the animal doesnt even have opposable thumbs, focker!
I hear Macromedia has a new license.
12.1Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate:
(c)automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple.
I can't see why a good attorney would allow an organization which owned patents to become dependent on any APSL software given this clause. Suppose Apple _does_ infringe one of the organization's patents; this clause denies it any recourse. The effect is that if one is dependent on APSL software then one has granted Apple a permanent royalty-free license to all one's patented intellectual property.
Tim
Also, why's it so bad and/or surprising if the GPL is "viral"? One would assume that RMS has sufficient belief in the GPL and the freedoms it provides to desire its widespread use; it seems to me that the GPL has reached a sufficient critical mass in terms of its use that it is effectively viral, and the constraints that it contains have contributed in no uncertain terms to this effect. As you suggest, there may be ways around it, so to speak, but I would guess that the GPL's viral nature is there by design. And a bloody good job it's doing, too.
I dont understand all this liscensing (prolly spelled wrong) bs. I mean if you are going to release the source code, then do it. Dont put all these stipulations on it. I know people will say that others can just recompile it and change the name and then re-sell it. So What, if you are afraid of that dont release your code.
Every program I've ever written came with source code. No GPL ever. If I make a program for the open source community let them have it. If some moron just renames it I dont care, even under the GPL what can I do, sue him. All this world need is to support more lawyers.
I dis-regard every liscense. All these companies saying "by using this software you are agreeing..." blah blah blah. I'll use whatever code or software I can find to write a program I need. I mean If Apple uses a "FOR" loop and I change that to a "WHILE" loop, I had to report it to them. Um Yea, OK. I know they changed it since but that was just stupid.
I will continue to ignore all this bs liscense info and write software that will benefit everyone. I dont care if I get credited or not, I didnt write it to boost my ego, I wrote it to help others. I will never release any source with any liscense attached to it.
Thank you, and have a good night!
Lord Arathres
stainless steel
This is an issue of semantics. The problem is comparing copyleft, which is a specific license, with copyright, which is a more general abstract legal principle.
There are multiple laws and precedents that frame what copyright (currently) is. There are two specifically worded licenses that make up copyleft (GPL & LGPL).
A better comparison would be between copyleft/GPL and any other specific license for software use. Like, say, the MS click-wrap license for VisualBasic. Or the license that MS agreed to with Spyglass for the Mosaic code. Those licenses have *plenty* of restrictions in them. You could easily describe the huge chunk of change that MS has had to pay Spyglass for even the *free* copies of IE as being a symptom of that license's "viral" nature.
And if you use some other piece of code that is under a different license, you have to follow the rules and restrictions of THAT license.Using GPL code (that may possibly have it's copyright assigned to the FSF) does not necessitate that you assign your copyright to the FSF.
The interplay here is that copylefted items are *still copyrighted*. Copyleft (the GPL) just inverts the usual restrictions that licenses typically place on copyrighted work.
A more precise, but clunkier title would have been:
copyleft no more viral than other license restrictions built on copyrights
In a related story, the IRS has recently ruled that the cost of Windows upgrades can NOT be deducted as a gambling loss.
Why are corps always making up new software licenses for their 'open-source' projects? Why not just use the proven GPL or BSD license with minor changes where necessary?
Do you think this is right?
Who controls your computer--you, or some corporation that wants only to suck money out of your wallet and will provide the lowest level of quality sufficient to keep the money coming in?
Unfortunatly, no open-sorenson from Apple.
Because Apple doesn't own sorenson, they just use it in Quicktime. Sorenson is actually owned by Sorenson Media, Inc.
It doesn't matter how open Apple feels, you need to convince Sorenson Media itself that you want it.
On to the Off-Topic rant, while I understand there is some animosity towards Quicktime for not being distributed on Linux, I really have to say it's a great technology. Both WMP and Real lock you into using their own software, litigate like mad whenever anyone else decodes their own formats, etc, on and on...
Quicktime supports a huge number of formats (and for $30, lets you encode many of them, which is a real deal!), many of which are supported by Real and WMP through the Quicktime install itself. I also find the Player application is just so much nicer to use than either WMP or Real. Your not bombarded with adds, and while some people (mostly MacOS User Interface advocates) decry the interface, it is MUCH less offensive than either Real or WMP, especially with the improvments made in the upcoming Quicktime 5.
using lower gpl solves the problem of 'corrupting' apple proprietry code while achieving gpl-compatability. Where is the flaw in this reasoning?
L - I - C - E - N - C - E - S
(and if you call me british I'll shoot you repeatedly in the knees)
From the end of the license:
The Original Code and all software distributed under the License are distributed on an 'AS IS' basis, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AND APPLE HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, QUIET ENJOYMENT OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. Please see the License for the specific language governing rights and limitations under the License."
The bold is mine. I am reminded of the bit from another Apple license advising not to use their machines to run nuclear power plants. I wonder if the same attorney wrote it?
Heh. This makes no sense, especially given the stated goals of the FSF, which I believe include either the end of copyright or major changes to it. Thus, the GPL is suicidal from the start.
;). People are. Code isn't an organism. People are. While our task is to preserve ourselves, our code only has the tasks we give it. Anyway, I still fail to see how code can just vanish from the desktops of all the people who have it when one company decides to incorporate BSD code into proprietary programs. That's the GPL myth: that if open code can be used in closed code, it becomes unfree. GPL denies the reality that that code is still "free" to whomever else has that code. GPL only concerns itself with the guy who wants to keep it closed. Why? Because the GPL is viral and the FSF wants to infect that guy's code and make it GPL too!
But your whole analogy is flawed. Code isn't sentient (yet
Don't anthropomorphize a license. It's a bunch of legal words.
This is a valid reason to use the GPL, in my opinion.
But it doesn't reflect the high and mighty ideals expressed by many supporters of the GPL -- that it makes people and code more free.
This reason makes the GPL a contract between you and anyone who wants to use it: If you use this, be nice and share back.
But let me ask this question: wouldn't this work without the viral part of the GPL? Wouldn't this work if there were simply a requirement that open code that is modified must have its modifications/improvements returned back to the community, but if it is part of a closed whole the closed whole may remain?
(Something like the last part of what you said)
I don't know a lot about the LGPL so I can't respond to that last paragraph.
No, I'm not pissed off. My original post had to do with the utility of code. GPL limits the utility of the code except to people who want to play in the same sandbox. The greatest utility is in a license that simply says "You can use your code for anything you want, as long as I have that same right and we don't sue each other regarding the code."
I don't think you understand me. Let's say I have "powerCheckout.class" that is a GPL object. Now let's say I'm writing a online store application that will be closed-source "NotOpenStore."
I decide to use powerCheckout.class in my application, making improvements to that class while I integrate it into my application.
Everything everyone has ever told me about the GPL is that I would have to release all of the code of "NotOpenStore" in order to use powerCheckout.class as part of my code.
What I'm talking about, rather, is a license that says: "If you use my code, you're probably going to modify it or improve it. Please share back your modifications/improvements _to my code_ with the community."
As I understand the GPL, it requires me to share back not only the GPL code I modified and improved but also share my own _unrelated, non-GPL_ code (which by necessity to use that class becomes GPL), which heretofore had not been licensed. Do you see what I mean? With the GPL, its viralness is in that, not in the "share back your improvements" idea.
IIRC (and this is just gathered tenth-hand, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong) but Apple didn't invent and doesn't own the Sorensen codec- they license it too. So, they don't have a choice as far as being able to open it or not- that's up to the owners, who understandably don't want to do that as long as Apple is still paying them large fistfuls of cash for it. What Apple (should|could|won't until the cold day in hell) do is move away from Sorensen to a codec that is open, or that they could open.
IAAL,BIANLY
There's a lot of GPLed software out there, and it's not possible to mix and match GPLed and APSLed code in a single program. For example, you may not port device drivers between (GPLed) Linux and (APSLed) Darwin without special permission from the copyright holders.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
#ifdef GENERAL_COMMENT
Too many arguments about software licensing are made in ignorance. If you're going to make a comment on RMS's position on anything, make sure you understand it. It's not hard. Think what you like about the man, he has a talent for expressing himself clearly, logically, and succinctly.
#endif
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I don't dispute that the GPL is under scrutiny and debate - but I'm yet to come across suggestions for making it non-viral. This, in some ways, actually causes problems - I remember a while back someone who wished to port / release (sorry, can't remember which) a GPL'd system library to BeOS. As BeOS isn't GPL'd (or GPL compatible) it was actually illegal for that to be done...
While it remains viral, I can't see that it's playing nice by any stretch of the imagination. I can see exactly the argument about weight of licensed code but that only makes it the PRACTICAL thing to do, not the RIGHT thing to do. Bit of a difference.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
No, I'm sorry, that's wrong.
If I want to take a piece of GPL'd code (say a library) and integrate it into my application, I have to license the application under a GPL-compatible license. Boom - infection. If I want to do the same thing with some BSD code, I don't have to release that under BSD - I could release it under anything, GPL included.
Looking at the title, that's wrong as well. Integrating a part of a copyrighted work into a public domain work by no means transfers the whole to the copyright of the original copyright holder. It's not necessarily entirely public domain either but it's considerably less viral than the GPL approach.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Since sales have sharply dropped, Apple is doing whatever it takes to get people to buy their stuff
What does have to do with the ASPL? I know you're not suggesting that Apple changed the ASPL because of sales figures.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
if i read about any more 'new' licenses, im gonna have a buffer overflow.
Chaos, Mayhem, and Destruction: Not
I think I Mac's problem stems from a critical misunderstanding of the license. You only need to give these said rights to the people who you give binaries to. Yes, those other people can then redistribute your code... But that's part of the GPL's purpose, to encourage sharing.
It also lets you sell your code - look at what TrollTech now does with Qt for an example.
-RickHunter
Remember, true open source is about an open mind, not just about an open license.
The rough edges that remain left are license compatibilities, I guess. Despite of what most people claim here, RMS is right by seeing GPL incompatibility as an issue. Because the more compatible the Open Source licenses are, the better we can share code. And the BSD guys can claim what they want here - and be right -, but the GPL family of licenses do serve a good case and serve it well.
Agreed, it is hard for a license to be GPL compatible because of the restrictions set up in it. But that wouldn't be a problem if it was agreed upon to be the Golden Standard fo copyleft licenses (blerk
Geekers, that would be an easy world to live in...
So in fact, I am unsure about the new APSL's compatibilities, and I hope that it can be clarified sooner or later. But for now:
Even then, still to solve is the riot between OSI and SPI
It's... It's...
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
i think you have misunderstood what free software is and who makes it. What do you think the letters FSF stands for ??
Free Software Foundation ??
I think so, but i'm sure you can check at www.gnu.org
Free software is software that is GPL'ed.
RMS specificialy says that Apple understood open software, but not free software. So, you, like many others, missunderstood free/open source.
RMS and FSF wants to ensure that if you use some of their work, and create something smart, that they can use your extensions, and thats why they want you to GPL.
If you arent happy with that, you can make your own license, used a BSD alike, or make it public domain.
ion++
The GPL says, "You can only use this code if you give up control of your own code to the GPL community."
No, it says, "You may only use this GPL code if you give other people the same rights to use your code." (It's a recursive license. I like recursion.)
You may be pissed off that someone has said "you can use my code, but only if I can use yours," but you don't need to play with those people. It's a free world -- you can certainly go out and find people who play under the rules you like; if no-one plays with rules you like, perhaps you should spend some time figuring out why your rules don't work, either, instead of bitching about someone else's rules.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
You were modded a troll because you made it so painfully obvious you've either not read anything by anyone who has any insight into the GPL, or you've chosen to ignore everything you do know.
Anyone who says, "The GPL's chief goal is its viral nature, not its copyleft. The BSD license is just as good at keeping code open and it is not viral." clearly has no idea what the copyleft is, or what distinguishes it from the BSD license. Moreover, since you apparently have access to the internet, and enough time to post on slashdot, you have access to all the documentation you would ever need to enlighten yourself.
Since you've chosen not to, you're either a troll or a blissful ignoramus. It is possible to have a rational discussion about the copyleft. It's clear you're not interested in having one.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
This reason makes the GPL a contract between you and anyone who wants to use it: If you use this, be nice and share back.
But let me ask this question: wouldn't this work without the viral part of the GPL?
Of course not -- that is the viral part of the GPL. The part of the GPL you seem to be protesting is the one that gives others the right to use your code if and only if they are willing to "share back." If they don't want to share, they don't get the code. You're essentially asking, "can't I get the viral part, without the viral part?"
Wouldn't this work if there were simply a requirement that open code that is modified must have its modifications/improvements returned back to the community, but if it is part of a closed whole the closed whole may remain?
That is exactly what the GPL already does! That is the viral part of the GPL. Which do you want? The viral bit? Or not the viral bit? You can modify GPL code all you want. And as long as you don't distribute anything, you're under no obligation to release anything. But once you open up the code, and distribute it, it has to go back to the community.
I'm pretty sure at this point that you're definately trolling. You keep saying "I want the part of the GPL where people are forced to share if they want my code, without the part where they're forced to share if they want my code!" You're babbling nonsense, and I'm just feeding you right back. Sigh...
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
The part about immediate termination of the license if you sue Apple is still in there, unfortunately. Other than that, it looks a lot better.
Section 12.1 c (You may not sue Apple for patent infingement) is probably unenforcable, so by section 12.1 b (aka 13.5 b) the license terminates. Note that Apple can engineer termination of the license at any time by letting a lawyer discover an unenforcable condition in the license.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
That's not a very convincing argument, especially considering that hundreds of other corporations have want to, and done, the same thing. Why wouldn't apple just used the BSD or LGPL license? They are less restrictive than the GPL and are, again, time-tested.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
au contrair: the gpl is under constant scrutiny and debate. i doubt any single piece of lawyer-legalistic-mumbo-jumbo has had as many plain old folks like us attempt to read, debate, and understand its implications.
perhaps that attitude is only gleaned from slashdot discussions (/me ducks also)
i would think that part of the reason people attempt to make licenses GPL-compatable is because it has been around for so much longer, and covers so much more code. The new kid on the block has to work a little harder to play nicely, but thats nothing too wierd. in any case, i'm glad to see Apple attempting to make things converge more for everyone's benefit. Free Software projects have a habit of doing useful things that the people who set the code Free never planned.
the GPL is (and should probably remain) strict because it _forces_ people to deal with its limitations and its offered Freedom. otherwise, i fully believe it would have become obsolete by now by someone less concerned by Freedom and more concerned with Profit.
Check my Go-related blog for beginners: DGD
APSL solves all the problems Apple's legal and business staff was concerned about, and Apple wasn't deeply concerned about "GPL-compatibility."
There are several reasons corporate America hasn't embraced GPL and LGPL. There are several reasons FSF hasn't changed GPL and LGPL to suit Apple.
So long as there are differences between FSF's stock licenses and corporate America's goals with free software, there will be different licenses.
Because they wanted a different wheel. Believe it or not, GPL and BSD are not sufficient for all purposes, either commercially or legally.
GPL has not changed in several important regards for various reasons. For this reason, corporate America has not embraced it. RMS says he doesn't care. That's fine for RMS and those who share his agendas, but its no reason for corporate America to adopt it.
There are upsides and downsides to the APSL, just as there are problems and virtues to GPL and BSD. But each is different and serves different purposes. There is no re-invention of the wheel: the wheel proposed by FSF didn't suit Apple. Thus, they had to invent a different kind of wheel.
The GNU GPL implements copyleft, an attempt to keep the software in the free software community so as to maximize its utility. The GPL doesn't infect anything. RMS may give you that impression, when he brags that "At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline." Maybe that developer "saw the light," or maybe he was just lazy, but he made a choice: release under GPL or rewrite Readline. That's a much better deal than you'll get if you pilfer code from a proprietary program.
Public domain (or BSD-licensed) software may be incorporated into a proprietary program. If your goal is more users, then that may be acceptable. An API or reference implementation of an open standard should probably be public domain (see, e.g., SAX).
Fundamentally, it comes down to the freedoms you want to give your users. If you buy into copyleft, use a GPL-compatible license.
somehting I am curious about, in the FSF response:
The last point intruiges me, can a FSF advocate out there tell me why not being compatible with the GPL is a problem?
I mean if it is free software, then it is free software. Why is it being incompatible with the GPL a problem, if it is free?
Apart from this, though, I like reading these comments form the FSF, I feel its good to know that there are people who care about more than the buck, and who are not afraid to appeal to the heart of others.
malkes me go all warm and fuzzy
"Me and my girl named bimbo . . . limbo . . . spam" - Captain Beefheart.
12.1(c) only says that the license terminates if you commence a patent lawsuit against Apple. That makes sense considering other terms in the license stating that you grant Apple right to use your code.
However, you are wrong about termination of the license by discovering an unenforceable condition: 13.5(a) specifically states that if a court of law discovers an unenforceable condition that the remainder of the license shall remain in effect, with the exception of the objectionable clause.
IANAL, but that seems pretty straightforward to me.
Here's Apple's announcement of their changes to the APSL. It has a few more details of what has changed.
From: Ron Dumont <rond@apple.com>To: publicsource-announce@lists.apple.com
Subject: Apple Public Source License version 1.2
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:26:17 -0800
Message-Id: <200101050026.QAA18128@scv2.apple.com>
Hello,
We are pleased to announce version 1.2 of the Apple Public Source License.
We made several changes to better serve and protect the community that
has evolved around Darwin and other Apple Open Source projects. The
major changes are:
* You no longer need to distribute modifications made for personal use
(sections 1.4 & 1.8)
* You are no longer required to notify Apple when you deploy modifications
(previous section 2.2(c) deleted) -- though the notification site
will remain for those who want to use it.
* The Infringement / Suspension clause (previous section 9.1) has been
removed; you are now responsible for securing all necessary rights
yourself (section 2.3)
* Many of the license terms have been rewritten to also protect
Contributors, e.g., section 10 (the Trademark protection clause)
now covers trademarks and tradenames of any Contributor as well as
those of Apple.
We've also made numerous other changes to streamline and clarify the
license, so we encourage you to read it yourself at
http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/. We welcome your comments at
opensource-admin@group.apple.com. You are also invited to discuss the
APSL on the Open Source Initiative's license-discuss list. To subscribe,
send an email to license-discuss-subscribe@opensource.org.
We would like to thank the people outside Apple who helped us improve
the APSL to better serve the community.
Yours truly,
The Apple Open Source Team
If you're wondering why Apple went with its own liscense instead of using the BSD or GPL liscenses, then here's the answer:
Good for you, Apple. You warm an old man's heart.
Read the rest of this comment...