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.
I'm not a GPL advocate, but I can see one big problem with it. If you're incompatible with the GPL then GPL projects won't be able to use your code, and you can't use theirs either, right?
The whole reason people are bending over backwards about being "GPL compat" is that there's already enough code out there under its umbrella that it seems more reasonable to be that way (or just use BSD code otherwise). Making a "free" license that doesn't play well with other free licences is just a way to say "Look, we're really hip", without really giving anything back to the people who could make the most out of your code (and return a wealth of improvements). It pisses off coders who want their work out there in the 'protected public domain', and basically helps keep developer population down. Think of this as Apple finally catching up to where Sun was about 2-3 years ago in attitude. Mybe we'll even see some open-sorenson sometime in the next 100 or so years.
Because the when you make your own wheel, you can custome build it to protect yourself.
Imagine if Apple released all of its open-source stuff under GPL and we found that some prorietary Apple binary that was later downloaded used some of this GPL'ed code. Apple would have to open all of that code. If Apple makes its own license, I am more than positive that it would give its self a way out.
It is just good buisness sense.
-I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
so as to maximize its utility.
This is one of the most onerous lies of the GPL, and I'm finally going to come right out and say it.
Code has the most utility when everyone anywhere at any time who wants to use it can use it, unrestricted. The GPL says, "You can only use this code if you give up control of your own code to the GPL community." It places a limitation on how that code can be used!
The GPL is not concerned with keeping existing code free - if you have a copy of code that is licensed under any OSS-compliant license, as long as you have it, and want it to remain free, nobody can take it from you. Code is not like silicon; information can be copied, shared, duplicated, and code is information. Information, once free, is always free until nobody who has rights to that code wants it to be free.
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.)
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.
If you want to talk about utility, think of its use to the most possible people, and you'll find that the BSD offers much more utility than the GPL.
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...
I see the exact point about not playing nicely with other free licenses, but surely the license at fault in that respect is the GPL? I mean, it's the one which places the onerous requirements on the game, NOT the APSL or whatever. It's the one which infects everything it touches.
Yet the GPL is seen as sacred and beyond criticism. Oh well.
<duck>
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!