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."
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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."
[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]
[
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
And that license can be as simple as,
"Anyone is free to copy this work for any purpose".
It doesn't have to be a freaking lawyer fest to allow someone to copy your work.
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!)
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
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...
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").
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.
Or something like that. And I agree wholeheartedly, which allows me to retain respect for both Apple and RMS.
Cheers.
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.
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!)
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!
If a Linux program sets /proc flags or uses an ioctl(), is that still a "normal" system call?
cpeterso
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."