Apple Releases Rendezvous As Open Source

clarencek writes "Apple has released Rendezvous as Open Source, as promised. Excerpt: Starting today, developers can download Rendezvous as open source under the Apple Public Source License. Rendezvous is part of a broader Open Source release today from Apple which includes the Darwin 6.0.1 operating system and additional Open Directory plug-ins. Together, these underscore Apple's commitment to making core protocols freely available as open standards and open source."

Comments

this is a nice change

[McVeigh]

I applaud Apple and hope more software devolpers follow suit!!

well done Apple!

now if I could only afford a mac;)

Excellent.

[Nailer]

I wish someone would force NERV to release Synapse as Open Source...

Re:Excellent.

[foobar104]

Even in the face of comments like this, there are still people out there who wonder why the software industry hates and fears the open source movement. Amazing.

Re:Excellent.

[rakslice]

Heh... Mandatory commentary ensues: Well, I'd have to say that the writing and acting in Antitrust was above average, as far as mainstream Hollywood movies go. Of course, the Hollywood recreation of computing (everything from software development to computer geek culture) in the movie has the same relationship to the real world equivalents as Lipton's chicken noodle soup has to actual chickens. But I'm as jaded as anyone else about that by now; and the Synapse product cum plot device still sticks out like a sore thumb... What was Synapse supposed to be, exactly? I mean how does taking over all the TVs/computers/fax machines/PDAs/Atari 2600s/toaster ovens in the world contribute to a business model? And, is that the kind of feature you want to build in to your product if the DOJ is breathing down your neck? =)

But to address your specifict comment, didn't Milo Hoffman do that already? =)

Re:APSL is no opensource

[Anonymous Coward]

Because people out there actually make Mac software.

Re:APSL is no opensource

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL - 6 pages of legalsleaze 25000+ words.
BSD - 1/4 page less than 300 words.

BSD code can be used in GPL
GPL code can't be used in BSD

Looks like BSD is MORE Open Source than your 'real open source' idea. Oh, and next time Bruce, post with your name.

APSL takes away rights

[I Am The Owl]

I wish that they would opt for a truly Free license, like the GPL or at least the BSD or MIT license. A corporate-created license such as the APSL only works to take away the rights of the users and anyone who contributes to developing the code for free. Doesn't anyone remember when...

• Apple sued developers of the KDE and Gnome themes that were "confusingly similar" to their Aqua theme?
• Made the decision to keep their window manager closed, in order to keep the community from benefiting?

I would have hoped that the open source community on Slashdot would have a long enough memory to remember the litigious injuries that Apple had inflicted upon us in the past, but I suppose those hopes were misplaced.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has done a lot of bad and stupid things, but using a RMS "Purity-test" is not going to help anything. Open source is not in competition with Apple, and if they can be prodded into being more open-- all the better. Whose "us" anyway? Apple listened to their lawyers about KDE and Gnome, and settled things peaceably (as far as I know) The Slashdot community is not synonomous with "The open source community" or "People you say are cool, so everyone else sucks"

Re:APSL takes away rights

[TellarHK]

Apple suing people for look and feel sucks, yes.

However, Apple is perfectly within their rights not to open thier window manager. It sucks for you, but it keeps them in business. Aqua -is- Apple, in many ways.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[BlueGecko]

* Apple sued developers of the KDE and Gnome themes that were "confusingly similar" to their Aqua theme?

Like it or not, Apple spent a good deal of money developing Aqua and cultivating its image. When users see Aqua, they immediately recognize it as an OS X system. It's like the distinctive styling of Jaguars and BMW that make it so easy to identify them even from a good distance. The KDE and GNOME themes threatened to destroy that branding before it got off the ground. I fail to see what's wrong with that. Apple didn't ban KDE or GNOME from transparency, or blueness, or even clumping all the window widgets together on the left. They just didn't want them copying their branding. Is it that hard to come up with your own unique theme without copying someone else? Or do you just have to have permission to flat out plagiarize everything you see?

* Made the decision to keep their window manager closed, in order to keep the community from benefiting?

So, just to make sure I'm entirely and 100% clear on this, your basic problem is that Apple only released all of their base system (which included many parts--NetInfo, OpenDirectory, OpenTransport, the HFS+ filing system, CoreFoundation, OpenPlay, and Rendezvous, just to name a few--that they had absolutely no requirement whatsoever to release) and not the entire system. Apple did not release that core because it is what distinguishes the experience from so many other pgorams, but still, look at all of the stuff you did get. Instead of focusing on the fact that Quartz, which probably cost millions to develop, remained closed, why not be happy that they have given you an excellent directory technology (NetInfo) and some very good networking technologies under an open-source license.

As for your complaint about the APSL: the APSL is recognized by OSI as a valid license, so unless your beef is with all of OSI, I'm not going to accept your complaint about the APSL unless you can be more specific about how it's taking rights away.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[Anonymous Coward]

"I would have hoped that the open source community on Slashdot would have a long enough memory to remember the litigious injuries that Apple had inflicted upon us in the past, but I suppose those hopes were misplaced."

Hell no! WTF were you smoking? As far as Slashodtters are concerned, Apple can do no wrong. Whereas everytime The Bill sneezes it's an attack on open source, The Steve could design an iMac in the shape of an Apple shitting on a penguin and we'd applaud Apple's "innovation."

Apple has a cult following because it can brainwash better than any other company on the planet.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[g4dget]

Made the decision to keep their window manager closed, in order to keep the community from benefiting?

I think it's their full right to do this--they aren't obligated to give software away.

Of course, I also think it's foolish for Apple to invest much effort in this proprietary effort. Aqua looks nice and has set a new standard for appearance, but I predict that we will have smaller and faster X11-based systems with similar appearance and graphical capabilities within less than a year, and you'll be able to get that appearance using any of your favorite toolkits, without porting or any other hassles.

If you want the programming model of Apple's GUI, you already can get GNUStep. I think if Apple made their entire system open source, it would be about as successful--most developers apparently really don't want to develop for Objective-C and DisplayPostscript/DisplayPDF.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[BlackGriffen]

"Apple sued developers of the KDE and Gnome themes that were "confusingly similar" to their Aqua theme?"

That has nothing to do with source code and everything to do with branding. Apple wants people to be able to look at the screen and say, "Oh, that's a Mac," like they have done for years.

"Made the decision to keep their window manager closed, in order to keep the community from benefiting?"

There's a very good reason for closed sourcing the the window manager. Any monkey can find a free BSD variant online, but the window manager is sufficiently different from X and it's managers to make it stand out, so Apple doesn't want to lose that competitive advantage. If Apple lets go of that, then there would be no reason to buy a Mac when 50 clones came out on the x86 platform. Simply put, Apple isn't just in the business of building computers, and because they also make the operating system, they cannot afford to open source all of it unless they are willing to let go of what competitive advantages they do have.

Besides, I was under the impression that parts of the Red Hat distro were proprietary, no?

BlackGriffen

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dh003i]

Yada yada yada. Users have the right to make their OS look like whatever the hell they want to, whether those users are using Linux, Windows, OS X or whatever else. If a user wants to make WindowMaker look like Aqua, they'll do it by theming. Offering pre-made themes for downloading just saves people that hassle.

You don't see the OSS/FS community bitching because Apple ripped off the dock, which is used in so many of our Window Managers, do you? No.

Apple doesn't prohibit us from using "transparency, or blueness"...Actually, they do want to do that. They don't want to allow anyone else to make a theme which has a glassy/transparent blue look to it.

So fuck Apple. I have the right to make my UI look like whatever the hell I want to.

Personally, I think Aqua's theme sucks. Tacky and tasteless like a two-dollar whore. I'd much prefer a simple no-thrills theme which is clean and neat. Though I'll say you shouldn't use themes in OSX (as it'll make your system unbootable), the best themes for OSX are BeOS, NeXT, and Sosumi. All of them are simple and clean.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, yeah, and the GPL doesn't take away rights. Yeah, sure. I like that.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do all Apple advocates bring up 'Jaguar' and 'BWM' in comparisons? Yugos, Sentras, and Metros have just as distinctive styling :P

Re:APSL takes away rights

[BlueGecko]

You don't see the OSS/FS community bitching because Apple ripped off the dock, which is used in so many of our Window Managers, do you? No.

The Dock comes directly from NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP. Check out a picture here.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't see the OSS/FS community bitching because Apple ripped off the dock, which is used in so many of our Window Managers, do you? No.

Really? 'cause is shure looks like you're bitching about it right now to me.

Anyway, all those window managers with docks ripped it off from NeXT Step anyway, and since Apple bought NeXT, they'd actually be more justified in bitching about a bunch of linux users ripping off their dock than the other way arround.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[Alan]

IIRC they sued because the themes contained copyrighted icons, ie: the apple symbol. There are a ton of aqua themes out there now and they are getting no flack from apple from what I can see.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[bnenning]

Regardless of the merits of Apple's actions that you cited, neither has anything to do with the APSL. Darwin is free and the UI layers aren't; this has always been the case.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[betaray]

Actually the dock was ripped off some NextStep which Apple now owns.

Intellectual property is not the ultimate evil. You don't have a right to rip off someone's copyrighted works. Now if you want to bitch and moan about the length of copyrights, or the over eagerness of big business to strip away fair use, then I'll support you.

Apple makes lots of things that make computers better. If they couldn't profit off their investment then they probably wouldn't bother. If you want to use a Mac interface, then you need to buy a Mac. Just don't steal their ideas.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, the slashdot mentality. The ability to justify any action through misinterpretation of rules and laws. People like you are the reason actually *nix users think this site is a fucking joke.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[corey_lawson]

Yes, these 3 cars all have "anti-styling". Either they are so mediocre (sentra) or other characteristics (Metro, Yugo) of those cars are so negative as to warrant not imitating the design so as to not inheret the bad associations from the other car. You don't see too many Yugo or Metro look-alikes, do you?

Does anyone notice the styling cues in cars borrowed from other cars?

Think back to when the 190/300 series MB's first came out. Hondas, Mitsu Galants, etc. had no similar cues in their cars. Then, a couple of years after, when new designs of the Honda Accord and Mitsu Galant came out these cars had very similar rear light treatments and trunk openings, and for several years the Lexus LS400 looked very much like a MB knockoff (which leads to the Cadillac DeVile Lexus knock-off, which does not lead to the Cadillac CTS. What the hell were they thinking of with THAT car?)

I have the copy of the R&T article for my former 1991 MR-2 Turbo, that did stylistic and performance comparisons with the "low end" Ferarri at the time. The MR2 dimensionally and stylistically had a lot more in common with the Ferarri than one would normally think.

Or, when the C-4 Corvettes first came out, R-T had a "special issue" about the designing of the new 'Vettes, and how they literally copied the rear lights of the Ferarri (348), using two simple circular lights per side instead of just one ala Ferarri.

Car designers plagiarize each other, too. More of them though should watch the first "Vacation" movie, and have in their studios the Family Truckster as a design to NOT borrow design cues and elements from (can you say, Pontiac Aztec or Cadillac CTS?), or the dorkomatic anti-fender extensions on the new Chevy Monte Carlos (they crease the fender panels IN instead of pushing them out to make it LOOK like the fenders flare out).

Re:APSL takes away rights

[Anonymous Coward]

thats why i bought my imac. the first thing i thought of was it shitting on a penguin :)

Re:APSL takes away rights

[BitGeek]

APSL only works to take away the rights of the users

Are you really so stupid that you think a license granting rights to source code with conditions is "taking away" rights?

They cant' take away rights to their property that was never given.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO APPLE PRODUCTS OR SOURCE.

Furthermore, its clear that you think suing somebody who STEALS YOUR PROPERTY is a violation of rights.

Great. Can I have your car?

Re:APSL takes away rights

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like the distinctive styling of Jaguars and BMW that make it so easy to identify them even from a good distance.

no it's the pompous assholes that own them that makes them easily identifiable...

I have yet to meet someone that owned either of those or the crap that is mercedes or worse yet... Alpha Romeo... that didnt have their heads so clouded and pompous that they even saw other traffic...

Now, I love the rich wenches driving themm.. I usually start licking my window at them at stoplights just to give them a good "freak" expierience for that day.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[BitGeek]

You don't see the OSS/FS community bitching because Apple ripped off the dock, which is used in so many of our Window Managers, do you? No.

I love how apple "ripped off the dock" from operating systems that were released well after NeXTSTEP.

We all know they have amazing powers of time travel-- "stealing future technology for the needs of today!"

Sheesh.

Nevermind that the entirety of the look and feel of every Linux box is a blatent ripoff of the creation of Apple computer (with a trivial amount licensed from Xerox.)

No, lets pretend that isn't the case. sure.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[akac]

The problem here is that X11, Windows, OS 9, and all the other window managers work in a very similar way - just look different. Quartz/Aqua looks AND works differently from the other window managers. Its PDF based with automatic double buffering and far more sophisticated compositing that is just plain not possible on other systems without major hacks.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dh003i]

Oh, please. Firstly, if you believe there weren't docks and such before NeXT, your fulla shit.

Secondly, Apple did not invent the NeXT look. NeXT did. NeXT was a separate company, with an abysmal profit situation. After they stopped selling the NeXT OS on NeXT boxes, people in the Linux world wanted something that felt like NeXT. Hence GNUstep & WindowMaker. Its a users right to use and get whatever interface they like; if the company that produced that interface stops selling it or goes out of business (as is the case with NeXT and Be), then you should expect users to make a replacement for themselves (i.e., GNUstep / Windowmaker, or BlueOS & OpenBe).

In short, there were docks before NeXT. It invented nothing new in that regard (though column-file navigation, I believe, was NeXT's invention). And people who developed GPL'ed alternatives comparable to NeXT (Windowmaker and GNUstep) did not rip off Apple (as Apple hadn't made them), nor NeXT (as NeXT had stopped selling them, and even had they not, we have the right to make improvements to our UI).

Besides, the idea of patenting or copyrighting or whatever a "GUI's feel" is outrageous. Progress in GUI's is greatly aided by different people copying the good ideas of others; why waste time & effort coming up with a alternate solution to the problem when a good one has already been deviced?

Apple took plenty from the FS / OSS communities via the UNIX-tools they incorporated into OS X. They pretty much took it unmodified and recompiled it for Apple hardware. A little bit hypocritical for them to ask that no one copy some of their good ideas.

The whole market of ideas is dependant on the abillity of one company or in this case volunteer effort to copy the good ideas of another; not their exact implementation, but certainly the idea behind them. First Porsches & Jaguars had rounded headlights, then Mercedes Benz' had rounded headlights, now Ford Taurus' and every commoner car have headlights. Hardly anything wrong with that. What you want is for one company like Apple to be able to obtain IP rights over something very general, like "a column view file navigator" or "the dock". This is outrageous.

As for using the Mac interface, if I want to use something that looks like Aqua, I can manipulate my themes for WindowMaker to look like that; there's nothing Apple can do to stop me from doing that. Why shouldn't I be able to save others that trouble and prevent them from having to do that?

Re:APSL takes away rights

[SlamMan]

Wait, what? You expect Apple to distribute under the GPL , of all liscenses? Do you actually think Apple wants to give Darwin code to every person who installs OS X? You could make a good agument for BSD liscenses, but no way on the GPL. For Grandma nto to see a cd called source code to show up with her mac is reason ebnough to use a differnt liscense.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[SlamMan]

No, just like if you have a big sign that says open house on your door, and I come in, that fine. But it doesn't make me a hipocryte for not have a sign on my door saying the same thing, and being pissed when you climb in my window.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple sued developers of the KDE and Gnome themes that were "confusingly similar" to their Aqua theme?

Like it or not, Apple spent a good deal of money developing Aqua and cultivating its image.

Comment sounds like a rendezvous!

Re:APSL takes away rights

[g4dget]

X11 has had automatic double buffering support for years. The X Render extension provides compositing, alpha support, full transparency (including for windows), antialiased drawing, antialiased text, affine transforms, and splines. X Render is part of XFree86 4.2.

Time will tell whether the Quartz or X11 approach is better. I suspect X Render will be more efficient and work with many more toolkits.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[foobar104]

So fuck Apple. I have the right to make my UI look like whatever the hell I want to.

No, you don't. You have the right to make it look like whatever the hell you want up to the point where you're infringing on somebody else's trademark. This is just like names. If you make a beverage, you are free to call it whatever you want... but you obviously can't call it Coca-Cola. Similarly, you can name your company whatever you want... but you can't call it American Airlines.

Trademarks are a really simple idea, dude. I'm concerned and saddened that you don't get them. Perhaps your trouble is the fact that you're a moron?

Re:APSL takes away rights

[foobar104]

Apple took plenty from the FS / OSS communities via the UNIX-tools they incorporated into OS X. They pretty much took it unmodified and recompiled it for Apple hardware. A little bit hypocritical for them to ask that no one copy some of their good ideas. :sigh:

Apple took what was freely given (FreeBSD), and combined it with what was already theirs (NeXT's IP) and some new things (Quartz, Aqua) to come up with OS X.

Get that? Apple took what had been freely given. They are under no obligation-- moral, legal, or otherwise-- to give anything in return. They do so anyway.

And yet you say they're not doing enough.

You zealots amaze me.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, a lot of people would argue that they ARE under a moral obligation to give back, as lucky for them they have been. A lot of people in the free software community give away software to motivate others to give away their stuff too. Sadly, this is often misunderstood by outsiders as "woohoo, we got all this stuff for free and we don't have to give anything back for it. isn't that cool?" Legally, that's true. But it tends to piss people off.

Anyway, the way they've been acting over the aqua interface is pathetic. They should have let people copy the aqua theme. You can't make aqua look as good on linux or windows as you can make it look on a mac. People would have been able to compare the two and see how much the mac rules. It would have been good publicity. Instead they've chewed their own foot off. Stupid Apple. This makes me that much more convinced that they're no better than Microsoft. That's why I don't buy Apple. Love the hardware, love the software, but the company sucks.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[betaray]

If you can back up the claim that NeXT didn't invent the dock (that is that there's a OS with docks before NeXT), then I'd love to see it.

I love that you bring up cars, because EVERYTHING on a car was patented. You know why the Taurus didn't have rounded headlights the very next year after Porsches? Because those lights are patented, and Ford would either have to develop their own unique design, license the Porsche design, or wait for the patent to expire.

This is not a bad thing. This is also what you fail to address from my first post: What is the motivation for developing new technology if your competitors can immediately take what you've produced and sell it at a lower cost since they did not have to fund the R&D?

Just think of it this way, what if some open-source GUI guru came up with a wonderful new way to do things, something that would revolutionize the desktop and bring Linux to the forefront? Then Microsoft saw the idea and incorporated it into the next version of Windows totally negating any advantage Linux might have, and at the same protecting their position as the market leader. Assuming it was GPL'd you'd claim that they were in violation of the license.

Well, the street goes both ways. By ripping off the Mac GUI you're in violation of their license. In another post you seem to understand this. Just like you can't use even a small bit of GPL'd code and not GPL your program, and you can't take Apple's work without their permission. Remember the only thing that makes the GPL work is the existence of copyright law.

If you believe that closed source is bad, I can respect that. However, that does not give you license to steal from the people who develop closed source software.

On a completely different subject, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but you might want to think about your attitude. Maybe you just like being an ass to people, but you're not going to change anyone's mind by starting of your posts with "Your full of shit" or generally insulting people. You just going to alienate and galvanize people's attitudes against your position simple due to the fact that you're abrasive. If your goal is actually to convince people of your point, you might try using more tact in your posts.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dbrutus]

If Apple has the moral obligation to release code back, the OSS community has the moral obligation not to bitch about how they fulfill that obligation. They've adopted an OSI license, released a great deal of code and seem to be successfully profitable which means as time goes forward there will continue to be code released as they please. Now isn't the choice of when and how to release code properly the decision of the owner/creator?

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dh003i]

The only moron here is you.

If I want to make my desktop look like Apple's tacky Aqua appearance, that's my fucking right. Apple can't stop me from doing that legally, nor would any such efforts be enforcible.

Its the same as if I had branded a large copyrighted picture on my wall. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that.

All I'm doing in distributing my customization appearance to others is helping them do the same thing I did, saving them the trouble. I'm not a commercial competitor, so trademarks don't apply.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dh003i]

They give back to the community under a draconian license, the APSL. As has been noted by Stallman, the APSL has several problems which mean we can call it Open (as in OSS, we can see the source) but hardly Free (as in freedom):

1. Disrespect for privacy. APSL doesn't allow you to make a private modification for your own purposes; you must publish any modifications. Though this is completely uninforcible, it is disturbing none-the-less.

2. Central control. Anyone who releases or uses a modified version must notify Apple.

3. Revocation. The license states that Apple can revoke it at any time. This makes it no better than the EULA.

4. Its an unfair and unequal relationship. It requires you to give Apple certain rights to your modifications, which they do not give to their code.

This is hardly giving back; hardly a symbiotic relationship. This is, "lets see if we can get them to work for us without paying them".

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dh003i]

You should also note that while Apple has the right to license their software in whatever reasonable manner they like (and many of the clauses in their license are completely unreasonable and probably unconstitutional), they do not have the right to the praise or acceptance of the OSS and FS communities.

We have the right to criticize their license, while at the same time encouraging them for their relative progress.

Perhaps Apple improved their grade on licensing for some comoponents of its OS from an E to a D; but a D is still failing. While we should encourage them for their progress, we should hardly say that all is right.

You should also note that what's more important isn't how much software Apple licenses under an open sourced license (the APSL), but rather the quality of that license. It would be better to release that same amount of software under the BSD or GPL licenses than to release the entire OS under the APSL.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[foobar104]

Anyway, the way they've been acting over the aqua interface is pathetic. They should have let people copy the aqua theme.

No offense, but you appear to lack a basic understanding of branding and marketing.

Apple wants people to buy Macs. Fundamentally, I think many people in Apple's upper management have higher motives-- their recent decisions show that they want to create new and beautiful things that make people's lives better-- but, as a company, they just want people to buy Macs.

Why do people buy Macs instead of other computers? Each Mac owner has his own set of reasons, but if you boil them all down you'll find that people buy Macs because they're Macs. Macs are different from other computers.

A Dell is pretty much the same as a Gateway, is pretty much the same as a Compaq as far as personal computers go. They all run the same software and do the same things. They differentiate from one another on price and on the way the case looks.

Macs are differentiated in several ways. Their industrial design is different. Their applications-- like iTunes and iPhoto and whatnot-- are different. And, yeah, their look-and-feel is different.

Take away what's different, and you lose the thing that makes a Mac a Mac. People lose their reason to buy a Mac-- after all, the only reason people buy Macs is because they're Macs, right?

So Apple has a vested interest in keeping Macs different from other computers. That extends to all aspects of "differentness," including the design and appearance of the user interface.

Apple would have been foolish if they hadn't defended their Aqua-related trademarks. They would have been giving away their market differentiation, which is the only thing that keeps them in business.

Based on the tone and content of your comment, I do not expect you to agree with this, or even to understand it. But it's the truth.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[foobar104]

I can't understand how anybody with even the slightest understand of how business works would say such a thing.

As much as I hate to say it, I think that Microsoft might actually have a point. A sizable fraction of the "free" software advocates out there-- including you, dh003i-- hold intractable anti-business positions. That concerns me.

On the one hand, we have the corporate world. Big companies doing business. On the other hand, we have the "free" software folks. I don't like to think that these two groups are in opposition to one another, but it sounds like they are after all. At least, the "free" software folks oppose the corporate world. The corporate world still seems to be pretty indifferent to the "free" software people, which is a good thing.

Anyway, you have these two groups, in opposition to one another. Comparing the contributions to the world that the "free" software people have made-- some software that's only useful to a tiny fraction of the population-- to the contributions to the world that the corporations have made-- in with a lot of bad stuff, a lot of good stuff like medicines and abundant food and relatively inexpensive housing-- I have to say that I'd side with the corporations.

Yeah, you people have the right to criticize Apple's license. And lord knows you exercise that right; the "free" software people are the most critical gang I've ever encountered. But that doesn't make you right. You're still a bunch of immature idealists who haven't really thought about the implications of what it is that you're advocating.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[foobar104]

Anybody can download Apple's source, read it, learn, and use Apple's ideas to implement their own software. People are prohibited merely from modifying Apple's code without telling Apple about it. This is a fine and good thing; Apple is sharing their innovations while still holding on to their valuable intellectual property. This is most certainly giving back to the community.

And yet you find fault anyway. Why is that, I wonder?

The problem here is that you, dh003i, have a political agenda. This agenda, which is based on the idea that no corporation or individual should own intellectual property, is incompatible with the modern world. This is why you have plenty of things to complain about. This is also why your complaints are irrelevant.

Let me show you what I mean. For purposes of discussion, I will adopt a political agenda. Let's say that agenda is... environmentalism. My goal in life is to protect the environment.

I now observe that the Apple license is notably silent on the subject of greenhouse gas emissions. According to the APSL, anybody can download Apple's source code while continuing to use as many fossil fuels and CFC's as they want! The license does not restrict in any way one's use of plastics or aluminum; it doesn't even have the standard clause that says, "All printed copies of this license must be recycled in an environmentally friendly paper recycling facility!" This license sucks!

See what I mean? If your agenda is orthogonal to the purpose of the license, you will find many things to which to object. But your objections will be meaningless, and they will be ignored.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dh003i]

Firstly, there's a big difference between Ford copying Porsche's features and an OSS / FS project copying Apple's features. Ford is commercial and competes with Porsche. OSS / FS projects are not commercial and don't compete.

Secondly, as you implied, Ford could have come out with rounded headlights the next year, or day; just it would have to be their own implementation of them. Similarly, the Aqua themes I've seen so far for Linux or Windows are not copies of Apple's implementation of a glassy/bluish look & feel; they're different, separately generated, implementations.

The idea that a "look and feel" can be patented & copyrighted is absurd. Xerox was trying to make that point when they sued Apple because Apple sued MS for "ripping off their look and feel"; essentially, Xerox said that you shouldn't legally be able to own the rights to a look and feel.

Think about how backwards what your saying is. You want a world where one person discovers something useful, and then no one else can use that something without paying them. Its like saying that if I find a better way to do business, and that becomes widely known, I can prevent anyone else from doing business that way.

The entire market is dependant to some extent upon competitors copying eachothers efforts. This is the only way you can create real competition.

Yes, I know the only thing that makes the GPL work is copyright law. However, the GPL is a brilliant tool designed by Stallman to use Intellectual Property laws against themselves, so to speak. It is not the end goal. The end goal is to either eliminate intellectual property all-together, or vastly reduce its duration and scope.

As for being an ass, I call it as I see it; if I think someone's full of it, I'll say so.

As for a dock before NeXT, what do you call this in TWM?

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dh003i]

I'm not anti-business; I'm just against some business methods employed:

1. Insider-trading, commonly practiced by executives, which allowed that bastard Gary Wennig to make 600 million dollars while the shareholders of Global Crossings lost their money.

2. Biopiracy and other outrageous attempts to own life. Refer here to biotech companies patenting cures developed by traditional people, then making money on that, and charging indigenous people for the cures they themselves developed. Also refer to Monsanto corporation, which has now taken up the practice of suing farmers for not removing "patented" seed which germinates on their property due to wind.

3. EULA's which take away basic user rights and attempt to extend the companies rights far beyond what copyright law allows.

4. The ever-continual efforts of corporations like Walt Disney, and corporate organizations like the RIAA and MPAA, to retroactively and unconstitutionally extend both the scope (i.e., DMCA) and duration (i.e., 1998 Mickeymouse Copyright Extension Act).

5. Other unfair licenses, like Apple's APSL (though most of the unfair parts are unenforcible [i.e., those requiring that you publicize any modifications]).

6. Unreasonable attempts to silence speech using intellectual property laws. Refer to Intel Inside and "Yoga Inside". Also refer to "fuckfordmotors.com" or whatever it was.

The business world is not indifferent to the OSS & FS movements. They want to either use them (in the way in which Apple parasites off of the efforts of the OSS community) or eliminate them, as they see them as a threat (in the way in which MS has targetted the FSF and the GPL, and any software covered under it).

I'm not against business in general. I'm just against certain business practices, which are rather common in the business world. I happen to believe its possible to make money without fucking anyone over, breaking the law, or violating anyone's rights.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dh003i]

Oh please. Believing that intellectual property rights should either be eliminated or scaled back both in scope and duration is not incompatable with the modern world; indeed, it makes more sense in the modern world than when copyrights were first invented.

Now that most software, music, and videos are obsolete in 5, 10, and perhaps 20 years respectively, it makes sense to limit copryrights to perhaps 20 years max, following the 5-year renewal plan that Lessig proposed.

I'm not sure I support eliminating intellectual property all together. But I do support drastically scaling back its scope and duration, as I've previously indicated. By scaling back its duration, I mean that it should be very narrowly construed; Coca Cola's trademark on the slogan "its the real thing" for their drinks shouldn't be able to prevent a book reviewer from saying (in regards to a book), "its the real thing".

Your example regarding the environmentalism is absurd, because the environment is not an inherent issue in software; users freedom, however, which is the concern of the FS community, is.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[overunderunderdone]

...and many of the clauses in their license are completely unreasonable and probably unconstitutional

I can accept unreasonable, but "unconsitutional"? Such a bizarre statement severely undermines your credibility.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dh003i]

"Unconstitutional". Let me explain. In Apple's license, there are many clauses which could only be enforced by unconstitutional means. One clause says that no one can make a modification of the code under the APSL without publishing that code.

The only way to enforce this clause would be to vilate peoples privacy, break into their houses, spy on them, etc etc.

A law, contract, or regulation which could only be enforced through unconstitutional means is thus itself unconstitutional. Perhaps it isn't right to speak of contracts as being "constitutional" or "unconstitutional"; more like "valid" or "invalid". A contract which would require unconstitional enforcement is invalid.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[betaray]

Linux doesn't compete against other operating systems? Damn, someone's going to have to tell Microsoft and Sun about that. They seem to be under a different impression.

Also, you and the FSF seem to be in a disagreement about the commercial nature of free software. Check out this page. (Scroll down to the paragraph that starts: "Free software" does not mean "non-commercial")

Sorry, I wanted to address this earlier, but in wanting cover the IP issues first, I forgot, but BlueGecko is wrong. First of all, Apple never sued any theme developers. What they did, however is send a cease and desist letter to all of the theme markers who used Apple trademarks. I hope you can at least understand that trademarks are a form of consumer protection, and that allowing people to clone established company's marks is confusing and hurtful to the consumer.

You want a world where one person discovers something useful, and then no one else can use that something without paying them.

Um, yeah that's exactly what I'm saying, and that's also what the Constitution says in Article 1 Section 8:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Now I agree that the most important clause of that section is "for a limited time". I don't think people should have an unlimited monopoly, but in order to encourage people to develop things we have the let them profit off from them.

The end goal is to either eliminate intellectual property all-together, or vastly reduce its duration and scope.

Is that the goal of the FSF? I hardly think so. Again if you can back that up with a link, I'd love it. If that really were the goal, then you'd think they'd be opposed to copyrighting their work, but if you look at the bottom every single page on gnu.org, guess what you'll see? Yep, a copyright notice

As far as who came up with the dock first, that's a nice screen shot of twm, but it's obviously a modern one (Netscape, Realplayer in what I'm guessing is the dock). Looks like NeXTStep and twm came out about the same time. NextStep 1.0 was released in 1986, with early releases as far back as 1989. TWM came with X11R1, and assuming the dock was a part of that it'd place it at about September 1987. So neither predates the other, but I did find an interesting usenet post from 1990 about how to configure your twm to look like NeXTStep. It atleast shows that the NeXTStep dock was significantly different/advanced from than whatever was included at the time in twm.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[betaray]

oops that's I Am The Owl is wrong not BlueGecko

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dh003i]

I believe I was talking about the themes people were offering. People created these aqua-like themes privately, and gave them away freely, not for commercial profit.

I realise that GPL'ed software may be commercialized, but the point is it tends to be non-commercialized.

Sending a cease and desist letter is just as bad as suing, since no individual could win a lawsuit against a corporation like Apple.

Your justification for this is that if we're allowed to put the little Apple logo in the themes we post on themes.org, that's going to confuse consumers? Please. Yes, trademarks exist for consumer protection -- so that we can easily identify and differentiate between brands. They exist *only* for consumer protection. When there's no risk of confusion, they should not be applied. Person X posting an Aqua-like theme for say WindowMaker and including the Apple symbol isn't confusing anyone. They're not doing it to try to make money off of Apple's trademark. They're simply trying to make people migrating from MacOS to Linux more comfortable.

As for "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" and a "limited time". (1) The current duration of patents and copyrights would horrify the founding fathers. A limited time did not mean and NEVER meant that whenever copyrights are about to expire, hollywood nazi's can get a retroactive extension for another 99 years. (2) Also key to that statement is to promote the progress of science and hte useful arts. Where it does not promote such, it should not be respected.

I never said the end goal of the FSF is to eliminate or vastly reduce the duration and scope of copyright. I was speaking for myself. Though I suspect that RMS and any other reasonable person would agree that the scope and duration of intellectual property must be drastically cut back.

Yes, the NeXTStep dock was different and more advanced from that of twm. However, the point was that at least there was a kind of dock independent of NeXT.

I actually believe that some of the smartest most innovative people in the world make OSS / FS software. Alot of very innovative brilliant solutions were created and cultivated in our community. It was people in our community (and I refer to the OSS & FS as one community here). It was a very brilliant Valkonen who decided to make a WM for Linux where separate instances of an application would be grouped into a frame of tabs. I really wish that the people who work on WindowMaker would incorporate tabbed windowing. Its really so superior to other methods. I have some ideas of my own, which include cascade retention.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[overunderunderdone]

there are many clauses which could only be enforced by unconstitutional means.

First off a bit of semantics. The constitution is a document outlining how our goverment is consitituted (thus the name). A private individual or organization can do something unlawful but NOT something unconstitutional unless they are acting as an agent of the state. The government is bound by the constitution to respect certain rights (such as privacy) an individual or private organization is bound by laws that end up in a democratic system protecting those same rights (like trespassing laws). I can see your confusion since the bill of rights asserts a few general rights that are enshrined both in the constitution (binding the government) and in law (binding on those governed) but the practical application of those rights in the constitution is always limits on government action. Even the "right to privacy" is a "penumbra" a logical inference based on a practical prohibition on government power requiring to the government to get a warrent to make searches.

One clause says that no one can make a modification of the code under the APSL without publishing that code.

Actually this is not entirely true. You may make modifications for personal use, and for R&D within an organization WITHOUT publishing the code. You must publish only if you deploy within an organization (the clause you have a problem with) or distribute the code.

The only way to enforce this clause would be to vilate peoples privacy, break into their houses, spy on them, etc etc.

A couple of points, as a private individual you are free to make all sorts of agreements that violate your privacy. If a policeman breaks into your house that is an unconstitutional violation of you rights. If you invite a friend in for a cup of coffee it is NOT. The APSL has no enforcement clause outlining any right on the part of Apple to audit your use of their code But if it did your argument would be utterly void. YOU of your own free will agreed to invite them in, they are not violating your privacy anymore than a friend you invited home.

Secondly, of course you can agree to do things that the other party has few practical means of checking up on. You seem to imply that your word, your promise to do something is void unless there is some way for me to check up on you and force you to live up to it. Remind me not to enter any agreements with you.

Beside there are many ways that your secret violation of your agreement can come to their attention without them violating your privacy. In such a situation they grant you 30 days to comply with the agreement or it is voided leaving you with no right to use their code. Sure a small organization could probably secretly deploy a modified Darwin without Apple being likely to ever know it. I have a suspicion that while the terms of the agreement technically covers such a violation Apple is more concerned with much larger (an unlikely to successfully keep it secret) organization. If a fortune 500 company decides to deploy a modified Darwin it is quite likely that word would get back to Apple in some way that doesn't require Apple storm troopers breaking down doors in the middle of the night and Steve Jobs interogating their CEO's in a dingy cell illuminated by the harsh light of a single unshaded lightbulb. (Though with a few CEO's that is a singularly gratifying image.)

Finally, just about every other license has similar privacy "problems". The GPL protects an organizations privacy, they can use a modified version of linux for their own purposes within the company but can't sell or distribute it without making the source public. I'm sure there are many ways to figure out from a closed-source binary that it might contain GPL's code within it. Surely enough for you to have a "reasonable suspicion" that the closed-source program is violating the terms of the GPL. But I doubt you could PROVE it or ENFORCE the license in any way without "violating their privacy" in the same way Apple would in order to PROVE and ENFORCE the terms of their license. The GPL perhaps gives more occasion for reasonable suspicions to arise in the case of a violation but it is silly to suggest that such reasonable suspicion could never arrise under the APSL's "deployment" clause. I'd imagine that a closed-source binary could use open-sourced code and be modified sufficiently and purposefully so that few tell-tale clues would remain in the binary to suggest that it is (partly at least) the product of a broken GPL agreement. The fact that you may never know every instance where the agreement may have been broken doesn't make the terms of the agreement "invalid" never mind "unconsititional".

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dh003i]

You seem to be completely blind to the problems with the contractualization of law. Contract law must be superceded by real laws -- local, state, federal, and constitutional law.

In your world, I can write up a contract with someone that says I'm their slave (in the sense that black people were slaves before the civil war), and that's a valid contract.

Some contracts are simply void on their face. Loan arrangements made with loan sharks, for example; courts do not, for good reason, enforce "contracts" made between a loanee and a loan-shark.

If company Y writes up a contract with person X to kill person Z, that contract is invalid on its face. A court will not enforce that contract and require person X to carry out his end of the contract.

Rights were designed to protect us from eachother, just as much as from the government. Is it any lesser a violation of one's rights, when one is murdered by a private citizen, as opposed to the government? Of course not.

My point is, there are certain standards which contracts have to meet to be valid.

Firstly, the contract must be legal. A contract designed to carry out illegal purposes (i.e., a contract for murder) is invalid. For the same reasons, contracts which would require privacy-rigths violations should be invalid; simply because the right at stake is less critical (privacy as opposed to life) does not mean that the contract mandating the violation of it should be any more valid.

Secondly, all parties must be aware of what they're contracting into. If I make a contract with someone who is unaware of what that contract says (i.e., a mentally disabled person) that contract can be voided. For similar reasons, all EULA's should be voided on their face because buyers do not know what they are before buying the product, and after opening it up, stores will not accept a return for refund due to "I don't agree to the EULA".

Thirdly, regarding EULA's, one additional property makes them all (or almost all of them) invalid on their face. Within the agreement, they attempt to state that any changes may be made to the agreement at the desire of the company. In other words, they want to be able to change the stipulations of the deal after it has been made. Contracts must be static, or renegotiated between the two parties when one desires a change.

Fourthly, again regarding EULA's, they also attempt to state that the company may revoke the license at any time for any reason. Another invalid clause, as it would defaud the consumer out of what (s)he hs paid for.

Software should be sold as a piece of property changing ownership, like cars are. People should obtain the rights over that physical and ehteral software, and the rights to do with it as they please. This would not mean they could distribute it around the net for free or clone and sell it; not any more than my buying a Porsche 911 means I can use that as a template to start building 911's and selling them.

In short, I see a big problem with the contractualization of law (i.e., contracts superceding the law); the only problem on the same scale as the contractualization of the law is the codification of law in Lessig's sense (in that codified law [i.e., DRM] gives copyright holders or corporations more rights than granted under the law).

Re:APSL takes away rights

[overunderunderdone]

You seem to be completely blind to the problems with the contractualization of law. Contract law must be superceded by real laws -- local, state, federal, and constitutional law.

Sure no problem with that.

In your world, I can write up a contract with someone that says I'm their slave...

Umm... In your zeal to refute me you apparantly neglected to read my post. Try again.

Is it any lesser a violation of one's rights, when one is murdered by a private citizen, as opposed to the government? Of course not.

Quite right. But one does not usually accuse a murderer of being "unconstitutional". Murder is bad, it is illegal, it violates your rights. Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic but I maintain that it is silly to call it "unconstitutional" unless it is the state that killed you without the due process guaranteed in the constitution. Please... words mean things. The word unconstitutional means something specific, It's not just a synonym for "bad" or even "violating my rights".

Firstly, the contract must be legal... For the same reasons, contracts which would require privacy-rigths violations should be invalid.

This is like saying it is illegal to invite a friend over to your house since by doing so YOU are violating your own privacy rights. Your right to privacy is a right you yourself may waive at will. Agreeing in a contract to waive your own privacy rights is not "illegal" in the same way that making a contract with someone else to videotape the goings on in the girls lockerroom would be. Can you see how one is a contract that violates a right to privacy but the other does not? Let me ask you this question. I recently signed an NDA, a company said that they would employ me & tell me their secrets if I agreed not to tell anyone else. Was that contract invalid because it violated my prospective employers right to privacy? Also in the past I signed a partnership agreement that gave each of us certain rights to know things about each other - was this contract void because it "violated" our right to privacy? Your position is that Yes, such agreements (which account for most contracts ultimately) all violate someone's privacy rights. That I cannot myself enter into an agreement that grants someone else a right to know something about me that would be priviliged absent the agreement.

The APSL is significantly less invasive than any loan agreement, partnership agreement, employment agreement or marriage proposal for that matter. Are all these other contracts void because they violate one or both parties "right to privacy"?

Secondly, all parties must be aware of what they're contracting into... EULA's should be voided on their face

First of the APSL is NOT an EULA. It is a license that is agreed to by each party in EXACTLY the same way the GPL is. Sure an idiot could download Linux or Darwin source without reading or understanding the license that grants them the right to edit & distribute it. But to suggest that as a result both licenses are therefore completely void seems an extreme and unworkable position.

Contracts must be static, or renegotiated between the two parties when one desires a change.

Again comletely irrelevant to the APSL. The relevant clause says that you are bound to the static license that you have agreed to, OR at your choice any subsequent version of the same license. (if you agreed to APSL 1.0 you are bound to it's terms or you can choose to be bound to the 1.1 or 1.2 - your choice. The subsequent changes only supercede the previous agreement IF YOU WANT THEM TO.

Fourthly, again regarding EULA's, they also attempt to state that the company may revoke the license at any time for any reason. Another invalid clause, as it would defaud the consumer out of what (s)he hs paid for.

Again irrelevant to the APSL which is only voided by a failure on your part to meet it's terms after 30 days of being notified that you are violating the terms

You seem to be carrying on an argument with someone other than myself about something other than the APSL. Of your four main points three are completely irrelevant and the other posits a view that the right to privacy is so sacrosanct that it cannot be *voluntarily* waived. Making business partnerships, joint ventures, employment, marriage, hospitality & intimacy "unconsitutional" because they reguire agreements that waive one or both parties right to privacy.

In short, I see a big problem with the contractualization of law (i.e., contracts superceding the law)

Then you are seeing a fantasy problem. Contracts do NOT supercede the law, those that do (as in your example of a murder contract) are legally invalid. It is your view of what the law allows and what it prohibits that seems a little bizarre. You can tell me about the evils of EULA's and for the most part I will agree with you. Some of those practices probably should be illegal, some should simply not be agreed to. Either way they are often outrageous. But that wasn't what we were talking about.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dh003i]

Yes, I agree that alot of the points I mentioned were irrelevant to the APSL, only relevant to EULA's. I'm sorry for not clarifying that.

As for your assertion that we should be able to enter into some contracts like an NDA which would require non-disclosure, voluntarily limiting what is otherwise a right of freedom of speech. I agree that in some cases, such is necessary. But these contracts are never-the-less signing away rights. Where do we draw the line between acceptable concessions in contracts, and contracts which would essentually make one person a slave to another? I, for example, think that corporate non-compete clauses (which state that an employee cannot work for another company in the same field for X years after leaving the company) should be illegal. There are many other examples. The point is we need to put tighter restrictions on what contracts can do; i.e., have a set of laws regulation contracts. One example that worries me is standard EULA's which give copyright holders more rights than they have under the law, and take away consumers rights; i.e., according to most EULA's, you don't have the right to reverse engineer a product, something which is granted you under copyright law.

I'll grant the the APSL isn't that bad. In fact, despite Stallman's harsh criticism and non-support, I think its a big step forward for a license granted by a company; not only a big step in terms of moving towards the OSS development model, but also towards the FSF ideal of freedom. Stallman thinks that all change should come at once, and will not commend steps in the right direction taken, but will rather only criticize for the steps still to be taken. I do, however, agree with Stallman's criticisms of the APSL; though one can criticize something where appropriate where still offering commendation where appropriate. In the case of the APSL, some constructive criticism is due, as is some praise.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[overunderunderdone]

As for your assertion that we should be able to enter into some contracts like an NDA which would require non-disclosure, voluntarily limiting what is otherwise a right of freedom of speech.

Actually my point was that my employeer was limiting what was otherwise HIS right to privacy. Your view of fairness seems always to tilt to one party "the little guy" who should be prevented from losing any rights but you seem OK with it when the other party "the big guy" loses his rights.

But these contracts are never-the-less signing away rights.

Of course they are every contract ever written involved "signing away rights" that is the whole point! A contract is a promise to do (or not do) something you have a right not to do (or do) in return for which the other party makes their own similar promises. It is the entire point that you "lose" "rights" to the other person that you once had and vice versa. In the case of most licenses you generally don't "lose" any rights that weren't granted to you by the license anyway.

Where do we draw the line between acceptable concessions in contracts, and contracts which would essentually make one person a slave to another?

That is what legislatures and elections are for. The line is a debatable one - there is no "right" answer. Even the nature of the question is open to debate. Where is the line of "reasonable" concessions beyond which we won't allow people to "enslave" themselves? Where is the line of "reasonable" limitations the government can make on peoples private agreements? Taking either position to an extreme limits freedom in different ways. Personally I don't think the balance we have is really all that bad. Sure there are a lot of people bound by onerous, bad, contracts. But you can't legislate utopia. Laws sufficient to outlaw all bad contracts would also outlaw most legitimate contracts and severely limit our freedom to make private agreements of any sort. The government should act to curb the worst abuses and protect the ignorant & easily victimized. But beyond that it must treat us as adults responsible for our own well-being. Freedom is meaningless if we are straightjacketed for our own protection. In the end if you find the terms of a contract unaceptable simply don't agree. If an EULA or the GPL or the APSL have terms you find unacceptable you don't have to accept it. Sure you must forego the benefits the agreement would have brought you but your are not entitled to have other people labour for your benefit.

One example that worries me is standard EULA's which give copyright holders more rights than they have under the law

As I noted above ALL contracts grant the parties more rights than they held under the law. My employment contract entitles me to money from my employer - without that contract he owes me NOTHING under the law. The same contract entitles him to my labour and time - without that contract I owe him nothing under the law.

Let me outline a type of contract that is very similar to an EULA in this regard. Many artists want to sell their paintings BUT they also have a conflicting desire to keep them for museum shows of their collected works (admittedly only a problem for the very successful). How do they resolve this conflict? As it turns out most purchasers are more than willing to loan the paintings back for this purpose - it really strokes the ego to have a painting you own in a museum show "from the collection of Mr. & Mrs. Smith". So when they purchase the painting they sign an agreement that says the artist has a right (he did not otherwise have) to borrow the painting for X number of times per year for X amount of time for the purpose of putting it in shows. You have a problem with that to the point where you think it should be illegal. But why? The artist feels easier selling his painting. The purchaser doesn't mind at all even though it may involve future inconveniences. You have a problem with that but really it's none of your business.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Haha, yeah, and the GPL doesn't take away rights. Yeah, sure. I like that.

It doesn't. It leaves you with the rights you already have under copyright law, and grants some additional ones *conditionally*.

Jeez, why is this so hard for you chowderheads to grasp???

let's see

[Anonymous Coward]

Darwin to be released today as open source ?
We'll probably soon speak about GNU/Darwin then ;-)

Re:let's see

[JThaddeus]

Take that Mr. Stallman!

Darwin 6.0.1 not the latest

[Anonymous Coward]

Darwin 6.1 is the latest public version of Darwin. Unfortunately, the only way to get it so far is by buying a copy of Jaguar. I imagine Apple will release the 6.1 source within the next month or so; they're pretty good about this type thing.

Re:Darwin 6.0.1 not the latest

[Draoi]

The 6.1 MacOS X kernel update only came out a few days ago by Software Update. Boxed Jaguar is still only 6.0.1, as is the latest Darwin release. The above references are confusing as they refer to both 6.0.1 and 6.1

One Apple developer on the darwin-developer mailing list hinted strongly that 6.1 Darwin would be out shortly.

bad link...

[NNland]

I don't know what's up with the apple webservers, but they have a problem with;
http://developer.apple.com/Darwin/
as listed in the link above. Switching it to;
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
works fine though.

Re:bad link...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... folders in links are CASE SENSITIVE. They have been since the creation of the WWW. Where have you been?

Re:bad link...

[messiertom]

I think he was trying to point out that the link (listed as /Darwin) is broken, and that in fact should be /darwin.

I'm starting to lose faith in our ACs's witty criticisms!

Re:bad link...

[Anonymous Coward]

actually genius it depends on the webserver ... some ignore case in folders (certian windows webservers) ... so don't flame

Re:bad link...

[Anonymous Coward]

why would apple.com run a windows server?

thats like slashdot running on IIS

Re:bad link...

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably coz apple.com is NOT running on OSX like they would like you to think, HFS+ is not case sensitive (like NTFS). The reason they still use their sun boxes(?) is that apache OSX is dog slow! Test it for your self...

Re:bad link...

[mbbac]

HFS+ is case insensitive, but Apache is not.

for what it's worth

[Anonymous Cowrad]

this is also being discussed on macslash.

the article can be found here

Re:for what it's worth

[cappadocius]

this is also being discussed on macslash.

Interesting fact: at the time of this posting, the parent comment has a score higher than all the scores of all of the postings on the MacSlash page combined.

Poor MacSlash, I knew him well.

ahhh, newspeak

[SubtleNuance]

making core protocols freely available as open standards and open source.

except aqua that is...

Apple is using *BSD and Opensource like MS used BSD's tcp/ip... dont get fooled again.

Re:ahhh, newspeak

[spankalee]

How is Aqua a "core protocol"?

You can't be happy that Apple is participating in open source, you want them to give away everything. It's simple business that Apple has to retain some value added features in order to have something to sell (of course I'm sure you'd rather they gave everything away). Plus they wrote Aqua from scratch, it doesn't use open source code. Originally based on Display PostScript, they had to re-write the entire windowing and graphics system, and you want them to give that away? Basically, you're jealous.

They are not using open source like M$ used BDS tcp/ip stack, this is pure FUD. By all accounts they are contributing back to the projects they use, and are releaseing the core of their operating system as open source that even comes ready to run on open x86 hardware. They also hired Jordan Hubbard in part to make sure that they were able to work better with the *BSD projects.

Re:ahhh, newspeak

[Wildcat J]

Apple is using *BSD and Opensource like MS used BSD's tcp/ip... dont get fooled again.

Uh... no. Apple freely admits, up front, the BSD origins of several parts of OS X. Did Microsoft come out and say "Our new TCP/IP stack is based on BSD"? Hell no, they were perfectly happy to just use the code and go on their merry way (which, by the way, the BSD license allows). Be glad Apple's honest.

-J

Re:ahhh, newspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

Proportional Representation

Isn't the US's Electoral College "Proportional Representation", and isn't that a bad thing that put the guy with less votes in office?

Re:ahhh, newspeak

[g4dget]

How is Aqua a "core protocol"?

It isn't, and that's part of the problem. if it were a protocol, it would be documented and could be implemented on other platforms.

X11, in contrast, is a well-documented protocol, which is why there are dozens of different server and client library implementations for it.

Re:ahhh, newspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

US's Electoral College "Proportional Representation"
no

Re:ahhh, newspeak

[0x0d0a]

What the hell is wrong with you? Aqua has no technical value whatsoever. It's not useful from an Open Source standpoint. It's a blinking *theme*.

It's also how Apple designed a unique looking product. They're handing you the important code, so quite complaining about some skin-level deep issues.

Re:ahhh, newspeak

[ghack]

's true.

Big Bro- I mean Apple's take:

free software is proprietary.

open is closed.

yours is ours.

Re:ahhh, newspeak

[Molz]

Why is having a different (and arguably better) graphics system 'part of the problem'? True it doesn't have network transparency and it necessitates the use of a rootless X server for compatibility with GUI unix apps, but it provides capabilities and features that would be hard, if not impossible to do with X11 (true transparency, pdf based vector graphics, built-in color management all come to mind).

Don't get me wrong, I love some of X11's capabilities, but I just don't see having Quartz rather than X11 being a bad thing.

Re:ahhh, newspeak

[g4dget]

Why is having a different (and arguably better) graphics system 'part of the problem'?

The "part of the problem" that I see isn't the differences in the graphics models, it's the fact that Apple doesn't define a fixed protocol for communication between the display server and the applications--it is just whatever it is, and it can change at any point. That's fine for Apple's business, but it places it completely outside open standards or the open source world, and will probably limit its adoption.

but it provides capabilities and features that would be hard, if not impossible to do with X11 (true transparency, pdf based vector graphics, built-in color management all come to mind).

The X11 render extension offers true transparency, antialiased text and graphics, and an imaging model equivalent to PDF. While it's still evolving, most important capabilities are in XFree86 4.2 already. Color management has been in X11 for years, although it's not used much (and arguably not very useful despite its popularity).

Don't get me wrong, I love some of X11's capabilities, but I just don't see having Quartz rather than X11 being a bad thing.

PDF-like imaging models are nice, and display hardware is now up to it. But you don't need Postscript or PDF in order to get that kind of graphics. In less than a year, I predict most X11 toolkits will use a PDF-like imaging model but with much less overhead than Quartz or Cocoa. We'll just have to wait and see. If I'm right, Apple might want to consider retargetting their back-end.

Re:ahhh, newspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

Aqua is not just a theme. Aqua is a consistancy and feel. X11 based GUI's are someof the least consistant in the computing world, so taking a page from Aqua would be helpfull in getting Linux onto the desktop.

Backwards compatability stifles innovation in many cases, as it has with X11.

Re:ahhh, newspeak

[class_A]

That's fine for Apple's business, but it places it completely outside open standards or the open source world, and will probably limit its adoption.

But who, apart from Apple, needs to "adopt" Aqua? If you are referring to X apps, they can use a rootless X server. Apple doesn't want the industry to adopt Aqua as a GUI standard.

yes it is nice shame its not compatable with GPL

[johnjones]

yes it is great about apple

pity about whoever they pay to do legal work
(its often these people that get it wrong)

so from this *BSD nor Linux can NOT use the code

thats AFAIK
because its certainly GPL incompatable and I'm not sure about BSD

you would think they would give something back to the BSD boy's and girls as most of the utils apple ship are on that codebase and pray tell whats apples jag's shell BASH from the FSF

sort it apple use the BSD/GPL dual licence for non core
simple really and your after people using this aren't you ?

regards

John Jones

Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrary to popular Slashdot belief, the APSL has passed most open source advocates' definition of Open with flying colors. ESR likes it. Bruce Perens had a couple of problems with the original version and praised Apple when they addressed all of them in the next version. Only crazy socialist radicals like RMS oppose it. Anyone who's rational recognizes the great service Apple has done and continues to do for the open source community.

Re:Troll

[g4dget]

APSL has passed most open source advocates' definition of Open

It is arguably an open source license. Nevertheless, there are practical problems with it; RMS's commentary is based on things that anybody using APSL should take a close look at.

Anyone who's rational recognizes the great service Apple has done and continues to do for the open source community.

Oh, get a clue. Apple is a company, not a charity or a benevolent benefactor. They have realized that some open source efforts are good for their business. You don't owe them anything and they don't owe you or me anything. Apple is being rational, and so should anybody using their products.

socialist radicals

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

Re:Troll

[foobar104]

socialist radicals

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

It is a bad thing. Read your history.

Re:Troll

[g4dget]

It is a bad thing. Read your history.

Funny, that's what I recommend you do. History is never just black and white.

Re:Troll

[dd301]

Apple is a company, not a charity or a benevolent benefactor. They have realized that some open source efforts are good for their business.

And the Open Source community has to realize that this license is bad for them. Unless you have a big sucker written on your forehead, in which case you will be happy to work for Apple for free.

Since when was aqua a protocol?

[cduffy]

Keeping some user interface code closed is not a big deal. Keeping core OS code, interoperability-related code or protocols themselves closed is. Apple's position is reasonable.

Re:APSL is no opensource

[TellarHK]

Where'd you learn your debate skills, Gene Ray?

Scores: Microsoft=0 Apple=10

[Anonymous Coward]

How are you going to feel when your Microsoft infested computers are in total lock down mode...You guys continue to have your rights and money taken away by Microsoft, while on the other side of the universe Apple users enjoy freedom and bliss and don't have to deal with Product Activation or DRM. Go Apple.

Re:yes it is nice shame its not compatable with GP

[BlueGecko]

so from this *BSD nor Linux can NOT use the code

I don't understand where this comes from. You cannot easily integrate Darwin's source directly into the kernel, but certainly all of their independent libraries and programs are absolutely fine, and unless someone has a really convincing argument otherwise, since closed-source drivers can be linked with the kernel through loadable modules, I would assume that any of this code can be linked that way as well. In fact, while it is no longer under development, there was a project to integrate NetInfo with Linux. They apparently saw no problem. So what, specifically, makes this impossible, in your opinion?

Opensource.org

[bherrmann7]

I thought the trade marked opensource.org community says Apple's license is open source. Can't we rely on them to police these licenses?

Re:Opensource.org

[dd301]

I thought the trade marked opensource.org community says Apple's license is open source. Can't we rely on them to police these licenses?

Of course you can't. OSI have been known to accept all sorts of licences so that "OSI approved" doesn't mean anything. A better seal would be that of the Debian software guidelines (and no, it is not limited to GPL).

Re:yes it is nice shame its not compatable with GP

[spankalee]

APL is compatible with BSD, and they do give back the the *BSD projects, even though the BSD license doesn require it, as well as release Darwin as open source.

that's nice...

[phcrack]

I still can't watch streamed quicktime movies though.

It's great that apple is realeasing stuff opensource, even if th license is less than perfect. The one thing they've always given away for free they're still hanging on to though. I don't get it.

Re:that's nice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the rhetoric and the claims made by the Mac zealots on Slashdot, Apple is simply afraid allowing quicktime to run on Linux will make it even easier for Linux to take more desktop marketshare away from Apple. For this reason, and this reason alone, you will NEVER see an Apple-supported port of Quicktime to Linux.

Re:that's nice...

[BitGeek]

Oh, that must be it. IT couldn't possibly be the fact that Quicktime uses codecs under license from other companies. No, no, it couldn't be that.

Or the fact that Apple pays a license fee for EVERY installation of Quicktime... No couldn't be that either.

Sheesh. You're an idiot.

Re:that's nice...

[Anonymous Coward]

get out from under your bridge, TROLL!!! a moronic troll to boot. Apple has nothing to fear from linux, as long as linux as crap shoot of a user experince and and apple core markets stay with it, (as a designer i can tell you it will be a cold day in hell before any designers i know willing use linux.) apple hs nothing to fear. Apple has GAINED more market share this year than linux could offer in its entiriety.

You know as much about apple users as and business model as you do about how your own asshole looks after a meal at Taco Bell

Re:that's nice...

[osOpinion.com]

"I still can't watch streamed quicktime movies though.

You most certainly can.

All MPEG 4 encoded streaming audio and video can be seen and heard on any ISO compliant MPEG4 media player.

http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/
"Apple developed its own ISO-compliant MPEG-4 video codec to provide the highest quality results across a wide spectrum of data rates - from narrowband to broadband and beyond. This revolutionary codec offers compression times and video quality that rival those of the best proprietary codecs available, yet it provides true interoperability with other MPEG-4 players and devices."

It's the technology, stupid.

[marmoset]

So far we have several dozen posts complaining about licenses (so very Slashdot of you, really), and no one talking about why releasing the Releasing the Rendezvous source is so cool. Zeroconf is cool stuff. Imagine setting up a dozen machines at a conference or a LAN party and having them automatically self-configure their networking and discover each others services, without having to worry about subnet masks or a DHCP server. They already demoed a forthcoming version of iTunes that lets you play music from another 802.11 connected laptop without any configuration.

Oh, but I forgot -- bitching about the license is more important.

Re:It's the technology, stupid.

[m0rph3us0]

Imagine standing outside your local mac tech shop. Their network runs ZeroConf, when you open your iBook you are greeted on to their corporate LAN. It may be secure but it sounds likely that it is more Zero Security and lots of Conf to make it secure.

Just my 2 cents. I havent tried this product yet, certainly DHCP was enough to get my iBook up and running on the lan. ZeroConf WOULD be cool if it could detect things like open SMB shares, unsecured WLAN connections etc. I am doubtful it has this capability.

I'm not trying to post a flame, just saying that this product probably needs serious examination.

Re:It's the technology, stupid.

[RealAlaskan]

So far we have several dozen posts complaining about licenses (so very Slashdot of you, really), and no one talking about why releasing the Releasing the Rendezvous source is so cool.

MS has released the source code for their crown jewels. Unfortunately, that's not cool. MS released it under terms that are not only unacceptable, but amount to a booby trap. If folks read the MS code, they are ``contaminated'', unable to work on libre implementations of the same ideas.

Apple has released their code, with terms that many will find unacceptable. If you can't accept it on the terms they offer it, it's the same as not releasing it at all.

Imagine setting up a dozen machines at a conference or a LAN party and having them automatically self-configure their networking and discover each others services, without having to worry about subnet masks or a DHCP server.

Imagine not being able to do this because the APSL won't mix with the license terms of your distribution. Imagine not being able to do this because Apple decided that they made a mistake, and cencelled your license. Imagine Apple sueing the developers of (so far hypothetical) Zeroconf-libre, saying that they have stolen code from Rendevous.

Getting totally off-topic, the libre implementation should be known as either Krendevous or Gnondevous.

Re:It's the technology, stupid.

[BitGeek]

If you can't accept it on the terms they offer it, it's the same as not releasing it at all.

Oh, don't be silly. In this situation all the reasonable people get the source and the Free-As-In-Totalitarian Nazis are the only ones who don't get it.

As to your fud about Apple suing you, you'd better provide some examples rather than just spouting such bullshit.

Show me a single example of Apple suing a developer who complied with their Open Source license.

Its OPEN SOURCE. TM and Certified.

Just cause you're a socialist all-property-must-be-free doesn't mean Apple didn't release their software as OPEN SOURCE.

And if you don't like it, fine. We don't care.

Re:It's the technology, stupid.

[Morth]

Imagine standing outside your local mac tech shop. Their network runs ZeroConf, when you open your iBook you are greeted on to their corporate LAN. It may be secure but it sounds likely that it is more Zero Security and lots of Conf to make it secure.

This scenario is not more applicable with zeroconf than without it. To use zeroconf you must have access to the network data, and if you do you have already compromised the network. It's not much harder to configure an ip yourself than getting one by zeroconf. And it's not much harder to sniff the network for service discovery either when you know how.

Re:It's the technology, stupid.

[90XDoubleSide]

You complain about the ASPL, but the only facts you point out about it are in the FSF link, and Apple has already made every change the FSF requested, except requiring you to publish deployed changes. Comparing the Apple Open Source program to MS's Shared Source program is pure BS: MS never said they were doing anything like open source; they never even used the term, and there are almost no similarities in the terms of the licences. And as for:

Imagine not being able to do this because Apple decided that they made a mistake, and cencelled your license.

Just read the fine licence:

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.

You always have the right to use the version of the licence the code was published under, and Apple has no clause allowing them to revoke the licence at their discretion; the licence may only be cancelled if you violate it or you sue Apple for patent infringement. See:

12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate: (a) automatically without notice from Apple if You fail to comply with any term(s) of this License and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of such breach;
(b) immediately in the event of the circumstances described in Section 13.5(b); or
(c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple.
... ... ...
13.5 Severability. (a) If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction finds any provision of this License, or portion thereof, to be unenforceable, that provision of the License will be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to effect the economic benefits and intent of the parties, and the remainder of this License will continue in full force and effect. (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if applicable law prohibits or restricts You from fully and/or specifically complying with Sections 2 and/or 3 or prevents the enforceability of either of those Sections, this License will immediately terminate and You must immediately discontinue any use of the Covered Code and destroy all copies of it that are in your possession or control.

Apple didn't want to use the BSD licence for their open source because of concern that MS would steal work exactly like the Rendezvous code, and they didn't want to use the (L)GPL licence because they didn't want to unneccissarily prevent anyone from using the code. Dozens, if not hundreds, of other companies have made similar open source licences to fit their needs. Apple made a few big mistakes in version 1.0 of their licence, but I see little room for anyone to complain about the current one.

Re:It's the technology, stupid.

[_Sprocket_]

So far we have several dozen posts complaining about licenses (so very Slashdot of you, really), and no one talking about why releasing the Releasing the Rendezvous source is so cool.

...

Oh, but I forgot -- bitching about the license is more important.

The story here is that Apple is releasing some technology Open Source. Since Open Source is an issue of licensing... you'll have to forgive everyone for naturally assuming the license in question might actually be both on-topic and important.

Re:It's the technology, stupid.

[dd301]

So far we have several dozen posts complaining about licenses (so very Slashdot of you, really), and no one talking about why releasing the Releasing the Rendezvous source is so cool. Zeroconf is cool stuff.

Yeah, we are supposed to jump up and lose all reason when they show some shiny stuff, right? It is important that the license stuff is discussed now and understood before people go ahead and code for it and it becomes some sort of standard. And Apple is one of the most litigious companies around, so this is doubly important.

Rendezvous, SLP, and UPnP

[maggard]

OK - complete karmawhore here (like I need it) but before there are a hundred what is it? posts here are links to the answers:

• IETF Zero Configuration Networking (Zeroconf) Group
• IETF Zeroconf on Apple Rendezvous and Zeroconf
• Apple's Customer-pitch for Rendezvous
• Apple's Developer-pitch for Rendezvous

Here's an overview of earlier Apple implementation called SLP (RFC 2608) also used by Novell:

• Service Location Protocol

Finally, for completeness here is UPnP:

• Universal Plug and Play Forum
• MS's Developer kit
• Intel's Developer info
• Intel-developed SDK, Open Sourced.

Re:Rendezvous, SLP, and UPnP

[maggard]

Whups - forgot the SLP homepage:

• Service Location Protocol Project

on so many levels.....

[johnjones]

ok

sigh

no your cant easily integrate it in but a good start and it helps if at least you can copy and paste things like strucs from one bit of code to another

I for one dont want to have to sign up to the apple licence when I install a linux distro do you ?

in the end
yes you can fsck around with things but its alot nicer if someone does a nice port rather than "just makeing it work" which is what you seem to be saying regardless of what you have to sign up for

sorry your argument fails on so many levels

regards

John Jones

Re:on so many levels.....

[MalleusEBHC]

Sorry, but _your_ argument fails on one fundamental level: Apple is not required in the slightest to open source anything under any license. You should be happy that they have chosen to open source a lot of stuff under an OSI acceptable license. It's trolls like you who forget that Apple is a company, a company that needs to make a profit.

Re:on so many levels.....

[drrobin_]

1) Release open source software

2) Sell iMac which it runs on

3) PROFIT!

Re:on so many levels.....

[johnjones]

1) Release open source software

2) Sell iMac which it runs on

3) PROFIT!


yep I agree even better than this would be
1) release software (pay for it)
2) sell Mac
3) Profit
4) release code to world under BSD
5) sell more mac's because they work best with printers/gateways (find automagically)
6) MORE PROFIT

but this is slashdot and when did having a inteligent way to make money ever be a good thing

regards

John Jones

good for BSD-based software

[Anonymous Coward]

I applaud Apple for making source code available. They deserve a round of applause. I hope more companies follow their lead. Apple has been a true leader, even choosing to use the technically superior BSD operating system rather than the technically inferior *linux distros in their leading-edge award-winning Mac OS X product. I hope more people see just how good BSD software and companies built on BSD can be and start doing more BSD development.

This story on google news front page

[timbong]

Google picked this article to put on their news main page. Slashdot is considered a better news source by googles algorithms than the 11 related sources that google has for this story I guess...

Re:yes it is nice shame its not compatable with GP

[MaxVlast]

I'm moaning about the spelling and the content. You've never addressed what that sig of yours actually means.

Apple has released many changes back to GCC. The APSL is perfectly compatible with your favorite license. It's just your blind hatred of Apple, proper spelling, and commercial software that causes you to flick your wrist instinctively and without understanding.

Re:Let the editors do their jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's face it folks -- the guys who run Slashdot have been doing the Open-Source/Free-Software thing for much longer than yourself.

Considering I was selling consulting services compiling pcomm (as taken off of UseNet) for SCO boxes back in 1988-89 timeframe, if the amount of time you've been working with open source for $$$ is how much respect you should have around here, you should be groveling in the dirt, bowing and scraping before me.

Lets face it, you asking that /. crew be repected because of the TIME they have spent with 'open source' is pure and utter crap. Best to judge them by thier works.

bsd compatable ?

[johnjones]

APL is compatible with BSD, and they do give back the the *BSD projects, even though the BSD license doesn require it, as well as release Darwin as open source.

ok I was not sure

so I can use it like any other BSD code or do I have to tell apple about what I do with it and what I changed ?

(-;

regards

John Jones

Re:bsd compatable ?

[Parafilmus]

Yes, you have to inform Apple.

It's BSD compatible in that you can use BSD code in your APL-licensed project. Not the other way 'round.

Mixing APL and GPL code, on the other hand, isn't allowed at all - they are mutually exclusive.

Re:bsd compatable ?

[j-beda]

Yes, you have to inform Apple.

Not for the current Apple license I don't think.

GPL incompatability is based on the single requirement that people who "deploy" modified code in an organization must release that code. The GPL allows one to refrain from releasing the source code until you release the modified program. Of course the GPL is pretty vauge on what it means to release the modified program.

This is explained at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html.

Re:APSL takes away rights (minor nitpick)

[Zenki]

You don't see the OSS/FS community bitching because Apple ripped off the dock, which is used in so many of our Window Managers, do you? No.

The dock was invented by NeXT, whose codebase is now the property of Apple. A more appropriate question is "Why isn't Apple suing people for ripping off their dock?"

but what about iCal?

[prockcore]

"Like it or not, Apple spent a good deal of money developing Aqua and cultivating its image."

Ok, but how do you explain Apple threatening XTunes to change their name?

Especially since just two weeks later Apple unveils "iCal" calendaring software.. reguardless of the fact that there's already calendaring software for windows called iCal.

Re:but what about iCal?

[akeru]

regardless of the fact that there's already a calendaring standard called iCal.
Wouldn't it be great if some opensource calendaring program decided to call themselves iCal?

Re:but what about iCal?

[DChristensen]

Apple actually was threatening against the layout as well as the name; of you look at a screenshot, it is too similar to be coincidence.

Re:but what about iCal?

[Beowabbit]

Wouldn't it be great if some opensource calendaring program decided to call themselves iCal?

Actually, there is (albeit spelt ical), and it predates both the iCal standard and Apple's iCal. It was originally written by Sanjay Ghemawat at Sun (I think, might be wrong about where he was when he started it) as a standalone app, but then he decided to rewrite the UI in [incr Tcl], an object-oriented version of Tcl/Tk. He stopped maintaining it a few years ago, and I think a couple other groups of people had picked up maintenance again at various times, but I'm not sure if there's anybody actively working on it at this point. (If anybody out there knows of a version that builds with the current versions of Tcl and Tk, I'd love to hear about it.)

yes I have

[johnjones]

infact I wrote in reply to one of your coments if you dont read anything after you write it then....

they HAD to release GCC changes its freaking GPL

I dont hate apple I type this on the family G3

its not compatable with the GPL, that and BSD are my favorite licenses so thats 50% bad

regards

John Jones

google so you have to dont think

Re:yes I have

[faeryman]

sir, please, I implore you to explain what a deltic is to me. I didn't see your previous reply explaining it. I promise I won't laugh or anything, since whatever answer you have is better than me thinking you're an old train.

Re:yes I have

[MaxVlast]

Don't have to think? The word "dyslexic" has nothing to do with the word "deltic" as far as my Google skills can get me. So, despite active thinking, there is no way I could have figured out that you're dyslexic from your sig. Sorry.

yeah but they want a market dont they

[johnjones]

we have all seen what happend to apple market share when they did not do things a standard way if they want others to play you have to set out a standard

yes it's their choice

but hey I cant use the Rendezvous in my mac because its not a standard and everything else on the network is non apple is that the kind of thing apple wants to promote ?

regards

John Jones

Re:yeah but they want a market dont they

[Anonymous Coward]

Rendezvous is a Standard, known as Zeroconf by the IEEE.

The code is opened up to become an open standard and promote interoperability between platforms.

Am I missing something?

Re:yeah but they want a market dont they

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just a fucking moron. Go die, preferebly in a place where we won't have to smell your rotting corpse.

Re:yeah but they want a market dont they

[Anonymous Coward]

hate to burst your little bubble but rendezvous is based on standard RFCs dating to 1997. Sorry, but I don't have particular numbers handy but it is easy enough to look up.

As to the license: welll, IMHO GPL is severely flawed, and I personally, prefer the BSD license.

Re:APSL takes away rights (minor nitpick)

[vadim_t]

You mean like the one in the Windows taskbar? Apple might have money, but I doubt they're very interested in suing Microsoft for such a tiny feature.

iChat protocol?

[otis wildflower]

It'd be neat to have it, so's to add rendezvous and ichat support to Linux and have my Mac users and my Linux users chattin over 802.11...

*sigh*

Re:iChat protocol?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since iChat is compatible with AOL's IM, I guess you don't have that big of a problem, right?

Re:iChat protocol?

[foniksonik]

You only have to support the 'discovery' protocol... as iChat uses the same messaging protocol as AIM et al... to my knowledge.

I wouldn't be too surprised if what you describe happens pretty soon.

Apple is the Innovator in OSS

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is becoming stagnant, playing catchup to Windows. It is obvious to me that Apple is the leading OS company as far as innovation goes. And they support Open Source to boot!

Anyone want to buy some LinTel machines? I need to scrape together enough $$ for a G4 notebook.

top stuff

[johnjones]

thanks for the links

regards

john Jones

Re:It's the [broken] technology, stupid.

[keithmoore]

yea, imagine a dozen machines at a LAN party (or in an airport terminal or in any other random place) automatically connecting to each other and spreading viruses around. the current linklocal address spec (currently awaiting review for final approval) insists on having linklocal addresses enabled all the time, and by default - and for some reason the working group insists on it being that way!

for that matter imagine zeroconf breaking apps that expect addresses to be routable and stable.

oh, but I forgot - having kewl broken technology out the door is more important than actually doing the engineering that is required to make it work well.

the fact that apple code cant be used

[johnjones]

and we all start from scratch doing our own thing implementing it well/badly

would solve alot of problems if they just dual licenced it and it could be submitted to be used in *bsd and linux tommorow

if they want results fast they should just give the code under BSD

regards

John Jones

Slashdot == New York Times?

[innate]

Whoa, Google News links to this story (actually an older version of it) as a headline. Slashdot gathers news from around the web, Google gathers news from Slashdot. How meta is that?

Re:It's the [broken] technology, stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, imagine that Zeroconf is "optional" and that "you don't have to use it". Imagine configuring your computer so "it's not open to guests".

Also imagine, that this thing called IP allows you to use static addresses *and* zeroconf at the same time. perhaps you can even imagine programs that require static addresses wouldn't be stupid enough to tap into zeroconf.

imagine somebody wanting "options" with how they use their computers.

x86 Darwin?

[tabacco]

Check out this page within Apple's site (this is the Darwin binaries page):

http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/ 6. 0/release.html

I just noticed that there's a section for an x86 binary, even if it does say "watch this space."

Darwin or GNU/Darwin?

[porky_pig_jr]

Darwin? Built with GCC 3.1? uses bash? RMS, did you hear that?

That's not news.

[Arker]

Darwin's been on x86 from the beginning. It's the higher level GUI systems that are PPC only.

Re:That's not news.

[Anonymous Coward]

...correction. It's their higher level GUI systems that are RELEASED for PPC only.

Re:That's not news.

[kalidasa]

And I I R C Darwin for x86 only works with some configurations.

Re:H to the mutha phukken izzo

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like Macs, just say so... then go away.

Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time someone uses terms like "free" or worse "truly free" and "GPL" in the same sentence, it make me want to cut my wrists.

The GPL is not free in any way. The GPL is extremely restrictive. The apple version only slightly more so.

The BSD liscence is just about as free as you can get. All they ask is that you give (C) credit. THAT'S IT.

But I agree otherwise. All this sudden Apple back rubbing is vile considering how evil apple has been in the past and IMHO continues to be.

Yes, Rendezvous is out, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Internet Radio? What's the use of having Rendezvous without Internet Radio around. Fortunately, you can now send a fax to Congress about the Internet Radio Fairness Act at Voice of Webcasters.

Re:APSL is no opensource

[Anonymous Coward]

Well considering that most people around here consider the GPL to be free. It takes some creative debating skills to thwart abject stupidity...

Re:It's the [broken] technology, stupid.

[keithmoore]

options are often good, but the current linklocal spec is optional only for the implementor of the IP stack. users have no choice about whether it's enabled (at least, not as a matter of standards compliance), hosts are exposed to additional security risks, programs are forced to deal with linklocal addresses even though they mess things up, and networks can't disable it even when it causes problems.

hopefully these things will be fixed before the specs are approved as standard, but so far the working group has steadfastly resisted any fixes that would actually make linklocal optional.

Microsoft Is The Target Of The License

[tokki]

It seems to me from just glancing over the license that they should just put Microsoft all over it. It looks like Apple is trying to protect itself from having it's open source, open standard protocol taken by Microsoft, have "extensions added" and then made into something that only works with Microsoft. You've got to be careful with them, they are quite crafty. They got through loopholes with Java, Kerberos, and hell, even the justice department.

Re:Microsoft Is The Target Of The License

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent needs to be moded up. Apple's license will prevent MS from doing to Apple's OSS what they did to Java. This is needed to keep it truely free and open.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Some News For Non-Software Developers/Lawers?

[StingRayGun]

I use Linux (php, ruby and perl programming) and Mac OS9 (best laptop os, firstclass email client, etc.) at work, I love KDE and have started to convert Windows junkies to do their window stuff on Lycoris. So, though I am not a software developer, (flamebait?) I would like to know the actual implications of this release.

Will there be a motorola compatable os based on OSX, available for my G3 laptop soon? (not YellowDog, no sound on iBooks)

Will there be open scource software available for OSX?

Can someone develop an UI that doesn't piss me off, that will run OSX apps?

Thanks to all whom respond.

Ryan Ray

Re:Some News For Non-Software Developers/Lawers?

[Anonymous Coward]

XPostFacto, previously Unsupported X allows you to boot Mac OS X on certain unsuppported systems. Additionally, the Fink Project is a port of the FreeBSD ports tree. Use rootless Xfree86 to run any opensource graphical apps you want. --Paul

Re:Some News For Non-Software Developers/Lawers?

[CoolVibe]

Will there be a motorola compatable os based on OSX, available for my G3 laptop soon? (not YellowDog, no sound on iBooks)

Gnu/Darwin

Will there be open scource software available for OSX?

Just scower off freshmeat or sourceforge and pick what you like. Most likely it will compile and work fine. When you don't want to hassle, try Fink.

Can someone develop an UI that doesn't piss me off, that will run OSX apps?

The GNUStep folk are working on that.

Re:It's the [broken] technology, stupid.

[remymartin]

I don't think Apple has tried to market Rendezvous for many of the applications you were objecting to in your original post. If somebody is running something that depends on a static IP, they won't use rendezvous. just because a device or peripheral says it works with rendezvous doesn't mean it won't work if a network uses a another method of assigning IP addresses. Programs and services that depend on rendezvous will have to be aware of those security lapses and adjust accordingly. With or without rendezvous, allowing guest access to your comptuer or sending information over plain text is dangerous.

Rendezvous isn't the end all of comptuer networking, but it certainly has its applications.

Re:It's the [broken] technology, stupid.

[Shuh]

oh, but I forgot - having kewl broken technology out the door is more important than actually doing the engineering that is required to make it work well.

Yes... I agree. They should wait and let OSS pick this up (never) or have Microsoft do it (all-proprietary for more $$$ and control for Bill). And besides, everyone knows OSS and Microsoft always do it right the first time! ;c)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:APSL is no opensource

[Anonymous Coward]

That's no 'Mac' software, that is Apple-controlled, Steve Jobs maintained UNIXware. If you really want Mac software that is based on Unix and none of the Apple source shackles, you should look for Yellow Dog Linux.

Re:APSL takes away rights (minor nitpick)

[dh003i]

Please. You think there were no docks in UNIX WM's before NeXT? Bullshit.

Re:HELP!!!!

[SlamMan]

Um, Darwin comes in an x86 variety, actualy...

Re:It's the [broken] technology, stupid.

[keithmoore]

it's not that much of an apple vs. microsoft thing. microsoft and apple both have employees working with the IETF zeroconf working group - and at least some of the specs have both an apple employee and a microsoft employee as authors.

(I say employee because IETF doesn't recognize vendor representatives - all participants are supposed to use their best technical engineering judgement regardless of their employer's interest.)

the difference between ms and apple here is that apple is shipping rendezvous code before the specs are finalized, even though there are several known problems with those specs (especially the name lookup protocol).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:WHAT!?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

For what it is worth, I thought you were being funny, and you were on topic. Maybe that is why I don't have moderator points yet?

has anyone done anything with the source?

[RestiffBard]

I keep hearing about apple's open source releases but I never hear about anyone doing anything with that source.

has anyone got any Apple OSS project working?

Re:has anyone done anything with the source?

[Matthias Wiesmann]

I used headerdoc to document a C++ project I did on Solaris. Not very impressive, and I did not change the perl source code, but it was usefull.

Re:has anyone done anything with the source?

[RestiffBard]

no one will likely ever see this but I just need to bitch about moderation. I never do and I have super duper karma so I don't care really. but. calling a comment redundant means that that comment was already made in some form previous the comment being moderated. thats what redundant means. saying something that has already been said. ok got that figure out now? I know there were only about 15 comments when I made my post and none of them made the same comment I did. have you considered that you are reading a thread? just because you see 20 messages before mine doesn't mean they were written before mine. check the damn times you twits.

ok sorry. just tired of messages being marked redundant when they are in fact original.

Re:has anyone done anything with the source?

[Elwood P Dowd]

This post was interesting and insightful. It is (perhaps) underrated as well.

It was neither funny, redundant, overrated, or offtopic.

I hope to see this in metamod. I would have liked to hear about OSS projects that originated at Apple and have moved on.

Think why it is called zeroconf

[epeus]

the current linklocal address spec (currently awaiting review for final approval) insists on having linklocal addresses enabled all the time, and by default - and for some reason the working group insists on it being that way!

The reason is so that it has ZERO configuration. If you have to 'turn it on' it has a configuration step.

Apps that expect addresses to be routable and stable will die with DHCP or NAT already. Networking code needs to cope with network failure.

DNS records have durations and expiry for a reason. With ZeroConf you get a stable name to relookup for the address when you need it.

Re:Think why it is called zeroconf

[Anonymous Coward]

zeroconf is mostly a misnomer. for instance, you can't implement reasonable name lookup without giving a separate name to each host, and that's a form of configuration. nor is true zero configuration desirable, at least with the current generation of host and networking software, because there is no way to insulate that software from security threats (or other problems associated with link local addresses) without some kind of filter configuration.

As for DHCP and NAT: DHCP only breaks apps if it is poorly configured. NAT is not present everywhere (whereas zeroconf will be if the working group has its way) and in fact the vast majority of services on the net could not work if NATs were imposed in arbitrary places. Most protocols that manage to work through NATs at all only do so if they are "client-server" protocols and the client is on the "inside" of the NAT. (either that or the NAT has to be explicitly configured to nail up an address binding)

finally, zeroconf does not assure a stable name - name conflicts are always possible. this is one reason why the name lookup protocol is nowhere close to being approved as a standard.

Re:APSL takes away rights (minor nitpick)

[foobar104]

Well, NeXT's dock goes back to about 1990. Find us a reference to a dock in use before that, and we'll accept that you're right. Until then....

But this is all pretty pointless. Apple hasn't (as far as I know) trademarked the dock. They've trademarked the entire look-and-feel of the Aqua user interface. It's a sum-of-all-parts thing, not an each-part-individually thing.

Something glazed over....

[Brat Food]

One thing that sems to be missing in all of this is that Apple is a public, for profit company, releasing code in to the public domain.

While im sure the GPL et al. are great, what apple does is give themselves some protection, and try to make it so that their code doesnt get forked and messy with no way "keep up" with it. To illustrate the point, lets say rendevous is released under a "take it and do whatever the hell you like" liscense. CompanyA decides to add something, and releases a million widgets with their unpublised modification. Lets also say that this modificaiotn makes their produch not interroperate with anything else based on the standard. Now, while you may say "thats companyA's perogative", you are also probably not realizing that companyA is so often microsoft. So you see, the protection built in stops companyA form "embrace, extend, break" and gives OTHERS using the standard sort of a guarentee that they wont be left out in the cold. If i find a bug, i can be sure that my addition will work with the standard that everyone has. Its not perfect, its not the same on the outside, but, to all you detractors, it has its inherant merits, and should not be judged with tunnel vision.

Re:Something glazed over....

[dd301]

One thing that sems to be missing in all of this is that Apple is a public, for profit company, releasing code in to the public domain.

They are not releasing it to the public domain. It is still copyrighted, and what is more, severely restricted software.

While im sure the GPL et al. are great, what apple does is give themselves some protection, and try to make it so that their code doesnt get forked and messy with no way "keep up" with it.

Which is why it makes it a really one sided license and people should be wary of it. What about the messy stuff Apple creates?

So where is the source?

[Anonymous Coward]

you can visit that page, and all it has is

a) you must register to get the source
b) there are no links to where the source is.
c) there is no webcvs or similar to examine it..

This stuff would be nice as a linux add-on, but just doing a quick feasibility review (eg. browse the code) is not possible...

Re:HELP!!!!

[ciryon]

Uhm, why not just buy a Mac? You can get them really cheap or really expensive depending on your preferences.

Ciryon

I like it better...

[Anonymous Coward]

When it was called UNIVERSAL PLUG AND PLAY like the rest of the world. welcome to 2000 Apple.
Intel even released a stack years ago for UPNP.

Think Different. Apple.

Re:I like it better...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they are thinking different. Mayble it's more than the useless security hole that UPNP is.

Re:I like it better...

[Anonymous Coward]

universal plug and play is a different standard entirely from rendezvous.
If you want to talk about plug and play you should get a mac they have had true pnp for many years, not the half arsed MS implementation

RMS says: just Darwin

[OttoM]

Quite simple:

Darwin is a BSD derivative. As the GNU/Linux FAQ states, the GNU/ thing does not apply to BSD derived work.

So no GNU/Darwin. Just Darwin.

Oh No!

[mtec]

Might Slashdot get 'Googled'?

License?

[supabeast!]

I would really appreciate it if the Slashdot crew and link submitters would note the license that software is placed under when said software is released as open source. Anyone else agree?

Re:License?

[Anonymous Freak]

Um... They did. To quote:

Starting today, developers can download Rendezvous as open source under the Apple Public Source License.

ASPL 1.2 & BSD

[Aapje]

As of version 1.2 you no longer have to inform Apple. It's also BSD compatible in the sense that I can use it in a BSD project and the entire project won't be tainted, just the part under the APSL. For instance, were I to put the code cleanly into a seperate library and deploy the project in my organization, I would have to publish the library, but not my own code (this is the only problem the FSF sees with APSL 1.2, BTW). You can use LGPL'ed code in the same way, but if you use GPL'ed code, the entire project would have to be GPL'ed. Your own BSD'ed code would automatically change license (which is why many people call the GPL a viral license).

PS. I think you can mix APSL and GPL code as long as you don't distribute it. The GPL & APSL only kick in when you do (since they are not EULA's). This might not do you much good, but technically, the APSL and the GPL are not mutually exclusive.

Re:HELP!!!!

[clarkcox3]

You don't need a "hacked" version to run on your PC. Darwin runs fine on x86 hardware as is.

Focus on your freedom & practical benefits fol

[jbn-o]

All quoted spelling in context.

One thing that sems to be missing in all of this is that Apple is a public, for profit company, releasing code in to the public domain.

No, they are retaining copyright on their programs and releasing them under a non-free software license. Retaining copyright is what gives them the ability to leverage copyright power in the form of a license.

While im sure the GPL et al. are great, what apple does is give themselves some protection, and try to make it so that their code doesnt get forked and messy with no way "keep up" with it.

Code is not harmed by being copied or modified, therefore "protection" is an odd choice of word to use to describe what Apple is doing. Preventing forks is also not the point as the APSL does not prevent one from forking APSL-covered code.

What you describe in your hypothetical scenario is typically called "embrace and extend". In short, someone or some organization develops a purposefully-incompatible derivative of some non-copylefted Free Software. The programmers of the Free Software are now competing with what is largely their own work, playing catch-up for as long as the incompatible derivative is maintained. This cannot happen with APSL-covered code because APSL-covered code is non-free and Apple retains the ability to rescind your ability to legally modify or distribute APSL-covered works or derivatives of these works.

So you see, the protection built in stops companyA form "embrace, extend, break" and gives OTHERS using the standard sort of a guarentee that they wont be left out in the cold.

No, only copylefted Free Software gives the closest thing to that guarantee. Your rights under the APSL end if you dare to take action against Apple on patent infringement grounds (and note this is not just limited to software patents). Trading your software rights for leveraging your rights in society is unacceptable. This is one of the problems with the APSL that makes the APSL-covered programs non-free.

Copylefted Free Software makes sure the freedoms to share and modify the program don't leave the program. This is far better than any bugfix scenario can address. Copylefted Free Software grants us all the freedom to make the program suit our needs and lets us decide whether to keep our improvements private or share them. The freedoms of Free Software lead to the practical benefits often discussed. So when you focus on your freedom you are focusing on the root of the matter.

If i find a bug, i can be sure that my addition will work with the standard that everyone has.

Not necessarily. If you find a bug and tell Apple about it, they might not fix it. In which case the bug persists and everyone who uses that software has software with known bugs. Combine this with Apple's ability to pull the rug out from under you and you end up with software that doesn't even meet the freedom-ignoring practical benefit standard.

Re:APSL is no opensource

[dd301]

GPL - 6 pages of legalsleaze 25000+ words. BSD - 1/4 page less than 300 words.

The GPL license is there to protect you. If you have software that is released under BSD, you will have the likes of Microsoft running with it. How many people use FreeBSD compared to Windows, despite running the same code? And GPL is not written in legalese, and you would have known that if you managed to read it (rather than run Word's count words command on it).

The APSL is still problematic and non-free.

[jbn-o]

You complain about the ASPL, but the only facts you point out about it are in the FSF link, and Apple has already made every change the FSF requested, except requiring you to publish deployed changes.

No, they haven't. The FSF rightly points out other problems with the license that have yet to be addressed. These include section 13.6 of the APSL which makes APSL-covered works unattractive for many users outside the Northern District of California. Non-US hackers are not penalized under the GNU GPL by placing them under the thumb of the insane USPTO and corporate-financed US laws.

MS never said they were doing anything like open source [...]

Perhaps not, but they could say they were selling and supporting Free Software. Because they are. This isn't a new situation either. So much for the GNU GPL being a "cancer" to business.

[...] the licence may only be cancelled if you violate it or you sue Apple for patent infringement.

You say that as if it is somehow minor or reasonable. The FSF points out the inequity in one's relationship with Apple under the APSL and this is still a significant problem in the most current revision (version 1.2). Trading away these rights in society for the benefit of Apple is unacceptable.

Also the FSF's warning about extending copyright power in a dangerous way still applies. Apple still believes they can set terms on merely running the covered software (see section 13.5(b)).

There are probably other still valid parts of the FSF's assessment but suffice it to say the APSL is still a non-free software license. For those of us that care about our freedom, improving society, and the ethical ramifications of what we do, this is a very potent statement.

Re:The APSL is still problematic and non-free.

[90XDoubleSide]

Apple never said it was Free Software, they said it was Open Source. Further, Apple only deviates from what the FSF wants in areas where it is prudent business practice. It would be nice for Russian programmers if they could sue Apple under Russian law, but it's hardly worth Apple's money to have to hire lawyers with knowledge of relevant law in every nation and district on earth. You'll see that all the areas where Free Software fans have problems with this license are areas where Apple is trying to prevent itself from gaining any legal liabilities for releasing this code.

All I'm asking is that if you make posts about how the ASPL deviates in a few ways from the GPL, that you remember in balance that it is still a perfectly equitable Open Source license and that those developers who would rather develop Open software than Free software will still get great utility out of it. The title of this article didn't say anything about Apple going to a Free Software model, it said they were opening the codebase for Rendezvous, which they have indeed done under a licence that fully qualifies as being open source (see http://www.opensource.org). This is why it is sad that this thread became a giant GPL v. other licences debate when it could have talked about some interesting potential applications of this technology for Open Source developers.

Re:The APSL is still problematic and non-free.

[jbn-o]

Apple never said it was Free Software, they said it was Open Source.

I totally understand and appreciate the difference between the two movements. In fact much of what I've posted to Slashdot concerns this difference. I see this in a larger context though: what are the points of differences being referred to and how does this fit in with a broader view of society.

Being an "Open Source" license doesn't take away any of the sting of the points the FSF raised; the FSF's concerns are reasonable for an individual or business to consider. At the end of the day, one has to look at what is being asked of them in this license and decide if it is worth getting involved.

I think it's pretty clear by now that most developers are not getting involved with APSL-covered works so I wonder why this is. I think there's a good chance the FSF's reasons are why. I also think this is yet another case where paying attention to one's freedom and paying attention to ethics (Free Software) are better criteria for judging the worth of a license than paying attention to a development methodology aimed at pleasing businesses (Open Source).

Further, Apple only deviates from what the FSF wants in areas where it is prudent business practice.

I disagree. IBM licenses some of their original software under the GNU GPL and so do other smaller businesses. The GPL does not feature these ridiculous clauses.

All I'm asking is that if you make posts about how the ASPL deviates in a few ways from the GPL, that you remember in balance that it is still a perfectly equitable Open Source license and that those developers who would rather develop Open software than Free software will still get great utility out of it.

I spent my previous post in this thread describing how Apple retains and overextends their power as copyright holder in the APSL, so I'd hardly describe the APSL on balance as being "perfectly equitable" with licensees. The license is "Open Source", no doubt, but the unpopularity of the APSL compared to the GNU GPL tells me something else is afoot. It's hard to get "great utility" out of an APSL-covered work if Apple infringes on your patent and you want to leverage your rights in society to stop that infringement from continuing. Not everyone is interested in putting Apple's desires ahead of their own and not everyone considers Apple's overextension of copyright power equitable.

This is why it is sad that this thread became a giant GPL v. other licences debate when it could have talked about some interesting potential applications of this technology for Open Source developers.

I don't find the struggle between corporate power and the enrichment and sustainance of a commons to be sad at all. I think we need more discussion of and action against corporate overrepresentation. Furthermore, the GNU GPL is a widely used software license that is also listed by the Open Source Initiative as an accepted license. Thus it is eminently practical to discuss compatibility issues surrounding these two licenses even if you are interested in the Open Source movement.

Re:The APSL is still problematic and non-free.

[90XDoubleSide]

Yes, the FSF points are fine (even though they are nearly impossible to dig out of the article since it hasn't been completely rewritten since ASPL 1.0); I was just saying that many here are saying the license is not a free software license with shock and outrage as if Apple had said that it is. New licenses like the ASPL are very important for the Open Source movement as they can provide an example for how profitable companies can also co-exist with and contribute to open software, yeilding great benefit to both (i.e. Apple gets a great core for their new OS, and the open source community gets Apple engineers putting hundreds of man-hours of effort into the new version of gcc). Obviously Apple's licence is not a good example yet, but Apple is new to this and they are themselves still trying to copy other companies' efforts at this. What is most important is that a company that five years ago wasn't contributing anything to the community now pays the salary of a team of open-source engineers.

And yes, it is entirely possible for a company to release GPL software and deal with the legal reprecussions; I'm just saying that this language was obviously added by the legal team to cover their ass, and this seems to me to be a side-effect of the fact that Apple is new to open source and their legal team isn't fully comfortable with it yet. Hopefully as Apple's open source activity becomes more mature, they will remove some of the protections that aren't really necessary and that might scare people away from the code. And I have a good deal of confidence that this will happen; look at the massive amount of progress between ASPL 1.0 and 1.2. Apple is new to open source and is obviously still experimenting with their license. If Apple looked like it was going to stick to all these terms, I would be much more concerned. Even now I feel that no non-profit group nor any individual would ever fall prey to these clauses; as another poster said, these restrictions are all aimed directly at Microsoft; the only time such groups have been targeted by Apple is when they infringed on copyright, and Apple didn't go after anyone for using similar ideas, but for copying pixel-for-pixel or word-for-word their own work.

Re:Let the editors do their jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Do U have @ point, or does a hat cover it?

OSX 10.1

[mgs1000]

Now maybe we can get a port of this to OSX 10.1 for those of us who don't have $120 to spend on the "ugrade" to 10.2

Re:APSL takes away rights (minor nitpick)

[dbrutus]

I'm guessing the patents on that one were licensed to MS as part of their deal for cash/MS Office development. Nothing left for them to sue MS over but they retain rights for everybody else.

could a dyslexic spell dsylexic ?

[Anonymous Coward]

could a dyslexic spell dsylexic ?

Re:could a dyslexic spell dsylexic ?

[MaxVlast]

My dyslexic friends can.

1997 and still one implentation

[johnjones]

hate to burst your little bubble but rendezvous is based on standard RFCs dating to 1997. Sorry, but I don't have particular numbers handy but it is easy enough to look up.

As to the license: welll, IMHO GPL is severely flawed, and I personally, prefer the BSD license.

great people submit RFC's all the time....

to actually get it to move forward you need it to be deployed

and I am sorry to say apple you cant do it on your own you need the BSD, linux and little device OEM's to take it up

its simple put the code under BSD and people actually have an referance much like you use the BSD code for referance when building a IPv6 into Mach kernel

regards

John Jones

Very True

[spankalee]

I'd like to hear those who dislike the APSL comment on this. If Apple's reasons for thier license terms are to keep a BSD tcp/ip like scenario from happening with Apple code, does that justify their license?

Any open source prject that would use this code, and modidy it, would release the code anyways, so the only people who it hurts are companies who would modify the code, but want to keep it secret. It seems this is perfect protection from those who would like to Apple as their R&D department.

Re:APSL takes away rights (minor nitpick)

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, NeXT's dock goes back to 1988. Back then, we had MacOS 6.0.2, Windows 2.0, and SunOS 5.0 with TWM and OLWM :-). CDE didn't even exist. So hey, maybe he wants to call the TWM window list a "dock" :-) he can squirm out of this.

NeXT invented the dock. The did it first along with lots of other things people forget about. Like 3D (chiseled) interfaces. High-performance object-oriented graphical environments. Optical disks. Mail with fonts and pictures and colors and formatting. Extensive use of a built-in DSP. Digital telephony. Mathematica's Notebook interface. OO front-ends to SQL databases. Oh, yeah, let's not forget the World Wide Web.

then they are not very dyslexic

[johnjones]

wake up its a joke
a very common one that people who suffer cant spell what they have
add to that their are alot of people who say yeah I cant spell I must be dyslexic when infact they just cant spell because they never bothered to try and learn

how much experance have you got of this ?

regards

John Jones

It's /. stupid

[Per Abrahamsen]

Actually, reading this on a "score 3" threshold is funny. The mesages are almost all people complaining about people complaining about the license.

I'm sure this says something important about /., I just don't know what :-)

Re:H to the mutha phukken izzo

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I heard studies suggest 95% of Windows users are homosexual, no lie.

Apple's take is unsurprising to me.

[jbn-o]

...this seems to me to be a side-effect of the fact that Apple is new to open source and their legal team isn't fully comfortable with it yet.

It seems to me Apple fully understands the Open Source movement's message and did just what the Open Source movement asks of them. After all, the APSL is a license that movement finds agreeable. The FSF had it quite right when they said:

Overall, I think that Apple's action is an example of the effects of the year-old "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to business with the purely materialistic goal of faster development, while putting aside the deeper issues of freedom, community, cooperation, and what kind of society we want to live in.

Apple has grasped perfectly the concept with which "open source" is promoted, which is "show users the source and they will help you fix bugs". What Apple has not grasped--or has dismissed--is the spirit of free software, which is that we form a community to cooperate on the commons of software.

and the example the FSF gives in "Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source''" is apropos. In this essay the FSF is talking about a software executive's discussion at a trade show in 1998 where the executive said they would consider making their program "internal Open Source" meaning the users are dependant on the support staff who can modify the source code. This example is apropos because it highlights what people don't seem to get about the Open Source movement. It concludes:

He [the executive] did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement does not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it makes for faster and better development. The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling to carry out that approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it partially, within the company.

The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was designed not to raise: the point that users deserve freedom.

So the salient question about the APSL for those not already subject to its terms is: is the APSL good enough for the users? Looking at the size of participation in APSL-covered programs to date, I think the community's answer remains "no".

Hopefully as Apple's open source activity becomes more mature, they will remove some of the protections that aren't really necessary and that might scare people away from the code.

I disagree with the word "protections" because I don't think any harm comes to software by sharing and modifying it. I also think Apple has had quite some time to consider it by now and if they choose to further pursue making the APSL a Free Software license they will do so because the community wants the freedoms of Free Software. Persistant pressure for freedom is the reason why Apple has come this far.

Apple is new to open source and is obviously still experimenting with their license. If Apple looked like it was going to stick to all these terms, I would be much more concerned.

These are the terms APSL software are being released under as we speak. These are the terms Apple will be defend in court to those that Apple sees as violators. The "experiment" going on is Apple figuring how much they can get from the community without having to participate as equals in a commons. Fortunately for the community so far most developers largely reject their experiment.

Even now I feel that no non-profit group nor any individual would ever fall prey to these clauses; as another poster said, these restrictions are all aimed directly at Microsoft...

There is no language in the APSL to restrict action to employees of Microsoft, therefore there is no good reason to believe Apple will not sue you over prolonged violation. I think it's incredibly unwise to think Apple is acting in your best interests when they have made their terms so clear.

The reason few have "fall[en] prey" to the APSL thus far is because of the widely disseminated freedom-minded concerns of the Free Software movement which point out serious flaws in the APSL.

Re:Apple's take is unsurprising to me.

[90XDoubleSide]

To start off by putting this all in context, remember that the FSF themselves say that there is only one remaining major problem with the ASPL:

In January 2001, Apple released another version, ASPL 1.2. This version fixes two of the fatal flaws, but one still remains: any modified version "deployed" in an organization must be published. The APSL 1.2 has taken two large steps towards a free software license, but still has one more large step to take before it qualifies.

* * *

I disagree with the word "protections" because I don't think any harm comes to software by sharing and modifying it.

Protections as in protections from Apple being sued as a result of releasing this software. The long history of open source has shown us that many of the protections they have in the license are unneccessary, but it is understandable that someone would want to go to every length possible to make sure that they can't end up losing money for contributing something. I'm simply observing that Apple had drastically more of this kind of rediculously restrictive language in the previous two versions, and there has been dramatic improvement in the terms of the licence, to the point where even the FSF even has one major beef with it (the publishing requirement).

The reason few have "fall[en] prey" to the APSL thus far is because of the widely disseminated freedom-minded concerns of the Free Software movement which point out serious flaws in the APSL.

The FSF would do a lot more good if they would actually write an article about ASPL 1.2 instead of leaving the old version on the 'net for people to cite and tagging on a three-sentence note about how most of it is no longer relevant. Much of the argument over the ASPL results from the ambiguity of their article as it applies to the current version of the licence. Apple responded to the concerns they raised when they wrote the article, why not try it again?

Finally, I feel that ASPL'ed code has been as sucessful as anyone could have expected given that until the Rendezvous code was released, none of it really had any application outside the PPC platform, except Darwin Streaming Server, which has done quite well as an application, even though there is little to be gotten out of it code-wise. Most of the code that Apple engineers work on that is applicable to other platforms is everyday, incremental work on existing BSD programs as members of the BSD effort, and this work obviously never comes under the terms of the ASPL.

Re:APSL is no opensource

[Elwood P Dowd]

Looks like BSD is MORE Open Source than your 'real open source' idea. Oh, and next time Bruce, post with your name.

That's right, BSD is more open source. GPL is more freedom. There is code out there that was once BSD, and now you run it on your Windows box, and you cannot modify it. There is also GPL code out there that might be profitable for a company's use, but they cannot make a business model around distributing the software. So they *choose* not to use it.

This is why RMS is only for free software, and ESR is only for open source software. They have different goals. They both achieve their goals very well. Saying one is better than the other is braindead.

Anyway, grandparent was redundant and should be modded into oblivion. Parent was flamebait, rudundant and offtopic, and should be modded into oblivion.

I'm just offtopic. Do what you will. IHBT. IHL. IWHAND.

Re:APSL takes away rights (minor nitpick)

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Oh, yeah, let's not forget the World Wide Web.

Sorry, Al Gore invented the World Wide Web. Heh heh.

Re:let's see... there IS one!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, by all means... speak about it!

http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnu-darwin
http://www.gnu-darwin.org