Slashdot Mirror
iCommune Retools Itself as Standalone Open Source App
Doctor Beavis writes "As noted previously, Apple ordered developer James Speth to return his iTunes software developer kit and to stop distributing the iCommune plug-in for iTunes. Today, CNET has a story with further details and developments. Speth said that he will honor Apple's request to stop distributing his software, but he will build the same features into a standalone application. The next version of iCommune will work with iTunes and potentially other digital music players and will use Rendezvous, Apple's implementation of a protocol for automatic discovery of network-connected devices. Speth also said that the new version will be Open Source under the GPL."
XDarwin is open source. Aqua is not.
So, their window manager is not, that doesn't mean the OS isn't.
Safari's core is open source. The layout is not. Hmm... I notice a pattern.
Apple "steals" code from Open source projects who agree to these terms, make the backend better, leave that open, but makes their interface closed (and much better)
Now this guy used the iTools SDK, develops something the terms said he couldn't, and he's the hero? Apple obeys the terms of the license, this guy didn't.
It's not also about competition, I refer you to the case of X11 on OS X.
BSD code is BSD licensed. Anyone can take it, use it, even make proprietary products out of it. This is not only fair, it's encouraged. Why do you think Apple chose BSD over, say, Linux?
I think you're mixing up BSD licensing and GPL licensing. The two are definitely not the same. Apple is in violation of nothing, not even simple courtesy. If folks object to their BSD-licensed code being used in proprietary products, they should consider not using the BSD license.
(By the way, the base for their operating system is "Darwin". It's freely available for anyone who wants it: http://developer.apple.com/darwin)
Seems like yet another case of a company not realizing exactly what it's unleashed until it's too late. Fortunately, in this case we will all reap the benefits.
I'm perhaps a little worried about the naming choice, as "iCommune" is not exactly the best retort to the people who complain about the Marxist philosophy of Open Source, but I think the paradigms and conceptual leaps here will prove longer lived than the name.
Now we may gain the power to unite again under one crown, as in the days of old.
Boromir, son of Faramir, King of Gondor and Minas Tirith
Slashdot readers have a habit of forgetting details of an issue if the details are inconvenient:
[quote]
Now this guy used the iTools SDK, develops something the terms said he couldn't, and he's the hero? Apple obeys the terms of the license, this guy didn't.
[/quote]
He violated the terms of using Apple's SDK! Or cource Apple's going to be be angry.
"Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
But then, Apple would never sink to using such underhanded tactics.... Would they?
Ñ'
Apple took a bunch of BSD code and other Open Source utilities and added a few layers on top and called it a genuine Apple product. They are now making millions of dollars a year.
Um, that's exactly what the BSD license allows you to do.
Hey Apple, do you only embrace Open Source when it involves your developers stealing code from other projects?
Utilizing BSD licensed code in commercial apps is not stealing. Not even close.
Ten bucks says Apple releases their own P2P audio sharing utility in like 2 weeks using this guy's old code.
Now this I agree with.
Apple gives it users unprecedented freedom to rip, mix, burn. You are FREE to do whatever you want with YOUR CDs that you PURCHASE. Ripping MP3s from another Mac OS X box with iCommune is no different than using XNap, LimeWire, Kazaa, or other P2P file sharing software. The music industry already hates Apple for what it allows its users to do, and Apple has to draw the line between personal freedom and breaking the law.
6 5.ENR:
n c_1
READ THIS LAW:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.22
and story here on CNet:
http://news.com.com/2010-1071-982121.html?tag=fd_
and tell me this guy is not allowing millions of people to break the law. Don't get me wrong, the music industry charges way too much for music and other video content, but when MY freedom is threatened with a law and I hear that the Feds are going after the little guys now (200+songs downloaded), I'd think twice, and then again about sharing P2P in the future.
I think that the iCommune peeps should have given up while they were only marginally behind. They produced some extension to Apple's product, and Apple deemed it to be illegal so they sent a C+D and asked for their SDK back.
So the iCommune peeps decide that they're going to rewrite some software to do the same thing (give or take some added extras), release it under the same name only this time it'll be GPL'd. So the headlines in the popular techpress go from Apple tells author of small software plug-in to stop distributing to GNU Public software breaks Apple copyright, violates trademark.
This won't be good for FS/OSS publicity as the public will perceive GPL authors (they read:entire OSS lot) as a group of lawbreaking Communist zealots who flout C+D notices issued by hard-working companies just trynig to make a buck in today's world. Remember: the clueless person on the street doesn't see the problem with laws like the DMCA; they think it's just protection (try and explain to someone that it nearly made the marker pen an illegal tool).
BTW does no-one read my journal?
It seems to me that Apple was just trying to protect their own flank in this one. I mean, they're already getting flack from the dark side for strongly supporting a format which allows easy copying of copyrighted material, and now a guy comes along and takes one of their programs and turns it into something where the blatant purpose is simply copying music. Of course they came down on him, because they don't want to get hit themselves. It's not their responsibility when a person writes a third-party trading app and makes it run on OS X, but when their own programs are being used for the purpose, their butts are in the bulls-eye. Frankly, I think they've been doing a very good job of supporting the free music movement, but I certainly don't expect them to become the new champions. After all, they are a company, and their biggest responsiblity has to be to their investors. Law-suits cause stock prices to drop. Pure and simple.
...the guy violated the license for the SDK, and they put a halt to his charade, boo hoo... I dont' feel bad for him at all, now he has to write the way he should have in the 1st place... as for Open Source, Apple has steadily been comitting the new code back as per the licensing it agreed to... KHTML is bound to be tons better because of this, as well as BSD itself..
not to mention that on a apple system you still have choice.
if you have some kind of moral problem with the closed source goodies on apples machines...then run only ported gnu software.
Could someone post or provide a pointer to the alleged "license" that allegedly constrains the use of the iTunes SDK? Is this a legitimate contract that must be entered into and signed before you get your hands on the SDK, or is it yet another one of those worthless "shrinkwrap licenses"?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions