Slashdot Mirror
FSF Denies Latest Apple Attempt at APSL
An anonymous reader wrote in to tell us that "The latest Free Software Foundation take on the newly released APSL v1.2
"In January 2001, Apple released another updated version, 1.2, of the APSL, but it too remains unacceptable. It still has the requirement that any "deployed" modified version must be published. So it is still not a free software license." The dance continues."
As company known for not telling you what's inside the box, is it a surprise that they're going to put terms that the FSF disagrees with in their "open source" license?
It's named the Apple Public Source License, not the Apple Free Software License, and it lives up to its name. Stallman rejects it (for good reasons), but was it ever intended to gain Stallman's support?
I'm wary of the APSL (and indeed any other custom license made by a big company so they can jump on the open source or free software bandwagon while still at least feeling like they're in control of the code), but Apple has done some good things with it. OpenPlay, for instance, will be a really neat networked gaming API once the Linux port is cleaned up a bit.
It's nice that Stallman took the time to review this license and provide intelligent commentary, but I don't think anyone should be surprised by his response.
-John
The Free Software Foundation will only accept one license -- the one that gives them control, the GPL. It does not matter what anyone else attempt to do, unless you give all software over to their dogmatic cause, then you are the enemy. I don't think Apple should pay them a bit of attention. The FSF's dogma has always been "My way or the highway."
The fact that I can't make a direct system call (and bypassing the LGPL'ed glibc) in Linux without GPL'ing my software is nauseating. The fact that I can't use the GNU regular expression library without GPLing my software is even more frustrating. What is the point of a library you can't use because of licensing issues? How is that free?
I don't think that it's important. It's just an attempt to get the zealots stirred up in an attempt to force Apple to accept things on the FSF's terms. I say ignore them.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Let's get rid of them all. Use software as you see fit...if it has the source, then you can modify it and use it and forget about it, if it is only binary, then you can have the binary and do whatever you want with it.
Why are we and they making the damn situation so complex?
Why does RMS have to take a look at everyone's license and make certain it is "Free"?
Let's just get rid of the whole damn license. Just release your software if you want and don't release it if you don't want. This DOES NOT require lawyers.
The FSF has stated that the APSL 1.2 is still not truly "copyleft", as it fails their criteria. The subject makes it sound like the FSF is denying that the APSL exists. I get a mental image of RMS sitting in the corner, rocking back and forth with his hands over his ears, sceaming, "I can't hear you. Nyah, nyah, nyah. You're not real! Not real!"
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
well looks a bit like the BSD style licence then. From whatI remember the BSD licence says that you make change you give to the copyright holder (whether not you deploy it AFAIK)
I was unaware that apple was trying to get the FSF's approval. Further, you don't hear the BSD people complaining about apple, you mostly hear praise. I would think that just agreeing with the BSD camp (and their FSF unacceptable liscence) would probably torpedo apple regardless of what they do.
Gavin Fischer
He's not happy with anything that isn't "GPL", he never has been, and he never will. We expect him to stand at one extreme of the subject.
The rest of us can be more pragmatic, and see the advantages of somewhat open source, and be glad to see more companies moving in that direction.
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
I don't know about everyone else, but when comparing the differences between free and proprietary software I've become fairly pragmatic. I'm definitely don't feel like belonging to a community. I buy the tools that can't be taken away (free software) and pay the price of complying with the respective licenses. The price of some licenses makes certain company's software too expensive.
Speaking of tools that can never be taken away, does anyone have a copy of cycle-buffer.el by Vladmir somebody? I've been looking for months...
t
That all being said, the dogmatic insistence of a definition of "Free" and some self appointed experts who happen to make a lot of noise to not take the fact away that one can get the source to Darwin, and hence the low level code for OS X, look at it, poke at it, and prod it. That is a boom for developers writing drivers, that is a boom for programmers who need to see how things interact with hardware (game developers), and that is a boom for Apple customers who have technical knowledge and want to get OS X running on non-G3/G4 machines. Say all you want, its BETTER that not having the source at all. Apple should be given credit for it.
Burn Hollywood Burn
I think one of the most egregious parts of the new APSL is the clause preventing you from making modifications for your own use without sending them in to Apple. One of the great benefits of open source software is the ability to tweak it to fit your own unique or perverse environment, whether it's home or business.
I change things. I hack. I added trailer brake controls to my pickup truck and put diamond plate steel in high-wear parts of the bed. I put longer power cords on some of my tools. I've made numerous tweaks to my computer hardware. I made holes in a bookshelf for power cords so I could put electronics in it.
People modify their environment. It's one of our distinguishing characteristics. I deeply resent a software vendor telling me that I can't tweak with their open source software unless I'm willing to send them my changes, and I have a feeling I'm not the only one.
I've got to give credit to them for trying...
I don't see MS doing anything close to this. Apple is trying to balance legitimate business concerns with giving users what they want. In short, they are trying to 'Think Different'.
Sure, maybe they haven't made it all the way to pure GPL or done the best that they could have, but they're making an effort to fight the good fight, and shouldn't that be worth something?
Brant
Brant
Argle. Bargle.
Do not like it the do not use it. That simple if the restriction of the license is ok to you the for all means USE IT. Think about how the code will benefit you.
The termination clause says that Apple can revoke this license, and forbid you to keep using all or some part of the software,
any time someone makes an accusation of patent or copyright infringement.
You know, not to nitpick, but doesn't the fact that the GPL can be changed at any time sort of do the same thing? I mean, it's not spelled out in writing, but couldn't Stallman just change the wording horribly, at any time, and own it all?
Just a thought...
When encryption is outlawed, ?o'AZ-,++o+i++##4AoA+-/-C++bI+/.+~
The Free Software Foundation will only accept one license -- the one that gives them control, the GPL.
A license need not be GPL to be GPL compatible.
The FSF has no power except its voice. If you don't like what FSF is saying, you can ignore them. If you don't want to play ball with them, you don't have to write code for tools that do.
But don't misreprent what they're saying. They prefer the GPL, no question. Beyond that....
Not intending to start a war here, but...
I read this clause as an attempt by Apple to maintain some responsibility for their code. In light of the DMCA and other "our software isn't broken, it's your fault" legal stances of most commercial software companies, we should applaud those that stand behind their software.
I can hear the frustrated keyboard banging now. "But I should have a right to my changes" you say. Look at the liability that a corporate entity encounters with free licenses. Let's say for example that some small company took Darwin, and modified it in some way to become the base of an air traffic control system. Let's also say that such a system hosed up a major hub airport, and a multiple plane collision occurred.
Would Apple be liable because their software was used? If said modifications on their base were the root cause, and they had no idea that such changes were made, they shouldn't be held liable. Almost all of the lawyers that I know would tend to follow blame until they reach the deepest pockets.
By requiring return notification, they can limit their liability, and take responsibility when appropriate.
I don't see emacs or the gimp becoming life-or-death software, so something like the GPL does make sense. If I were Linus, though, I would be extemely worried as Linux creeps into more and more embedded applications.
My 2 cents,
-- Len
How would you feel if you spent months making mods to a package and then all of a sudden couldn't release it cause the code you based it on had its license revoked? (and to top it off, you'd STILL be obligated to give Apple your changes anyway).
That doesn't sound "free" to me.
What about the lack of freedom to make mods and NOT release them if you just doing for internal company use?
That sounds like less freedom to me too.
I really don't understand why /.'ers hate Stallman so much...
For easy reference, here's a link to the Apple Public Source License, v. 1.2.
I'm having some trouble understanding which parts of Stallman's commentary apply to the revised version of the license; from his comment on 1.2, it would appear that he's saying that the only remaining problem is the requirement to publish all modifications, but from the license it looks like some of his other comments might still apply; anyone else understand the situation?
--Bruce FieldsIt is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.
A truly free software license wouldn't/shouldn't care what you do or do not link to.
To that effect, what Richard Stallman is describing is contradictory to the "freedoms" he describes in the GPL.
There are two different fences in software. On one, major corporations are attempting to demand the right to force consumers to pay for everything they see, hear, and do.
On the other fence, Free Software proponents claim that software should be free, and to that end, have come up with an EULA that is just as restrictive as the corporations, without the dollar signs.
What neither side sees is the eight lane freeway right in the middle that Apple is trying to drive on, while both sides throw bricks at them.
krystal_blade
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
Yeah, seems to have serious problems, but it's better than nothing. The problem with getting rid of the 'deployed changes have to be published' clause is then you get into the GPL's big quagmire of 'at what point does deployment become distribution?'
Why does RMS continue to decry the open source movement? We have the same goals as his: that people should be free to modify most software around them. We just lose the philosophy and politics surrounding his free software movement, and go straight to the code. If it's free code, it's Open Source. If it's not free, we won't certify it as Open Source. Period. End of discussion. Why does RMS want to keep talking about it?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I say /. uses TMA
Je t'aime Stéphanie
Seeing as how they were able to deny apples license, when it actually exists, we urge citizens to stock up on generators, and UV lamps.
krystal_blade
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
At least Apple is trying. You don't see Microsoft opening up anything. Or perhaps I haven't dug far enough into www.microsoft.com (I get too many Netscape javascript errors).
> The Free Software Foundation will only accept
> one license
BZZT! WRONG!
Please follow the link given in the article. The FSF has evaluated a lot of licenses, and some (like BSDL and MPL) get the "free software license" predicate, other (like the Sun "community license" or the Apple license does not).
What is true is that they in generel prefer the GPL, not really surprising given that they wrote it, but they also use and accept other free software licenses in situations where they are more practical.
The myth that the FSF rejects all other licenses is spread both by people who are ignorant and anti-GPL zeleats who deliberately lies. The second group cannot not be stopped by arguments, but the first group can easily find out the FSF position by looking at the content of their ftp site, and the statements on their web site.
I think there's a point where the FSF's fanatism might harmful to the free software movement's image. The FSF has no right to a monopoly on the definition of what free (libre) is. When a company that is the quintessence of the notion of proprietary standard makes that big a step toward basic notions such as source code availability and using without having to pay a license fee, the effort must be welcomed, not despised.
The reality is that the people who want to work on Darwin - BSD and NeXT types, for the most part - are. The folks who were screaming their heads off about APSL 1.0 didn't start contributing after Apple released 1.1 to address Bruce Perens' objections, didn't start contributing after 1.2 was released and aren't going to start even if 1.3 meets FSF standards.
And now it's time for all the "As a result of this, I'll never do business with Apple again!" posts from people who have never owned a Mac and never plaaned to. And the usual "Everything Apple makes sucks, and furthermore they won't GPL it all so we can use it."
The BSD distributions no longer promote GPL-incompatible copying conditions by default. The new BSD copying conditions are the result of cosultation to achieve GPL compatiblity in the eyes of the FSF. The Univesity of California also agreed to the change for the BSD software that they own the copyrights to.
[stock rant on the subject]
This is my issue with the FSF philosophy that companies shouldn't be able to remain proprietary about their source code, if they also use elements of process that are "Free."
Companies are proprietary about injection-molding techniques, they're proprietary about the integrated circuit layouts, they're proprietary about so many physical processes that go on behind closed doors. They also use such open techniques such as how to mop the floors at night, and which motor oils they use when they're maintaining the printing presses. Why is software magically different?
If you aren't allowed to cut and paste existing processes with no effort, you'll have to innovate. Sure you have to start from scratch, or from simpler licensed technologies, but by setting down your own requirements for the new process, you'll probably have new strengths that the existing ways don't have.
Heck, maybe the GPL is good for something. When I see that a module is under the GPL, and I want to sell my product, I have to skip the not-so-"Free" methods and write it from scratch, thus making it fit exactly to my needs.
To me, Open Source and Free Software are irrelevant. Get the job done. If your competitors want to do the same, let them. If you want to open your source as a service to mankind, go for it. If you show me your methods and then tell me not to use them, well, that's just being petty.
[stock rant on the subject]
[
as copyright law is today, you *have* to explictly give a license in order to allow other to copy your work. Without copyright law, this would not be necessary.
RMS views the GPL as a step in that direction.
it says no such thing. basically all the bsd license says is 'you can't sue us if this doesn't work, and don't use our name to promote your distribution.' nothing brings out the trolls like the license articlesh tm l
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.
The GPL does not give them control over the software you made. You are the copyright holder of it.
Wrong again, you CAN make direct system calls. A propietary software can make direct system calls to the Linux Kernel. Why do you want to do that ? It's much easy to use glibc.
You are right, You can only use this library from a GPLed program.
The idea is that if you use free software for writting your code, then your code should be free. Else use a comercial Regexp library. Or write one yourself.
You have to understand that the idea is that software shuld be free. Like air. Like speech. If you don't like the idea use comercial software and OS and library. There you have no freedom at all.
MOD THE CHILD UP!
They complain about apple's license but perhaps when push comes to shove the language apple uses will stand up better in court. The language doesn't seem to be trying to keep people from doing what they want with the code, but rather it is trying to guarantee that if somebody releases a modified product that it will remain open. The FSF may see the added verbage to be restrictive but perhaps the GPL's verbage wouldn't hold up in court as well.
The FSF wreaks of the arrogance that comes with the assumption that they are right. I appreciate what the FSF has done and I think that the spirit of the GPL is wonderful, but frankly until you are taking people to court and prooving the validity of the license, don't go criticizing the subtleties of other groups whose hearts appear to be in the right place.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
From Webster's Dictionary:
Free (adj.):
1 d : enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another (think in terms of licenses)
3 a : relieved from or lacking something unpleasant or burdensome
There are just a few definitions that conflict with what the GPL calls "free" .
The GPL places a number of burdens on the use of software licensed under its terms. It's hard to truly innovate when some of the best tools are unavailable because they are shrouded in the GPL. BSD is a far better license, IMNSHO.
__________________ Hey Moderators!! Fuck Off! Thanks.
All your code are belong to apple.
The FSF (Free Software Foundation) is the arbiter of what is and isn't called "Free Software". If Apple wanted to be named a "Microsoft Solutions Provider" would you whine about how "Apple produces great machines, why do those Microsoft bigots have to be so stingy with the name"? If Apple doesn't want to change the APSL any further, that's entirely up to them. Just don't call it "Free Software".1 346238&mode=thread
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
MOD THE CHILD UP!
So... let me get this straight... As a commercial company Apple fixes 99% of the problems with their Public Source license, and the Free Software Foundation nitpicks about the 1% that still isn't "FSF compliant" Give me a break, considering they are good enough to throw their significant weight in with the open source communities' corner to start with I think the FSF can better spend their time nitpicking better targets.
Does anyone realy care what the FSF thinks anyway? Apple realy dosen't need their approval for this new liscence do they?
Apple Updates The APSL Posted by CmdrTaco on Friday January 05, @04:11AM from the legalese-if-you-please dept. 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.
If that were true, then I'd never use the licence - I don't want to be snowed under with megabytes of garbage that's based on my code. Spammers all over the world would write spam that's "based on my code" and send it to me, claiming that I can't opt out because of my licence... it would be a nightmare.
WHile it says "GPL," it is not exactly GPL: specific permissions have been granted for kernel modules. Call it GPL all you want, but the contrary actions change the license to a Quasi GPL-license
hawk
I like free software as much as the Slashdot reader. I have a linux box at home. When I go to work half the boxes I work on are Slackware, and the other half are BSDI.
That said, I think that Richard Stallman is rabid. I mean after taking a *quick* look at the APSL it's not that bad. You get the source code, and your allowed to edit it. I mean, really, what more do you want?
One of Richard Stallman's main points was the termination clause, is no good. Can you really blame Apple for having a termination clause? I mean Apple is a company, it has to watch out for itself on some level, after all they are accountable to their stock holders. This said Apple went so far as to change the clause from a termination clause to a suspension clause.
Apple is basically doing the right thing, they are only trying to insure that they don't get screwed for it. In my opinion, Richard Stallman should be congratulating Apple, not shooting them down. This is a major step towards open source/free software, becoming an industry standard.
Anyway that's just my two cents, if anyone wants to set me straight feel free.
Nathan Porter
PS. To all of you have read the Wheel of Time series, Richard Stallman is looking an awful lot like the prophet. Hmmm, I wonder who the Dragon Reborn is....
dont_forget
The GPL has kind of a virulent character. Any software based on GPLed code must be GPLed again. This way, the FSF use their GPL to enforce the "freedom" of derived works. However, there are no restrictions at all in what you can do with the software.
The APSL seems to enforce central availability of the software, which is quite a good thing to have, but restricts freedom, as developers are forced to publish modified versions and notify Apple.
Other licenses like the Artistic license or even plain old "Public Domain" don't enforce anything. But they endager freedom of the software, as they allow it to be commercialized.
So it all seems to depend on priorities. What's the important point about "free" software? Freedom to do anything with it? Making sure the software stays free? Getting it for free?
I Guess, everybody has different preferences here...
I was considering using the Darwin Streaming Server in a project, but the termination clause scared me off. Putting Apple in a position to yank the rug out from under my open source product at any time has zero appeal to me. I understand that Apple does not want their competitors to use their hard (programming)work against them, but if Apples' goal is to promote widespread use of their technologies, the current APSL is not the way to do it.
To a shark, you are just another food choice...
You also must reproduce the copyright notice.
-bugg
I'd suggest using the new BSD license instead, slightly more legalize, but unfortunately necessary to give you some protection in the case of a lawsuit.
Well, I should've guessed I'd get a lot of replies, but I didn't know that I was so wrong about the things which had been eating at me lately.
Things I got wrong:
1) Linus gives permission to use system calls without violating the GPL. Thank God. It really irritated me that if I wanted to use a feature of the kernel directly that I couldn't take my choice of licenses. (I prefer a public-domain like license, such as the BSD license.)
2) There are GPL-compatible licenses. I did not know this. I thought that if you linked to GPL'ed code it had to be GPL'ed. In fact, I wrote up a response in another article about the GPL 3.0 where I asked a bunch of questions about this. The responses I got back indicated that you probably did have to GPL your code if you so much as touched someone else's GPLed code. Never once did someone bring up GPL-compatible licenses. I didn't know such things existed.
However, I still think that RMS's message is nothing more than a troll intended to get people to try to pressure Apple into doing things his way.
As for the control thing, aren't you supposed to give ownership of a GPL'ed project over the FSF generally? (Primarily, according to them, so that they can handle any legal disputes.)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Oh, come on. The only real restriction imposed by the GPL is that you disclose the source. The GPL effectively says, "You can do whatever you want with this code, as long as you let others do the same with the result and you keep the source code available." And you are calling this more restrictive than a standard closed-source EULA, which won't let you even use the program until you've signed your rights away?
Regards,
Freedom to get screwed over when someone wants to take their toys and sell them for millions to some company isn't freedom.
Another mistake in semantics I see often. What is _actually_ happening is that BSD or otherwise truley free software has _enabled_ proprietary product. Notice, the origional truley free software STILL EXISTS and the origional author IS JUST AS HAPPY, because, and this is the important part, HE RETAINS THE ORIGIONAL RIGHTS TO HIS SOFTWARE! The origional author has simply made a gift to the entire computer software community, not to just a select few like the GPL does.
Now, thats not to say that RMS doesn't have some complex considerations, as there are some theories making the rounds that RMS suffers from sour grapes syndrome and is bitter that his house is smaller that Bill Gates. So there are plenty of reasons for the GPL, much of them personal in nature, this can get complex so we need to debate this without hurting RMS's feelings. Those unix weenies can get emotional sometimes, so please keep your comments polite. Hope that helps!
Another story Slashdot felt you didn't care to read about.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
I know I will probably get flamed for this, so please let me make the disclaimer at the beginning here that I am not trying to acuse anyone of being a thief.
The problem is that I can't help noticing a disturbing trend in Slashdot discussions. We have a lot of people here who are upset that Apple continues to want to keep some of it's code closed. There are accusations of Apple taking from Open Source without contributing what it should. There are concerns of those wary of a corporation trying to keep a foot in Open and a foot in Closed source at the same time. There are calls for Apple to Open up more of its code. Etc. etc. These discussions always sound very libertarian and mature. People want the right to use something for free before they do.
Now, look at Napster. The discussions on Slashdot tend to be complaints about Napster being shutdown. Even those good natured individuals who claim to use it for a 'try before you buy' tool are breaking the law. I'm not saint and I use Napster myself, but I suspect that there are very, very few people here who can claim to have never downloaded a song that they didn't already own. So the bottom line, legally speaking, is that this amounts to theft.
Therefore, it seems incongruous that the same community should even care about the terms of any software license. Afterall, software can be copied from a Warez site, or a CD can be burned from a friend. So why worry? If there's no problem stealing intellectual property from the RIAA, why not from Apple, or Microsoft, or anyone else?
Again, I understand that there is more to these issues, I am merely observing what seems to be a general attitude that seems somewhat indefensible.
Or something like that. And I agree wholeheartedly, which allows me to retain respect for both Apple and RMS.
Cheers.
Given the abysmal state of Apple sales, one would think that Apple would stop trying to dance around like this and just use the GPL. Using the GPL cannot really hurt Apple, but they are so obsessed with being in control (Most likely the lawyers want to be able to shut down anything Apple does not like.) that they are shooting themselves in the foot with a bad license.
Apple has a chance to combine their hardware with a UNIX OS and bring much of the open source community into the fold as Mac users, yet they are still so obsessed with having a proprietary niche that they are ruining it. By continuing to do stuff like this, Apple could really hurt themselves financially, and MicroSoft might not bail them out next time (Then again, Larry Ellison would likely bail them out just to piss off Bill Gates.).
It describes flaws in v1.0 of license. The only flaw remaining in 1.2 appears to be the disregard for privacy.
You're a troll, but I'll bite.
Does the name "Kerberos" ring a bell? If Micro$loth can distribute Linux binaries without source, they can introduce code that breaks compatibility. And if we can't see the source, there's not much we can do. Especially under something evil like the DMCA, where we might not even be able to reverse-engineer it.
Come on - this is their stock in trade. It's how they killed DR DOS, Netscape, and Novell. It's how they'd love to kill Linux.
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
Software is not necessarilly different, it just happens to be the area of interest for the FSF. RMS occationally come with similar spirited comments on other kinds of IP.
If you can't build on others work, it usually means you have to duplicate it before you can start real improving (innovating).
However, even for GPL libraries, you are permitted to dynamically link to them without GPL'ing your code.
Why are you spreading FUD?
It's a shame that so many people are willing to moderate your post up without checking the facts for themselves.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
As a result of OS X, I'm switching to a Mac. I haven't owned an Apple since an Apple //c, but I can't wait to be able to afford my new G4 Powerbook.
OS X seems incredible, and since I've switched from Linux -> BSD (Open), I've been a happy camper. OS X seems like it will let me play nice with all my applications, including the important option of coding for deployment on my BSD boxes.
I don't have time to hack Darwin, but I'm glad they openned it. Assuming they got a single modification submitted that was worthwhile, openning it was good, because it means when OS X runs on my shiny new laptop, it'll be better.
Slashdot ignorance is aggravating, but you take the good with the bad.
This is slight more newsworthy than the usual "Linux is the best OS ever, I mean, it's more stable than Windows 98!" mental masturbation that sits on the comment sections these days.
Alex
Webster lists a number of alternative definitions, describing different usage patters. A given use of the word typically conform to *one* of the difintions, not *all* of the definitions.
To make it clear which of the multitude of defintions the FSF use when they talk about free software, they have a page describing the exact meaning when they use the phrase. Not many people who use the word "free" do this, they prefer the ambiguity inherent in the word.
Apple never claimed to offer free software; they are merely offering interested programmers the opportunity to work on Darwin, as long as they're willing to do so under Apple's terms. Apple has the right to protect their intellectual property (yes, intellectual property exists; I'm not going to waste my time refuting claims that it doesn't), and they still own Darwin (as stated in the APSL).
Why doesn't Stallman attack the licenses for every other commercial piece of software? The fact that Apple is releasing a portion of the OS X source code does not mean that they're making Darwin truly free.
As for the control thing, aren't you supposed to give ownership of a GPL'ed project over the FSF generally? (Primarily, according to them, so that they can handle any legal disputes.)
No. I believe they generally wish you to do this if you want your code to be included as part of the GNU project though.
To forestal further misunderstanding I'll point out that you can, of course, take code from the GNU project and amend it however you like without signing it over to them. They just won't include your modifications in their code base i this case.
I doubt you'll find many followers, though. "Free" has a well-defined meaning that is different than "free"--established over many years and with much discussion and explanation. "fREe" however is an unknown. But go ahead and start your foundation and see what happens.1 346238&mode=thread
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
Apple is releasing Darwin, the *nix aspect of the OS to the community. They will NEVER release the code to the GUI. The GUI is a good part of WHY people use Macs. Releaseing the code to that is REALLY shooting themsleves in the foot. I've been useing Mac OS X Public Beta on a G4 at home since it came out. I have to say, it's REALLY nice, and as soon as I get my DSL line in, and the Final edition comes out, I'll be loving it. A private streaming server that I can access almost anywhere, serving me my own MP3 set, on a box I can SSH to, and do anything I want... what fun -Donald
~Donald / Just RTFM
People in academia are notorious for bickering for hours on particular wording - marketting is not much better, but at least they mostly have a reason.
Let some committee go nuts something and change a word here, a color there. Put those changes into production - and BLAM...apple must be told.
Easy fun!
Maybe it's just me, but I think that Stallman's goals are not anywhere in line with Apple's goals, and Apple is not in the business of Supporting Stallman's idealism.
_ __________________
Really, Stallman is viewing the freedom as the only goal. Apple couldn't care less about your freedom. They care about money. Perhaps if Stallman wants apple to change their liscence, he must appeal to Apple's goals.
Instead of harping on about a termination clause violating some freedom that he holds so high, so should be trying to convince Apple that a termination clause only serves to stifle community development.
Instead harping on about disrespect for privacy, which Apple has no problems with, Stallman should be trying to convince Apple that allowing a company to use their changes internally without publishing will make MacOS a lot more useful in the enterprise.
Instead of harping about central control, Stallman should realize that it won't make a single difference in the community because only releases from Apple will ever get respect from anyone, especially the enterprise.
Stallman, when you review source liscences, you must also consider the perspective of the liscenser, because they are not there to impress you and they don't really care what you think unless you can provide insight that has value to them.
__________________________________________
___ This sig is in boldface to emphasize its importance!
the story of binary plus comes to mind, ones, zeros, and somethimes even twos. (it's a joke people). it is expected that the new version is not widely excepted. the new iMacs are an example of this, how many people are really going to bye a computer with flowers on it? (besides of course people who like flowers, and like having their friends laughing at them) the percentage of people is really low in those catigories. how much longer until apple realises this and stops making things that are not liked, and/or not compatible with other systems?
If a Linux program sets /proc flags or uses an ioctl(), is that still a "normal" system call?
cpeterso
s/They are not allowing you access to software that you wrote/They are not allowing you access to software that they wrote/
Some prefer to volunteer for the greater good of the community. They wouldn't be pleased with the perversion of their codebase. You are happy enough that the powers that be use your code. Fine. But don't expect respect.
However, it's also worth remembering that a) RMS has philosophical objections to the APSL which he makes clear in his critique of the APSL and b) even if the license were "Free" that still wouldn't make it GPL-compatible.
First of all, the purpose of Darwin is to make life easier for Mac OS X developers. Rather than wait a week or more to have our questions about a kernal/driver/VM pager/whatever, we can just go look at the source. Darwin is NOT Linux, and it's not trying to be.
Secondly, I don't give a rat's ass whether the APSL is ideologically pure enough to satisfy RMS, or the vicious backbiters who swarmed all over ESR back when Apple first open-sourced Darwin. Apple doesn't need Richard's approval to give code away, and I don't need his approval to take it.
So, let me say this to RMS: Thanks for EMACS, gnutar, and GCC, but I will cheerfully ignore your bitching about other people's licenses.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The APSL says:
"(c)You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications publicly available under the terms of this License, including the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably distribute the Source Code of Your Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. download from a web site); and
(d)if You Deploy Covered Code in object code, executable form only, You must include a prominent notice, in the code itself as well as in related documentation, stating that Source Code of the Covered Code is available under the terms of this License with information on how and where to obtain such Source Code"
The GPL says:
"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
* a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)"
Could someone please explain the difference?
The FSF owns tradmark and controls usage of the term "open source"
No. You are incorrect. The FSF does neither of those things.
See the OSI for more. Even they abandoned attempts to trademark the term "open source".
that the extent of your freedom should end before you can enfringe on my freedom, just as your freedom to swing your fist ends just before my nose.
--
Steve Jobs: We're better than you are.
Bill Gates: That doesn't matter.
'Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson...'
Just a small correction: GPL licensed software is NOT in the public domain. Public domain means that anyone can take the software and do anything with it, including releasing a modified or unmodified version under their own license.
pinkNoise
pinkNoise