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

What are the motivations and implications?

[mjmalone]

Yay! now we have another license to rant about and compare with GPL/BSD!! But seriously, why does apple need a new free software license? Aren't the ones being used now sufficient?

Licensees will now have the choice of providing source code to either just the users of the code or (as before) to the general public (Section 2.2(c)).

What does this mean? Could one restrict who is allowed to use the code and thereby restrict who may view the source? In a commercial application this means that one could produce a program and then sell it and only allow purchasers to view the source, correct?

Re:What are the motivations and implications?

[Sheetrock]

Doesn't this mean that Apple 'Free Software' can mix with GNU 'Free Software' provided the proper attributions and such are given? I could see this as being a tremendous win for the Apple platform, assuming this really does mean that it gets access to the wealth of free code out there.

Re:What are the motivations and implications?

[jdreed1024]

Doesn't this mean that Apple 'Free Software' can mix with GNU 'Free Software' provided the proper attributions and such are given?

If you mean GPL'd software, no. According to this page, the FSF still considers APSLv2 incompatible with the GPL. Though they don't explain why. At some point, I really like to see a comprehensive listing of why each of the free-but-not-GPL-compatible licenses are designated such. I mean, it's all well an good for the GPL to say "It's not ok to use this license", but I find such a statement annoying without at least a brief note along the lines of "it's incompatible because it prevents you from doing $foo, which is allowed under the GPL" Or something.

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.

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.

GNU's Opinion

[Coneasfast]

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

Re:GNU's Opinion

[Llywelyn]

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

My experience from reading GNU's work is that they aren't terribly fond of anything that isn't GNU.

From that webpage:

-------------
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.
-------------

Let's go over these point by point.

>*It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with
>other files which may be entirely proprietary.

So does BSD. This does not, in my book, qualify as a "major practical problem."

>It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to
>your changes which Apple will not give you for its code.

Yes, it requires this. I'm not sure why this makes it "unfair" though: this seems like more of a "legal cover our asses" clause on Apple's part so that they can use the changes elsewhere.

>It is incompatible with the GPL.

Would someone look up the definition of "circular reasoning"?

It seems, from everything I've seen come out of GNU, that they fit every definition of "Zealots". They almost seem to be *reaching* for something bad to say about the license simply because a proprietary software company is behind it.

Long arm of open source community

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

This is one more feather in our collective cap. This means that in very recent history (less than a year) open source was significantly impacted every major player. Microsoft is keeping a close eye on us and implementing an open source lab. Big business companies like IBM and Oracle have jumped onboard. And now Apple is realizing that its better to go with it than fight it. This is great news. I could have dreamed of this five years ago, but I never would have bet on it.

We are making history and leaving a big footprint. Little people influencing very large companies.

transplanting?

[SHEENmaster]

Does this mean that it's possible(legal) to transplant Darwin's SMP capabilities into OpenBSD's PowerPC port? Firewire support? Cheapass-iBook-winmodem support?

Re:transplanting?

[Elwood P Dowd]

Sure, you could rerelease BSD-licensed code under the APSL-2.0, probably, and thus you could combine code from Darwin and OpenBSD.

You'd definitely have to use the APSL-2.0 for the resulting product.

But the architectures of the two systems are different enough that you aren't going to be able to plug in the SMP support. Or most drivers. Darwin uses a unique kernel and driver architecture.

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.

Re:Apple is giving people what they want

[AntiOrganic]

Apple's more like a prostitute at a bachelor party, that will give you the ride of your life if you're willing to fork over $3000 for her.

Re:Apple is giving people what they want

[11223]

OK, let me spell it out for you:

Apple produces mid-range and high-end products. They do not produce any low-end products.

iBooks are mid-range laptops and compete quite well with comparable PC laptops.

PowerBooks are high-end laptops and blow away most other high-end PC laptops.

Apple also does not produce luggables, almost-PDA-sized laptops, laptops without CDs, laptops with less than 4.5 hours of battery life, or tablets.

If you stick to laptops you will find that Apple's laptops are highly competative.

Was that enough?

good news!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I actually I wonder like a previous poster WHY every company needs to have their own license when GPL and BSD (or Apache perhaps) seem to cover the bases and you can always say "modified GPL", i.e. GPL + trademark restriction.

But on the whole this is great to hear, because I consider the FSF stamp of approval to mean "this license has no hidden traps". I.e., no weird venue change clauses, or ejection seats (if you get sued, your license terminates, if you have patents your license terminates, if you "use" the software the wrong way your license terminates) or other stupidity.

Sometimes free software folks think that these little details don't matter, but of course if you ever have to go to court, EVERY detail matters, and you agree to them!

I really don't have time to read all these stupid licenses, but when I see FSF-approved I feel a little more at ease.

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:x86 port of OSX

[Jerk City Troll]

Think about it, why would ANYONE buy a Mac if not for OSX?

Probably because PowerPC architecture is vastly superior to x86. In addition to that, Apple has very strict engineering standards. They do things that make a lot of sense. If you've ever actually sat down and tinkered with or owned a Mac, you'd understand.

Even when I was looking at buying my 15" Ti Powerbook, I decided that if I hated MacOS X, I'd just run Linux or FreeBSD on it. I bought it beacuse the hardware is of exceptional quality. Offerings from most vendors in the PC market are mostly crap. There's very little money spent into engineering things well, but a lot of money invested in engineering them cheaply. I'll never lay a dime down on another piece of x86 hardware again--it's just not worth it.

Re:External Deployment

[ShieldW0lf]

Licensees will only be required to release source code of Modifications they "Externally Deploy" (new Section 1.4, and Sections 2.1, 2.2). "External Deployment" is defined to cover the external distribution of APSL'ed code or use of APSL'ed code to provide a service (including content delivery) to a third party through electronic communication with that party.

Don't know how I feel about this one...

You can't run an application service provider program without releasing changes to all your clients, and possibly the public if your clients deal with the public?

You can't run a b2b service without releasing all your changes to your distributors that use it and your clients that use it?

This is very different from the "no black box public distribution" that I previously considered the GPL to represent.

If I had a client who sold widgets, and he had to release all his source to clients who connected to his b2b setup, allowing them to leave him and then give all his internal systems to his competitor, even though he never distributed his software, I don't think he'd be wanting to buy anything I built.

Could you insulate against this by putting a "dumb layer" between your apps? You could argue that ANY system that was interacted with by the public, however indirectly, required publication... in most businesses, this would eliminate the "internal deployment" angle almost totally, unless you had a typist carrying out your data-syncronisation work

Re:GNU is not software, it's religion

[DAldredge]

What about the goverment of the United States?

Re:x86 port of OSX

[axxackall]

why would ANYONE buy a Mac if not for OSX?

Ask this question to all people who has their Macs running Linux/PPC (Gentoo, YDL, Debian, etc - there thousands and thousands of Linux/PPC users), Mac OS 9 (or even 8 - "classic" application still run better in the original OS *AND* there are still tons of such application not ported yet to OSX *AND* there are still millions of users of Mac OS 8/9 around the world who has own reasons of not migrating to OSX), and even BSD (not OSX - original *BSD, although, there are not many Mac/BSD users).

I think that overall there are millions of Mac users who are running something different than OSX. How do you think they have got their Macs? I understand that some of them have bought their old Macs before OSX was stable/available. But I am sure that there are many of them who bough Macs *AFTER* OSX was around. I personally know many such individuals and some companies. And that makes you quoted sentence WRONG. Think about it.

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.

Re:Right direction.

[Graymalkin]

For my $129 I got an OpenGL accelerated desktop, a system wide address book with a public API, great support for zeroconf networking and service discovery, CIFS/SMB support, and an AOL compatible instant messenger to boot. I figure I got quite a number of enhancements over the previous version of OSX. A .Mac subscription is entirely optional, I don't have one and don't miss it.

I don't see why $129 seems so expensive to you either. OSX was released in March of 2001. It didn't perform nearly as well as advertised and the update was released in September. The first update (10.1) only cost 10.0 users a penny to upgrade to a signifigant performance increase. Jaguar (10.2) was released in late August of 2002, a year and a handful of months after the original OSX release. Panther (10.3) doesn't look like it will be released until late in the fall. That's about 16 months between paid upgrades for the OS. That is only $8 a month that a copy of OSX costs. That is two less Frappucinos a month for 16 months and you've saved enough change to buy a new version of OSX. That's also assuming you buy upgrades the day they're released, there's little reason to upgrade to Panther if Jaguar's running fine and dnady for you. There's still plenty of folks running releases of 10.1 because it runs well enough for them not to justify an upgrade to 10.2. If $129 is so much you might want to reconsider your "career" as a McDonalds grease engineer.

Re:No, you idiot.

[Nick of NSTime]

By the way, Darwin has already been ported to x86.

That is indeed true, and John Carmack ported X11 to Darwin a while back.

Re:well how about releasing some software under it

[Graymalkin]

Linux Whiner Translate-O-Matic:

Darwin is great and all, but many of us already have a kernel to use. Apple may say they embrace open source but when are they going to release code to some of the various software that makes OSX unique?

Wow I sure do like all the nifty features of OSX. I don't understand the fact that giving away the very technology that draws in customers, thus commoditizing the product, would be a stupid business move.

When they decided to use KHTML for Safari, I thought they would at least release the source code for Safari and not just the changes to KHTML.. Its not like Safari is innovative or anything, we already have better open source browsers, but releasing the source code would of been a nice gesture.

Apple should give away any and all software that draws customers to their platform. That way they no longer have to bother with selling hardware of any sort. Since their software should all be open source they can just make money selling advertisements. I'm sure they could make a couple hundred dollars a month at least. That's way more than my mom gives me!

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

Re:GNU's not BSD either

[rhadamanthus]

It's perfectly reasonable for them to stand up for this important principle.

I would agree with you, but the problem is that they never grant the same courtesy to anyone else.

Apple does not want to release their code under the GPL. It's perfectly reasonable for them to stand up for this important principle. However, Stallman and the other FSF "advocates" don't want to hear that. Ever. It drives me nuts to hear such blatant hypocrisy from someone who is so often touted as being "revolutionary". More like elitist and closed-minded if you ask me.

---rhad

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:That is so cool!!!

[KillerHamster]

I'm sure these people will be happy to sell you one. Or several.