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
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 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....
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...
I can't make a direct system call (and bypassing the LGPL'ed glibc) in Linux without GPL'ing my software
/usr/src/linux/COPYING and you will see the following cause:
Sure you can, Linus has given you a permission to do so. See
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.
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
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
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:
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
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.)
What's your damage, Heather?
Or something like that. And I agree wholeheartedly, which allows me to retain respect for both Apple and RMS.
Cheers.