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."

Comments

It's the APSL, not the AFSL

[OverCode@work]

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

We should do away with licenses

[boing boing]

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.

Re:We should do away with licenses

[Brento]

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.

Sounds good in theory, but here's the problem: what happens when a company grabs an open-source product like Linux, makes its own proprietary mods, and then sells the whole thing for a profit - but doesn't allow you to see its changes? That's the problem with doing away with licenses: you can't stop people from doing BAD things with your software.

A good license (like the GPL) ensures that the work you do is protected, and someone can't rip it off. That's why so many people jump on the Linux bandwagon: they know that the coding they do will be used for the good of the community, not ripped off and shoved into a big, closed-source entity.

Imagine if Microsoft walked into the Linux fray, dedicated a team of 1,000 programmers to making Linux better, but none of the community was allowed to see the code anymore? What if they released a new version of MS Windows that's actually a Linux base, with the Windows UI on top of it? Suddenly, MS is gaining from everyone's open source work. That's not fair, but that's what happens if you get rid of licenses altogether.

Right now, the Linux community is protected by RMS's bulldogs, because they fight to make sure what we do stays in the public domain. Lose the licenses, and you lose the right to fight companies who want to rape and pillage the source code for their own benefit (and ultimately harm Linux as a whole.)

Re:We should do away with licenses

[boing boing]

Now let me see if I understand your argument.

If Microsoft came in and worked on the software and packaged it and sold it, they would be ripping you off by not giving you the new additions for free?

I say that is bullshit. You with the GPL are forcing them to be ripped off by taking their work for free if they want yours.

You still have your work. They still have theirs. No one is hurt by that situation.

You can't currently stop anyone from doing something bad to your software anyway. Some idiot can still take your software, GPL and release the source to their additions and it can still suck.

The fact of the matter is that if you want your work to stay in the public domain just say so and keep releasing it anytime someone asks.

The GPL is not "FREE" no matter how much RMS repeats that it is.

Re:We should do away with licenses

[gte910h]

{bash}-->echo "Imagine if Microsoft walked into the Linux fray, dedicated a team of 1,000 programmers to making Linux better, but none of the community was allowed to see the code anymore? What if they released a new version of MS Windows that's actually a Linux base, with the Windows UI on top of it? Suddenly, MS is gaining from everyone's open source work. " | sed s/Microsoft/Apple/g |sed s/MS/Apple/g | sed s/Windows/MacOs/g |sed s/linux/BSD/g | xargs echo

Didn't the above (with my changes) happen via the BSD licence? I don't think that BSDers are upset. Its all about what compensation you want for what you did. They don't want compensation. GPLers do. (Excuse my pidgin bash)

Disrespect for privacy

[CyberDawg]

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.

Re:Disrespect for privacy

[bnenning]

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.

From my reading of the APSL this is incorrect. Section 2.2c states you must release the source to any "deployed" modifications, and the definition of "deploy" in section 1.4 specifically excludes personal use. So I don't see any problem with tweaking Darwin for your own purposes and not notifying anyone. Of course IANAL, so I may be missing something.

GPL...

[Karma Sink]

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...

Poppycock.

[Dr. Dew]

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....

Responsibility?

[LenE]

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

Have any of you even READ the FSF page on it?

[weave]

Apple has the right to retroactively change the terms of the license?

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...

Re:Have any of you even READ the FSF page on it?

[Jules Bean]

We hate Stallman because he says that, "It you use my code with your code, you have to give your code away."

(Aside: So you hate people for their views on copyright? Nice...)

Ah? I misheard? You hate his views? Fair enough. Let's discuss, then.

Stallman: If you use my code in your code, you have to give your code away
'Old-style' software company: You can't even look at my code! It's private! Don't you dare copy it! That's called piracy, that is!

Well, the contrast is there for all to see. Stallman envisions a world in which, because there is constant, free sharing and reuse of software, the programs get enormously better, and all can use them freely. The GPL is a device (with drawbacks) for acheiving this goal. I can understand that.

To be more mercenary: If you use my code, (in your code, to make a better program), I want something back. Before I heard about free software, I would have asked for money. Now, I'd use the GPL, and hence be asking you to give your code back (not just to me, but to everyone). That's the fee --- I think it's a great one.

Jules

Re:Have any of you even READ the FSF page on it?

[Bruce Perens]

No, they don't have the right to retroactively change the license. Read the license:

7. Versions of the License. Apple may publish revised and/or new versions of this License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number. Once Original Code has been published under a particular version of this License, You may continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such Original Code under the terms of any subsequent version of this License published by Apple. No one other than Apple has the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered Code created under this License.

So, you can continue to use the old version. This is the same as many other licenses, including the GPL itself.

This case is interesting in that the Apple license gives you less chance to keep your modifications private, and that is what RMS is objecting to.

Bruce

Re:Have any of you even READ the FSF page on it?

[SuiteSisterMary]

So, you can continue to use the old version. This is the same as many other licenses, including the GPL itself.

You missed the telling line:
No one other than Apple has the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered Code created under this License. Take out the words 'no one other than', and it reads like it is: "Apple has the right to modifiy the terms applicable to Covered Code created under this License." In other words, say you create MacFooBarX, and release it under APSL 1.2, say. Anybody else who gets their greasy little hands on it can do whatever they like, but it remains under APSL 1.2; they can't turn around and publish it under a different license, blah blah blah. But Apple can. They can 'modify the terms,' retroactively, without warning, at whim, and without even knowing what's under the license and therefore affected. I think. I, of course, am not a lawyer; I'm a human.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't make a direct system call (and bypassing the LGPL'ed glibc) in Linux without GPL'ing my software

Sure you can, Linus has given you a permission to do so. See /usr/src/linux/COPYING and you will see the following cause:

NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

This is the problem, Not Apple...

[krystal_blade]

Ideas like this are the main problem behind "free software" attempts...

It 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

Re:Who cares?

[Jules Bean]

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."

Well, the FSF think they're right. Of course. Most people who take a philosophical or moral stance think they've taken the right one ;) But the FSF do accept many other licenses as being free software, most of them not viral like the GPL. They list here, on their website various licenses, many of which they consider free.

Also, I don't think GPL'ing software gives the FSF any particular control. It's still your copyright, you just happen to have chosen a license their lawyers drafted.

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?

It's a device to ensure that software stays free. I'm sure you understand this. (I'm not asking you to agree with it, you don't have to). It's a device to protect the author's work, in a different way to a conventional copyright. A conventional copyright protects the author's work by forbidding copying it at all without a fee (and, in general, source code is not available). The GPL protects the author's work by ensuring that derived works must also be GPL'ed (which almost, but not quite, means that their source must be released). The X11 license (also a free software license) simply doesn't protect the author's rights at all.

Oh, and incidentally, a program which syscalls directly is still (probably) not a derived work of the Linux kernel, and so wouldn't need to be GPL'ed. Exactly what a derived work is, is a subjective, not technical, issue.

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.

I think it's simply RMS saying "It seems Apple wishes this to be free software" (and it does seem that; that does appear to be Apple's intention), and "in my opinion, it still isn't, for this reason". No one is claiming RMS is the only voice that counts, but (for me, at least) his views are interesting, because he has taken a long time to think about the issues involved

Jules

Re:Who cares?

[treke]

The Free Software Foundation will only accept one license -- the one that gives them control, the GPL.

Wrong, the Free Software Licenses page specifically lists licenses that they consider to be free software license, which includes:

• GPL
• LGPL
• X11 License
• BSD
• Artistic License
• Netscape Public License
• Apache License
• IBM Public License
• Mozilla Public License
• QT Public License

This also bring up your point that you must GPL your software to link to GPL code. That isn't true, you have to license your code under a GPL compatible license. You could license your program under the BSD license(without advertising clause), LGP, or other licenses that meet the standard for compatibility. The FSF is trying to eliminate non-free software, so of course they aren't going to try and undermine that ideal. But they aren't accepting only the licenses that puts them in control.

If you want to bypass glibc by all means do so, but fullfill the licensing requirements. Wouldn't you demand users of your software to do the same?
treke

So what?

[update()]

First of all, the headline seems misleading. The linked article says Stallman studied the new APSL and decided it didn't meet his standards. It doesn't say anywhere that Apple requested anything from him.

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."

Re:Who cares?

[kyz]

This is a repeat of an old troll. The arguments (identical) have been used before, and they've been debunked.

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."

Surprisingly enough, Apple's dogma is "my way or the highway", too. All licenses are. That's their purpose. The FSF will use the GPL because that's what they stand for. If you ask their opinion of licenses, they have to be as free as the GPL, or even more free (BSD, etc). Licenses that don't offer what the FSF are particularly looking for get panned.

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.

Don't bypass it, then. If you wrote portable code, you wouldn't have to deal with any particular OS'es restrictions.

The fact that I can't use the GNU regular expression library without GPLing my software is even more frustrating.

Don't use the GNU regexp library, then! There are loads of regexp implementations out there.

What is the point of a library you can't use because of licensing issues? How is that free?

I write GPL'ed software. Others write BSD'ed software. It's free for us. Join us. If you don't like that, I'm sure there's a commercial library that will let you license it for money rather than freedom.

Arrogance of the FSF

[sterno]

Far be it for me to criticize the almighty FSF, but it seems like they are being really arrogant here. Correct me if I missed something, but has the GPL ever been tested in court? The FSF is bicckering over little subtleties of how the ASPL license is written, but do they really have any basis to judge? What's ultimately important is how the language of the license would be enforced by a court.

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.

---

As Linus Said...

[localman]

(S)he who writes the code chooses the license, and anyone who complains about it is just a whiner.

Or something like that. And I agree wholeheartedly, which allows me to retain respect for both Apple and RMS.

Cheers.

YES

[Srin Tuar]

In keeping with his plans, high lord overseer GNU/RMS has declared that all software must now be released under the latest version of the fsf license. It is called the GGPL or the Greater General Public Licence, which is summarized below:

• Any software that is derved from GGPL code must be under the GGPL. Also any code that links to, spawns processes of, communicates with, or provides an interface to GGPL code must also be released under the GGPL.
• Any software that is stored on the same file system or executed on the same computer as GGPL software must be released under the terms of the GGPL.
• Software licenced under the GGPL may not be made available under any other license.
• Anyone who writes GGPL software forfeits the right to ever release software under any license other than the GGPL. Also any one who reads any GGPL source code. Also anyone who uses GGPL binaries.
• Any hardware systems which runs GGPL code must have its schematics released under the GGPL. Any building housing computers which run GGPL software must have their blueprints released under the GGPL.
• Anyone who writes, uses, or comments on GGPL software immediately and retroactively loses the right to make or enforce patents, trademarks, or any other form of Information Restriction Legislation.
• The term of the GGPL supercede all local, State, and federal laws. If one is unable to comply with the GGPL and governmental laws then he must renounce his citzenship with that governmental entity.
• If any part of the GGPL is held unenforceable, then it will be enforced anyway.

Re:Who cares?

[Johnathon Walls]

Actually, the Artistic License is considered to be non-free by FSF, because it is "too vague" and some passages "are too clever for their own good".

Other than that, the first 4 are considered GPL compatible (modified BSD) and the last 5 are non-GPL compatible, but still considered free software licenses.

Just wanted to clear that up =)

Re:You, sir, are full of it

[legLess]

First, I don't hate Micro$loth. I'm typing this in IE5 while developing in Access 2000, and getting paid good money. M$ makes some authentically good products.

However, you can't deny that their "embrace and extend" tactic is one of the most predatory, if successful, business practices of the last 20 years. Sure, they're in a little hot water now, but things could still go either way. I bring them up because they're the most credible threat to Linux right now.

Secondly, I'm not talking about people who can hack code, but Joe User buying a computer. What if M$ releases M$Linux? "Reliability! Speed! And binary-only compatibility with M$ Office, IE and .NET." If they do, and it's successful, millions of people could be running Linux distros that are binary-incompatible with all current distros.

"Sorry - you can't run Apache on M$Linux, but IIS-Linux doesn't crash nearly as much as it used to."

"Sorry, Star Office has some odd crashing problems under M$Linux, but they've cut the price of Office 10 to only $500."

What's saving us from this scenario? The GPL.

question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes