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

Apple is giving people what they want

[groove10]

Apple is trying to please both crowds and is doing a pretty good job of it.

They are giving end-users the software and hardware that fits their needs, such as the iMusic software and the introduction of the G5. at the same time, they are not forgetting the *NIX and open source base of their current OS. Actions such as this one and the continued "giving back" of code to OSS projects exemplify this trend.

Apple seems to have its head on straight and although I don't use their products, I support them and their continued sucess. A computer monoculture is a bad thing.

Now, I might actually buy a Mac laptop if they didn't cost so damn much!

Re:Apple is giving people what they want

[eclectic4]

Along with what everyone else has said, I will say that it's not that Apple's products are too expensive, it's that Apple doesn't sell cheaper computers. Theres a huge difference there.

Typical

[The Bungi]

And GNU's response to this? "It's not free enough", which means "it's not the GPL, therefore it sucks".

Maybe one of these days RMS will learn to appreciate the jumps and hoops companies who sell software for a living go through to do these types of things, instead of just dismissing them with "they're evil, proprietary and you shouldn't use them". Life is so much simpler when you don't have shareholders, boards of directors, lawyers and... well, money.

Re:What are the motivations and implications?

[Zigg]

No; it's still GPL-incompatible. I am not convinced, however, that GPL-incompatibility is in any stretch a black mark on any license.

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.

Right direction.

[gregarican]

As much as some PC enthuisiasts bash Apple, I like the direction they are heading. Anyone who goes into an Apple store and doesn't come away impressed with something is fooling themselves. They are sincerely trying to be innovative, inventive, and creative in engineering aesthetically-pleasing, user-friendly, and functional hardware and software. Micro$loth OTOH is simply repacking the same crap with new window dressing and new subscription schemes to keep revenue coming in.

Personally I find most of Apple stuff a bit pricey but like where they are going. This FSF move is another step in the right direction.

Hopefully some of these players can continue allying themselves to take down the many-headed hydra that is Micro$loth. Novell adopted some Java angles with Netware 5, and recently added Linux services to their support suite. Maybe Apple can be added to the picture to cover desktop OS, server OS, desktop hardware, desktop software, *NIX services, etc.

I know Apple hasn't been a collaboration proponent in the past but the sum of all parts could be a force to be reckoned with.

GNU's not BSD either

[Outland Traveller]

That's why it's called the FREE software foundation and not the Somewhat-Free, Mostly-Free, Free-This-One-Time, Momentarily-Free, or Free-Enough-So-Take-It-Or-Leave-It Foundation.

One interesting thing about the GPL, is that it protects the software itself, not necessarily the authors. The FSF has come up with a unique and powerful mechanism for insuring that code and/or an application will *always* be freely distributable over its entire lifetime.

It's perfectly reasonable for them to stand up for this important principle. Many times RMS and the FSF have pointed out flaws in only slightly more compromising licenses, and many times their warnings have turned out to be farsighted.

We should all be thanking them for selflessly taking on the role of a watchdog. They serve the public good and have an excellent track record. You should really pick up a membership