Apple Public Source License Now FSF Approved

BWJones writes "Apple has now made their public source license 2.0 free. From the release "The Darwin team at Apple is pleased to announce that version 2.0 of the Apple Public Source License has been certified as a 'Free Software License.' APSL 2.0 includes numerous changes and simplifications to make it even easier to use Apple Open Source software as part of your programs. To indicate acceptance of APSL 2.0, you can now use your new or existing "Apple ID", rather than having a separate Darwin account."" proclus adds "This is great news for Darwin-based free software projects like The GNU-Darwin Distribution and Fink. GNU-Darwin has had an ongoing discussion about this development, and annouced and end to our 'Free Darwin Campaign,' so long as Apple avoids DMCA-based legal action."

Comments

GNU's Opinion

[Coneasfast]

GNU thinks its better than the first, they still dont like it (they are quite picky). Read here.

Re:What are the motivations and implications?

[Jason Earl]

Actually most of the newer BSD-style licenses are GPL compatible. This means that I can use GPLed and MIT licensed source (as an example) in a project and distribute the new project without problems (under the GPL). Mix APSL and GPLed source and you have created something that can't be distributed.

In the end there is so much GPLed software that most Free Software licenses trend towards becoming GPL compatible. The change in the Python license, and the change in the license for QT (to the GPL), are two well-known examples of this trend.

Re:Long arm of open source community

[Drakonian]

I wouldn't have said "now". Apple has been on the Open Source bandwagon for quite a while. Ever since Darwin (OS X).

FSF' response to APSL 2.0

[dh003i]

Here is what the FSF has said about the APSL. Unlike what most people here seem to think, I don't think it's overly critical. I think it's just practical and honest.

The Apple Public Source License (APSL) version 2.0 qualifies as a free software license. Apple's lawyers worked with the FSF to produce a license that would qualify. The problems previously described on this page are still potential issues for other possible licenses, but they do not apply to version 2.0 of the APSL. We encourage everyone who uses any version of Apple Software under the APSL to use the terms of version 2.0 rather than that of any earlier license.

In version 2.0 of the APSL, the definition of "Externally Deployed" has been narrowed in a way that is appropriate for the respect of users' freedoms. It has always been the position of FSF that the freedom of Free Software is primarily for the users of that software. Technologies, like web applications, are changing the way that users interact with software. The APSL 2.0, like the Affero GPL, seeks to defend the freedom of those who use software in these novel ways, without unduly hindering the users' privacy nor freedom to use the software.

The FSF now considers the APSL to be a free software license with three major practical problems, reminiscent of the NPL:

• It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.
  
• It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to your changes which Apple will not give you for its code.
  
• It is incompatible with the GPL.

For this reason, we recommend you do not release new software using this license, even though it is ok to use and improve software which other people release under this license.

Aside from this, we must remember that only part of Mac OS X is being released under the APSL. Even though the fatal flaws of the APSL were fixed, and even if the practical problems were addressed, that does no good for the other parts of Mac OS X whose source code is not being released at all. We must not judge all of a company by just part of what they do.

Re:well how about releasing some software under it

[frightenedmonkey]

Ok, they didn't release the entire safari app as open source, but there is:

• Darwin Streaming Server
• OpenPlay
• Rendezvous
• WebCore -- that's safari without the UI (including a Qt adapter library called KWQ)

There's other stuff too, although some of it is Mac OS X specific implementations of various other stuff (GCC, Kerberos, CUPS, etc.). My point is that by looking only at those high-profile projects, you're missing a few other interesting things (particularly, IMHO, the Darwin Streaming Server, a free, open-source streaming server, but then, most desktop users won't need that).

I'd suggest taking the time to actually check their projects' page out before jumping to conclusions about what they offer.

Re:What are the motivations and implications?

[Aapje]

GPL compatibility is like a one-way gift. You bow to the "all-GPL" crowd by allowing them to use your code on their terms, but they don't reciprocate by giving you the right to use their code on your terms.

Sort of like BSD-style licenses, aka proprietary-compatible licenses.

I don't think that the parent put that very well. Let me try to explain it better (if he means to say what I think he means to say):

The GPL implicitly says that it's not good to have a non-restrictive license (such as the BSD license) because it tries to turn code with such a license into GPL'ed code. On the other hand, it's also not right to have a license with more restrictions than the GPL (because it won't work with GPL'ed code). For instance, the major criticism by the FSF of the previous version of the APSL was that you always had to publish the source if you changed the code (even when you didn't distribute the binaries outside of your organisation). However, there is nothing in the Free Software philosophy that says that this is not right (this restriction is in accordance with all freedoms that define Free Software). A programmer who is more extreme than RMS might want to see to it that every change is given back to the community. To this purpose, he can devise a sort of extended GPL license. Unfortunately for him, code under such a license would be incompatible with the GPL. GPL'ed code can never be used together with code that has more restrictions, while it can restrict code with fewer restrictions (code with a GPL-compatible license).

The BSD license is different. A BSD-licensed codebase can be extended with more restricted code. It's up to to the maintainer of the main tree and individual users to decide whether they accept the license restrictions that the new contributions bring (which may only apply to contributed code itself). On the other hand, you can also contribute code with less restrictions (public domain code, for instance) and it can keep its original (lack of a) license. There is no one-way street towards a particular set of restrictions.

To recap, GPL compatibility can only lead to GPL'ed code. You can never benefit from GPL'ed code without adopting the same set of restrictions for your own code. BSD compatibility does nothing more than allow your code to be used with BSD-licensed code. You have the choice to restrict your own code more, less or differently than the BSD-licensed code.

The FSF doesn't deny other licenses exist.

[jbn-o]

They want everyone to follow their ways, they do not like the thinking of other non-gnu licenses.

No, they warn about the shortcomings of other licenses that don't ensure the freedoms of free software (in the case of MIT X11 and new BSD license).

Okay, they want what's best for the open-source community, and have obviously contributed quite a lot.

Although what they want is beneficial for both the Open Source and Free Software movements, the movement they are more properly associated with is the Free Software movement, which they began over a decade before the Open Source movement started.

But does anyone think it is unfair that others (X11, BSD license, zlib, etc) accept the existence of GNU, but not the other way around (this is shown by their philosophy documents, and also the nature of the GPL).

This is simply untrue. The FSF has a widely-accepted and very useful license list which includes these licenses and suggested ways of speaking about the licenses to avoid confusion about which license you're referring to:

[I]t is risky to recommend use of ``the BSD license'', because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead.

RMS gives talks where he tells people why he encourages contributions to X licensed under the X11 license (matching the rest of the project) instead of making a GNU GPL fork. See the Q&A section of some of the Free Software speeches--he tells people precisely why there is no GNU GPL fork of X and why such a fork is likely to be a bad idea.

This is hardly the behavior one would expect to see if the FSF did not want to "accept the existence" of these other licenses.