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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.