Slashdot Mirror
FSF's Opinion of the Apple Public Source License
Stian Engen writes "Bradley Kuhn of the FSF does not recommend the release of new software using the Apple Public Source License (APSL) 2.0 despite its
newly accuired Free Software License."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Since when does the FSF recommend other software licenses then the GPL? Even the LGPL isn't recommended.
Its a hell of a lot better than the old license. And its not like developers working with Darwin have much of a choice. I mean, who is going to use the APSL on a non Apple derived product?
Dupe!
The unofficial
"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."
;)
Sounds like Apple really likes its customers
-]Phreak Out[-
We can hope that they are cool about being open (I think they have been, for the most part). But who really expects them to be Free?
"You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo
they don't recommend it. They have an "our's is better!" mentality. Would you recommend something that competes with you?
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
sure, pedophile...
They have all sorts of Free Software Liscences they recomend against.
Even a handful of Copy-lefted ones.
This is essentially a copy left for everyone escept Apple, who gets BSD like (from the FSF comments, I couldn't find that in the actual liscense though).
practically every non GPL compatible Copy-Left on their site says "though it is OK to use this software we recomend against using the liscense for new software".
And all the BSDish ones recomend using the X11 liscense instead. I don't see how this is news one bit.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I guess that Michael needs to learn to review previous stories - this story, complete with the details about FSF approving but not recommending it, was covered in an article three days ago.
In any case, I can't really imagine the FSF recommending any license other than their very own GPL, now the darling of IBM and the open source movement in general. Not that it isn't deserving of this adoration, as it may have saved Linux from SCO.
Only gays use Macs.
Indeed, all their users are quite merry.
The unofficial
I don't think this truly matters very much. Three objections to a software licence has to be well below average. I don't see a problem with points one and three. Yes, it may link to proprietary code, and yes, it's not GPL compatible, but those seem to be minor points, if at all. Perhaps the second point, that Apple gives itself right to changes you make in the code, but not vice versa. However, it is Apple Corporation's code. Apple would have a very tough time surviving if it's code or an ISO image was free for download off of a server. Most of its value is in the OS, not the hardware. Although it is nice and shiny, just expensive.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
..the FSF wants you to keep using the GPL.. and oh, if you're not too stupid they want you to give *them* the right to re-license your code under any new version of the GPL *they* write and see fit. Dunno, doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies for some reason.
-Paranoid me.
I'm confused! am I meant to like apple or hate apple today? OSX is good... but the license is bad... but then the license is good... now the license is bad...
:)
I can't help feeling the Apple license over OSX is a bit better than the SCO license over Linux
(yes. it was a joke)
I'm happy that the FSF are considering other licenses for discussion, this can only be a Good Thing and foster the exchange of opinions in the community (this /. article for example).
I would not be too surprised if they do not recommend it. Even from a business point of view they have the most substantial investments in the GPL.
If you outlaw the law, only criminals will have laws
I think it goes without saying that practically every software license that is created from now on will either be effectively identical to an existing free license or will have some non-free clauses in it. Otherwise, why not release as public domain, BSD, or (L)GPL? No need for GNU to complain over the license; the fact that it is not GPL should immediately tip anyone off that there are differences.
SCO sues Apple and *BSD over IP issues.
The unofficial
might as well piss off some more people.
:) b)sell to the open source crowd. Face it, how many /. geeks would have bought anything Apple before OS X and Darwin came out? It's cool now though. Admittedly, that's kind of what made me get my iBook...
Disclaimer:I own an iBook.
Yes, Apple's liscense isn't really the most free of them all. This is because Apple's primary motivations in using Open Source solutions are to: a)harness the man power and combined talent of the open source movement to aide their own software, thus making profit from software they would otherwise have to write themselves
So maybe we have a new category: free as in, you're free to help Apple.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Remind me, since when did companies have a legal or ethical obligation to release the source for any of their work? Apple is certainly a friend of the open source community, since they pay people to write OSS. This "all your code are belong to us" ideological BS isn't going to help anyone.
Note that "does not recommend APSL 2.0 for new software" != "APSL is bad". The FSF is against almost all licenses other than (L)GPL, including (especially?) BSD. What this means is that if you are writing OSS, then the GPL is your best chance to ensure that your work will always be Free. However, this does not mean that if someone distributes software under some other OSS license, then their intent is to screw you over.
I know, but my statement still stands ;]
The unofficial
Okay, Parens rails against IBM, and now the FSF turns around and unrecommends Apple licences? Why must open source folk always turn around and bite the corporate entities that want be a part of it?
Of course, who in their right mind would voluntarily use APSL anyway for stuff that was completely original - it's Apple's license. I get the feeling that the FSF have a GNU up their butt. I mean - what's so flippin' special about the GPL and how come they can get away with calling the GPL "Free"?
"We wanna be free, to do what we wanna do"
- Well..you can't under the GPL. Try a BSD license.
From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html we see that FSF "...recommend[s] it[the LGPL] for special circumstances only." There are quite a few other licenses on that page, the Perl license, the X11 license, etc., which FSF reccomends. More specifically FSF reccomends that you use a license which makes your work "free software" as defined here http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.
Apple's model of mixing open source and proprietary software is an effective idea.
After all, no hacker wants to idle away his time polishing the mundane details of a user interface. I sure as hell don't want to, but I might if someone paid me. Why not let hackers build the fascinating technologies, open source them, and then let companies pay people (and make money) off of polished user interfaces? We hackers will always have our own (unpolished) interfaces, so we aren't tied down. Granted, the user interfaces are going to have all the problems of close source software - bugs that we can't fix, ect - but it seems like a very reasonable compromise.
Anyway think whatever you want, this model is the one that will carry the most real-world punch in the years to come. The 2.0 is just symbolic of Apple's intention to play the game.
Upstairs Dog, Downstairs People.
does anybody else notice that does not recommend APSL 2.0 for new software does not mean APSL is EVIL.
Mod Parent Up
Crap I knew it!!! It's not the open source community. It is the open source COMMUNE!
I hope I haven't put on the Mccarthy's list!
Apple, IBM and a handful of other companies heavily invested in Open Source and gave a lot of their work back to public. Granted, they are out to make money, but they still took a big risk and huge number of users got free (both as in speech and as in beer) stuff without paying them a cent.
I wish FSF would spend more time to promote current leaders of open source and encourage others to follow in their footsteps. But all I see on their page is critisism:
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.
So basically, they are more interested in "ideological purity" than promoting realistic progress towards their goal. This is fine as a PHD thesis of some MIT student. But it does show that RMS/FSF are worthless as a realistic leader of today's free software movement. The question is, who and which organizations are up to the task?
This is a double post story, but I saw one particularly insightful comment from the last one (that I did not make) which I would like to re-iterate over here.
Thanks to Llywelyn:
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.
You're either with the GPL, or you're with the proprietary terrorists.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Let's consider everything in context. It's true that the FSF does not completely approve of Apple's 2.0 license. It's true that Apple does not make their entire OS source code available in any form, let alone under GPL.
Still, it is an improvement over the more restrictive license earlier, and much, much better than the days before Jobs' return from NeXT. At that time, none of the source code was available.
Furthermore, I think this is a Good Thing. A commercial vendor releasing the source code to any central part of their operating system was unheard of years ago. Sun and Microsoft have yet to do this; complaints about Apple's specific license are paltry in comparison to the strict use of binaries in place in other operating systems.
You sure put the coward in Anonymous Coward.
From your 'quote'
We must not judge all of a company by just part of what they do.
I think you need to thank the FSF for highlighting this fact. No one in their right minds would say Apple is doing illegal things by hiring programmers to write OSS, but the fact remains that Appleware must not be mistaken for Freeware.
If Apple were to get sidelined and their market share dwindles (I hear they have about 1.5% now, and operate in less than 6 countries), they might try to do a SCO. And then all hell breaks loose, and you'd be yelling at the FSF for not having warned you in advance.
FSF is merely cautioning folks from wrongly concluding that Appleware is Freeware. Openware maybe, but not Freeware.
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Insightful AND funny!
Ahem. The FSF actually recommended that the Ogg Vorbis toolkit remain under a BSD license, rather than insisting that it go GPL. This was all done, apparently, with Richard M. Stallman's blessing! Yes folks, RMS actually encouraged the Xiphophorous people to use the BSD license rather than the GPL! The story here.
No, the FSF does not recommend exclusive use of the GPL at all times. They can encourage use of other more permissive free licenses if they believe that it will aid the cause of Free Software.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
Yes, Apple's liscense isn't really the most free of them all. This is because Apple's primary motivations in using Open Source solutions are to: a)harness the man power and combined talent of the open source movement to aide their own software, thus making profit from software they would otherwise have to write themselves :) b)sell to the open source crowd. Face it, how many /. geeks would have bought anything Apple before OS X and Darwin came out? It's cool now though. Admittedly, that's kind of what made me get my iBook...
So maybe we have a new category: free as in, you're free to help Apple.
Funny... I don't see it that way.
The way I see it is this:
Apple wanted to use a mature kernel for their OS. So they used it. As a mark of respect and good faith to the Open Source community whose work they used, they decided to release the changes they made (which they were not obliged to) back to the community. The caveats they added ensure that they can use any derivatives of the work which they did, and that their true intellectual property (the Mac GUI and libraries) which they've spent 20 years developing remains theirs. (Otherwise, if the license was true GPL, they'd have to release all of their other work under the GPL as well).
So their license limits their involvement to the changes to the kernel. They don't want to release their GUI under a 'free'* license? Good for them. They don't have to. They were acting in good faith, and that should be the end of it.
Simon
* I use 'free' in quotes, lowercase, because I highly disagree with the FSF's definition of 'free'. Particularly because the only license which meets that description is not a license at all - it's called Public Domain.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Can Apple create his evil opensource license?
M$!! i'm running a Barton 2.5 Ghz 2 GBytes inside Linux with Wine and a lot of GPL programs.
Apple!! i'm running your iBook inside Linux and writing a lot of programs with license GPL instead of stupid ASPL.
open4free
So, basically, it's incompatible with the GPL because it's incompatible with the GPL. But it gets better:First of all, who said anything about judging a company? The issue here is whether a particular license is useful for the free software community, not whether Apple will go to corporate heaven. You can't say the APSL is flawed because Apple doesn't use the APSL for all its software. Obviously Apple is being strategic about what license it chooses for which products (and Apple stockholders probably prefer it that way). It doesn't mean the free software community can't acknowledge positive developments about Apple licensing, even if it's not ideal for everyone.
The LGPL is not always recommended, but it can be. I'm not sure if what you're saying is meant to suggest the FSF is blinded to anything but the GNU GPL (version 2 as I write this) or if you appreciate the obstacles involved and understand their goals and strategies.
The FSF has okayed use of non-copylefted free software licenses in some instances (I vaguely recall them saying Xiph's approach with their Ogg Vorbis library was appropriately licensed under a non-copyleft free software license resembling the new BSD license). They take a very fine-grained look at licensing. They consider long-term ramifications others sometimes dismiss (like the software freedom for users of derivative works of non-copylefted free software programs). The thought that went into the copyleft concept is something I haven't seen prior to the GNU project.
A lot of licenses work to benefit the corporation that wrote the license, not a public software commons (including consideration of how software patents can adversely impact the public). The GNU GPL is notable for this and has been for decades now.
Digital Citizen
That explains why the Bush family is so wealthy.
I find it incredible that all the posters to the SCO stories say how terrible the land grab is and yet here, the majority of posters are criticical of the FSF for endeavouring to prevent that kind of nonsense from happening again. I don't pay too close attention to people's usernames so there may be a completely different demographic contributing to both stories but I suggest that those posting here get out their history books and start reading. You may then understand why the "idealogy" of the FSF is so important and precious.
on the AC/DC adaptor.
then the power went out
Were you trying to copy a 17 M file to another computer when this happened?
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
It is not recomended because it is incompatible with the GPL. Because you can't take GPL'd code and integrate with, e.g., the Darwin kernel. (so with some bridging you could use e.g. some linux device drivers...)
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Congrats, you have just been trolled.
Have you ever gone to the GPL FAQ? and found anything you think is vague not clarified there?
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Repeat after me: "there is nothing sinful about making money" - it's the principal of labor exchange, but instead of accepting TV dinners to distribute to their programmers, Apple takes money, distributes that, and then the programmers go off and choose which TV dinners they want. Or they could even choose something else entirely!
Actually, the reality is that capitalists would usually just outsource jobs to those 3rd world shitholes that you speak of, and the programmers you're talking about would usually be unemployed, and not able to buy TV dinners or anything else except if they happen to be receiving unemployment pay (a socialist-type concept, hmmm... ironic, isn't it?). But hey, the free market is a good thing, right?"I wish FSF would spend more time to promote current leaders of open source and encourage others to follow in their footsteps. But all I see on their page is criticism"
In all fairness the FSF's job is to be consistent in providing information for developers and users of free software, they are not a division of Apple/IBM's marketing department and they are not in the business of putting a spin on whatever concessions companies make towards them to please said companies and make some temporary karma gain from those companies.
In my opinion the FSF's goal in this particular situation was to deal with issues raised/fixed by Apples new license version. They credited Apple for what they fixed and explained what issues may still exist for developers/users that care/are interested in free software.
"So basically, they are more interested in "ideological purity" than promoting realistic progress towards their goal."
Yes but the goal of the FSF is in essence an ideological one, compromising their ideology would compromise their goal.
_________________________________________________
I once read an interview with Hubbard, one of the former top coders on the FreeBSD project. He revealed some interesting things, for instance:
* The only code FreeBSD got out of Apple were some minor bugfixes/style changes and some test cases.
* He waited for Apple to offer him a job, and when they didn't he had to go ask (beg?) himself.
* The FreeBSD/PPC port barely boots, and is not really usable.
I don't think FreeBSD got a great deal out of that, really.
* I use 'free' in quotes, lowercase, because I highly disagree with the FSF's definition of 'free'. Particularly because the only license which meets that description is not a license at all - it's called Public Domain.
A common misconception. That's like claiming the only form of political freedom is anarchy - clearly the interests of a free people are best served by living under the rule of law, rather than there being no restrictions on what one can do at all.
And how is this any better than Microsoft's "shared source" idea, where all the changes get sucked one way?
As is every other license on the planet... The GPL is pretty much the only exception.
Fair enough, that's one big red check-mark.
That's being quite hypocritical there. Their policy is that software released under every other license should be able to be GPL'd, but it's fine that, once GPL'd, it can't be used with software under any other license... Really, really one-sided guys.
Of course, if that was a problem, they could very well change the GPL now couldn't they??? No, they'd rather have the rest of the world change to what they want.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
If Linux kernel was not GPL and was instead BSD, it would be far easier for SCO to hijack it than it is now.
All of the counter-lawsuits against SCO so far are pointing out that SCO distributed their own distro of Linux and hence are bound by the GPL.
The GPL was specifically designed to be the very definition of free...
The FSF/RMS would say it's free as in "You will always be free to use it", but it's really 'free' as in "You are free to with it exactly what we say you can do with it."
Instead of worrying about all the words they've re-defined, I just ignore their recomendations, and I would suggest other's do the same (lest we all get into the double plus good senario)
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
No one gives a shit what you think, suburban cyberpussy.
Hey buddy,
When a congregation collectively works together to feed the poor by cooking and delivering large amounts of free food, is that communism too? The restaurant owner next door might lose some business. How about when the congregation runs a car wash to collect money toward housing renovations for the poor? Is that communism? The car wash owner down the street might think so. Is it communism when individuals donate a few bucks after Sunday service? Isn't that -- by your line of logic -- communism too?
It's not though. Communism is -- by definition -- ideology enforced by governmental institution and bears no relationship to individuals, acting on principals of free association, freedom of speech, and freedom of commerce (in this case the freedom to donate one's time and effort) toward a collective goal. You're simply red baiting free software authors for committing acts of FREEDOM in a free society. It is my right to donate money to church, the ACLU, EFF, or - *gasp* - even the FSF. Just as it's my right to donate code under whatever license I might choose. A very different proposition from the government forcing me to give my code away under communism, or for that matter, a government which prevents me from giving my code away. In both cases, we're talking about government restricting individual freedom and rights to enforce a certain ideology.
Communism my ass.
--Maynard
All of this just goes to show that there are people in the hippie free software movement who will never, ever accept or approve of anything less than total compliance with their GPL license. If a company doesn't use GPL licensing for their software: evil. If they use it for one product and not another: evil. If they use free software licensing for some of their stuff while their competitors use totally proprietary licensing: they're even more evil because they're just trying to appear like they aren't evil. But they are.
I think GNU-Linux and the open source and free software movmement is an incredible thing that should be encouraged and nurtured. I cheer at their successes. I use Linux both at work and at home. Yay for them. For us all. But I think this community can clearly go too far in what it expects/demands of proprietary software development companies who try to adopt open source principles.
Apparently releasing half your software under an open source license isn't any better than releasing none of it. It's all seen as some sort of subterfugue, an attempt to "dupe" the open source community into thinking the company is "cool." You people need to chill the hell out and realize who your friends and allies are.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
Orwellian double-think.
That is not insightful. It is simply wrong.
The GPL stops self-centered companies progressively closing open code. That promotes free speech, not limits it.
People who think "lack-of-law = freedom" are ill-formed. "lack-of-law = might-makes-right" and has nothing to do with the freedom of each individual.
How would you kind folks out there set up a GNU/Linux type of computer for a complete neophyte or for, let's say, grandma?... The question might be reframed more properly depending on the difference between your expertise and any computer experiences of the complete neophyte.
I can make any derivative work I want of GPL'd code, and I can use it however I want. I can also distribute it to whoever I want together with the source code. The GPL does in no way limit my power of expression of derivative works, it only requires that I provide the source of them.
Unless by expression you mean "take the work of others to create an expression I will profit of". In which case the "others" should be compensated, which you can do by negotiating an alternate licence. Restricting the commercial potential of an expression is a far cry from restricting the expression itself.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It seems to me that they would be under no obligation to compensate you for anything.
I wonder if they could also prevent you from further development on the code you wrote?
" It would be most beneficial to consumers if all of their software used open standards. Imagine if Microsoft Office used a set of open document formats, for instance."
.Net? No problem. Here comes Mono. The point is, if Microsoft won't come to the mountain, everyone else is bringing the mountain to Microsoft, so to speak. They can CHANGE their formats, but it would be dangerous for them do so. If they radically changed Word to another format, I PROMISE you that reps from WordPerfect and Sun come into big business saying "Hey, from now on, our word processor uses the standard .doc format by default. Use our product, and you wont have to change anything!". You can also bet that said companies would let existing users "upgrade" to their products for pennies on the dollar.
Well, that's happening in a roundabout way. Microsoft themselves aren't going to "open standards", but what's happening now effectively fixes that problem; everyone else is adopting MS formats. Everybody uses Word? Fine. Notice that all of MS's competitors (WordPerfect, Star/OpenOffice, etc) can easily import Word docs, even CREATE Word docs. Some even use ".doc" as the native format. Same for spreadsheets.
So, if MS doesn't want to play nice, fine, we'll simply make OUR products compatible. The only possible danger here is if the DMCA were invoked to keep competitors from finding ways to make compatible products. Otherwise, WE'LL just keep adapting to Microsoft.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
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.
And I think in all fairness this warrants an update on the main page because that title is extremely deceptive.
I can make any derivative work I want of GPL'd code, and I can use it however I want. I can also distribute it to whoever I want together with the source code. The GPL does in no way limit my power of expression of derivative works, it only requires that I provide the source of them.
That's not quite true. Part of your derivitive work may also be a derivitive of some other work, which isn't available under a GPL compatible license. In this case, you _cannot_ distribute your work, and a term in the GPL is restricting from making that expression.
Of course, it is only doing this _in conjunction with_ another license that contains a similar term.
So essentially, the GPL does not by itself restrict freedom of expression of derivitive works. But take two GPL-like licenses with different phrasing and then you are restricted. Which can be a substantial PITA.
Now Apple has changed its license to appease the FSF, but the first thing the FSF does is spout off about how the changes aren't good enough, and even if they were Apple would still be condemned for not opening up all of OS X.
RMS didn't say "don't use Darwin" or any of that, he said that people shouldn't use the APSL for new projects.
Apple has already given back a lot of code (ZeroConf, KHTML updates, etc.),
Apple doesn't have the resources to handle the development necessary to put together a modern OS. Without GNU C, Mach, X11, the BSD kernel and environment, and lots of other free software, and the interoperability with UNIX workstations that brings, Apple would probably be facing bankruptcy by now.
When a company like Apple puts out software under any license, proprietary or free, people have a right and a duty to analyze it carefully and figure out what the implications are. And it is very useful for people like RMS to share those results. RMS didn't flame or insult Apple, he just stated the results of his analysis.
But whiners and zealots like you can't deal with the facts. You support Apple because it's a religion to you, not a tool to get work done.
--rhad
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
Mod parent up.
This is exactly the issue that most people miss when comparing the OSS
business model to the proprietary.
*sigh* back to work...
Excuse me if I don't take a single thing FSF says to heart.
These guys can find fault with anything but the 'blessed GPL'. They're the ones that give free software the 'commie' name because of their inflexibility.
I should think that any company that releases the core of their operating system as a open source of *any* kind with no monetary cost associated with it is impressive.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Face it, how many /. geeks would have bought anything Apple before OS X and Darwin came out?
I confess ... I looked into buying blue G3's for running Linux, back at my uber-idealistic phase (wanted something I could not run Windows on), albeit, I wasn't a Slashdot geek either at the time.
If they weren't already, these guys and gals would be my new heroes.
That's not quite true. Part of your derivitive work may also be a derivitive of some other work, which isn't available under a GPL compatible license. In this case, you _cannot_ distribute your work, and a term in the GPL is restricting from making that expression.
This is true, and it appears that RMS was very wise indeed to add this restriction, since this is the very restriction that really hamstrings SCO's attempts to hijack Linux. This restriction means that, in light of SCO's claims that an additional license is needed to run Linux, SCO cannot distribute Linux under the terms of the GPL, which means that their ongoing distribution of the kernel infringes the copyrights of all of the other kernel contributors (including IBM, which is suing over this point).
Even better, from a Free Software point of view, it means that if SCO's claims are proved valid, *no one* will be able to distribute Linux, which is a powerful incentive for the removal of the offending code. To do otherwise would allow people to add code to free software under a variety of licenses, which they would have the ability to change later.
So essentially, the GPL does not by itself restrict freedom of expression of derivitive works. But take two GPL-like licenses with different phrasing and then you are restricted. Which can be a substantial PITA.
Of course, it would be nice if mixing code licensed under another free license with GPL'd code were easier, but in most cases when the FSF says a license is incompatible with the GPL, it's not because of phrasing, it's because there's a real danger that someone could use the combination to exploit the GPL'd code in a way inconsistent with the intent of the GPL. It's not even an issue of trying to force GPLness on other licenses because there's a pretty good list of compatible licenses, some of which the FSF doesn't like and wouldn't recommend, but do not pose any risk to the GPL code that may be linked to code licensed under them.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
It seems like you're confusing Socialism and Totalitarianism!
Yes, I know you're trolling. I just like biting, that's all. First you suggest democratic, socialist countries (e.g. Canada and most of Europe) would act like despotic, anti-democratic rulers in Middle East countries. Yes, Iraq has social schemes, but the main problem was it wasn't exactly democratic! Then you suggest Microsoft isn't anticompetitive.
Having people thrown in prison for disagreeing with you is totalitarianism. Socialism is when the state funds social projects instead of trusting to altruistic third parties. The USA has many socialist schemes, including social welfare, public libraries, police, courts and (limited) medical care, even though it's significantly less socialist than some other first world countries.
Microsoft functions well because it makes (and has made) a decent product.
Sorry buddy, Microsoft uses the dominant market share "decent product" as leverage in anticompetitive behaviour. Other companies have made even better products than Microsoft, but MS uses anticompetitive tactics against them. This is fact. For example, making secret deals with PC vendors to ensure they only ever offer MS operating systems bundled with their computers. Imagine if Coke charged stores extra for their product if they also stocked Pepsi.
Microsoft has a dominant share of the desktop computer market in OSes and office software. Do they have a dominant share of the server market? No. However, they use deliberate dirty tricks -- regularly changing, undocumented, non-standard file formats and network protocols -- in order to try and gain server market share. "You can't use non-Microsoft servers to service Microsoft desktops". That's anti-competitive.
that holds so much weight in the software development community, the "recommendation" by Bradley Kuhn was rather terse. Moreover, his argument was not well-supported. His relase read more as if he was simply bashing Apple's license. The first half of Bradley's statement reads as if he is supporting the new version of the AFSL. Statements such as "The APSL 2.0, like the Affero GPL, seeks to defend the freedom...". Two thirds of the way through his statement we are hit with three bullet points stating why the AFSL is "bad". Prefacing these bullet points is an unlinked reference comparing the AFSL to the NPL. After the bullet points Bradley then goes on to state "For this reason, we recommend you do not release new software using this license". Bradley probably knows a great deal more about the AFSL issue, but such a terse and unelaborated statement against adopting it is irresponsible. Especially coming from a representative of the organization that supposedly worked with Apple's lawyers to draft the new version of the License.
Furthermore - a company such as apple is in the business of making money. In many ways operating a software business "is incompatible with the GPL." [kuhn]. It's nice to see - for a change - an organization that is at least making an effort to give back some of their innovations to the development community. The only other method of protecting their IP is through patent law, and we know how GNU feels about that (link on GNU's home page)
Instead of taking such a cynical and negative stance on an effort to change the way the software industry works - why don't we support it?
Sure, Apple are at heart more or less as greedy and controlling as the next company, but consider how much of MS-Windows, OS/400 or Solaris has been distributed on terms anything like as good as these. Then can you tell me that a step forward hasn't been made here?
I believe that FSF are right to point out the remaining deficiencies in the licence, but they really could have put more effort into thanking Apple for coming to the party as much as they have.
Here's a suggestion for the FSF: set up a Corporate Heroes page, and put stuff like OpenVMS, OpenOffice.org and so on which has been GPLed by a corporation up in there in big print with links and logos. Then add a link to an "honourable mentions" page which mentions (in fine print, no logos) efforts like Apple's which are incomplete or grudging, but yet are progress in the right direction. ANy who care will get the hint. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I don't think Apple has any intention of other people releasing their own code under the APSL. The way I look at all of this is that the license is intend to allow people to modify the darwin core of Mac OS X freely, while at the same time provide provisions that protect Apple's non-open improvements.
Some talk about the provisions that allow Apple to effectively take your code, but when you think about it if you make any great and/or useful modifications you'd probably try to commit them to Apple so everyone could use them, wouldn't you?
I prefer the ASPL to nothing, and it is undeniable that the source is open. Only the distribution and code ownership is effected.
100% Crunchier
a) Ogg Vorbis BSD licence endorsement: I thought all code wanted to be free? Propritary use of OGG code still results in propritary software, doesn't it?
b) X11 licence endorsement. I thought that code forking was implicitly endorsed? I thought that the whole point of the GNU philosophy was that I should be able to examine, change and fork someone elses mods to my code?
Does RMS/FSF speak with forked tongue here? I actually agree with point a - BSD software has benefitted the world enormously. Imagine if Microsoft couldn't pick up the BSD TCP/IP stack back when they were trying to take over the internet. With the kind of dominance Internet explorer has now, the consequences of a protocol propritary to microsoft don't bear thinking about.
As for the X11 licence - maybe a fork would benefit X. The linux kernel has been forked many times allowing linux to scale to a variety of devices.
I'm very wary of the FSF and the GPL. It seems to me that there is value in many different types of licence and for the FSF to send out different signals is at best confusing and at worse hypocritical.
Its a hell of a lot better than the old license. And its not like developers working with Darwin have much of a choice. I mean, who is going to use the APSL on a non Apple derived product?
Heh. The FSF has this to say about the original BSD license; I suspect you would see the same thing happen with APSL2-licensed stuff...
There are many variants of simple non-copyleft free software licenses, including the X10 license, the X11/XFree86 license, the FreeBSD license, and the two BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) licenses. Most of them are equivalent except for details of wording, but the license used for BSD until 1999 had a special problem: the ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause''. It said that every advertisement mentioning the software must include a particular sentence:
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
Initially the obnoxious BSD advertising clause was used only in the Berkeley Software Distribution. That did not cause any particular problem, because including one sentence in an ad is not a great practical difficulty.
If other developers who used BSD-like licenses had copied the BSD advertising clause verbatim--including the sentence that refers to the University of California--then they would not have made the problem any bigger.
But, as you might expect, other developers did not copy the clause verbatim. They changed it, replacing ``University of California'' with their own institution or their own names. The result is a plethora of licenses, requiring a plethora of different sentences.
When people put many such programs together in an operating system, the result is a serious problem. Imagine if a software system required 75 different sentences, each one naming a different author or group of authors. To advertise that, you would need a full-page ad.
This might seem like extrapolation ad absurdum, but it is actual fact. NetBSD comes with a long list of different sentences, required by the various licenses for parts of the system. In a 1997 version of NetBSD, I counted 75 of these sentences. I would not be surprised if the list has grown by now. [Remember, this was written in 1998; this has obviously not happened.]
Jay (=
Well, if a company protects its right on its products or anything it does by law, it's very understandable.
However, forced openess? I can't understand it.
Is any license necessary for that purpose?
Moreover, I think that that kind of free software movement is one cause why software business is so low currently.
Even I don't buy S/W when I can use open source programs.
Is it good for S/W programmers consequently?
Hmm.....
Anyway, I don't see any problem with Apple's license.
Maybe they should have been a bit more political in their wordings, but in the end I don't see anything wrong with their assesment and recommendations.
;-)
And in the end it's only their opinion. You, the developer pick the license you like best and screw the rest.
If they'd been dancing on the table and praising the Great Jobs, this column would be full of buttfucker comments anyway... Now at least we get some intelligent bashing
I think, therefore I am...I think.
It might be clearer to you if you ignore the FUD about the GPL. Think public domain. If Apple released Darwin public domain (ie anybody can do anything with it) then do you really think they are legally required to release Quartz public domain?
Personally I see no problem with the Apple license. You can see how Darwin works, and you can copy parts into other software.
Yes if you make improvements and distribute your improved version, you have to send the changes to Apple. But really even without those rules people would act the same, and they do on lots of OSS projects. If you made some useful change to Darwin and kept it to yourself, you would have to keep reapplying your patch each time Apple relased a new version of Darwin, if you also wanted whatever improvements are in that. Why not let Apple put the changes into their copy, so you don't have to do this, and so everybody else using Darwin also gets the advantages of your code?
No, you did not answer my question. I asked you to provide a simple policy which both restricts the rights of individuals to give away that which they create while also keeping the sanctity of our basic constitutional rights and freedoms intact. I asked that because I don't believe it's possible to create such a policy. Instead you wrote a bunch of gobbledygook in reply (no surprise). Lets take two of your assertions:
I believe that people who spend their wealth under a 'good will' fashion, would like to force anybody to do so if they get the chance.
So, anyone who gives something away - be they church going members of society out to help the poor, teachers donating time to teach poor children how to read, non-religious individuals serving hot soup to the homeless, or even free software coders giving away their own work, they're real intent is to force you to do the same. Therefore, they should have their basic rights in a free society restricted preemptively before you might lose yours. Do I understand this? Next assertion:
When I see it like that, I believe that do-gooders have all the potential to eliminate private business and force my quality of life to degrade at what the public sector offers. Had we let all such do-gooders to become politicians, and now we would have communism.
So, because "do-gooders" have the "potential" to eliminate private business as a whole, across the entire macro economy, (*cough* bullshit *cough* to coin a phrase some AC used previously, oh yeah - YOU), and this might 'degrade the quality of your life', the only responsible choice is to restrict everyone else's basic freedoms of association, freedoms of speech, and freedoms of commerce under the guise of "anti-communism". Do I understand this properly?
At what point does the authoritarianism of Soviet and Chinese Communism equal the authoritarianism of the Fascist (and note that I use the term "Fascist" in its literal meaning) society you propose?
--Maynard
But it won't get modded up because it said bad things about Apple. :(
It will be good if slashdot allows filtering of moderations due to a certain group of people...
Oh, I'm well aware of the issues involved here. Yes, the fact that GPL code cannot be mixed with non-GPL compatible code is important to the primary function of the GPL, which is to ensure that future derivitives are also GPL.
Yes, there are GPL compatible licenses. As you say, the issue isn't "trying to force GPLness on other licenses". The essential test for GPL compatibility is: does this license allow me to take this code, strip away its current license and release a new version under the GPL. So, BSD et al are GPL compatible. A number of other licenses (I think the MPL and a lot of similar licenses) also explicitly allow relicensing to GPL in order to be compatible.
But the point is, you can take a copy of the GPL, change a very minimal number of words of the license, not affect the spirit of it in the slightest, and the result is GPL incompatible.
Say I liked the GPL in general but had issue with some of the phrasing in it. Say I took issue with section 3c, for example. This is the following section:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
[...]
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Now I might not want people to be able to pass responsibility for providing the source code back up the chain to me, even if they are noncommercial. I might want to force them to pass on an offer to provide the source code (or hey, even just the source code itself!) themselves. So I create a new license by taking a copy of the GPL, removing this section and changing the license's name (which is necessary to avoid confusion, as well as being simply polite...).
This license, even though it conforms pretty much exactly with the spirit of the GPL, is not GPL compatible.
Allowing redistribution under the GPL breaks the point behind making this change, because then when somebody redistributes section c can reappear, rendering the change pointless, so that method of breaking the GPL compatibility barrier is not available.
And there's not much that can be done about the situation, either. Either you get the benefits discussed above about legal cases similar to SCO's along with the other benefits of a copyleft scheme and this disadvantage, or you get neither.
Now, I'm not actually arguing that because of this the GPL is a bad thing. I am arguing, however, that stating that the GPL only adds freedom to create derivative works is wrong. In these cases, the small print taketh away...
...the power of yesterdays cheese!
They're all "Free Software" licenses, as is the APSL. Like the parent poster pointed out rms is complaining because Apple chooses not to release all of their code to MacOS X instead of those parts they consider commodity (and community) source. rms can complain all he wants, it's Apple's code to do with as they wish. If rms really has his knickers up in a knot he might consider better funding GNUStep instead of bitching at Apple. JMO. --M
You are indeed so amazing. Somehow you derived that I suggested to deprive people from their rights. You probably think that, when you throw a bunch of lines, you let everybody in your "untold big thruths", and if somebody disagrees with you then he's a bullshiter. Anyway.
they're real intent is to force you to do the same
Yes. I think I explained you a potential route for enforcing such 'good will'. They do 'good will' because they can afford it. They only need new sources to enhance their good-doing. Votes come from people that need the goverment's financial support (free education, etc). Tell me. If I get taxed in order to support everybody's education (including mine) how am I gonna enjoy quality private education?
the only responsible choice is to restrict everyone else's basic freedoms of association
No. I suggest to those not agreeing with 'good will' not to tolerate 'do-gooders' to as much extent as our legal framework permits.
What policy change would you enact to stop this dangerous spread of free software "communism", while at the same time maintaining our basic constitutional rights and freedoms
That's the policy. You don't like them? you cut them because they will need support from outsiders at some point and some level of expected tolerance. That tolerance will not be there when they need it.
First of all, I want to commend you on a really insightful and interesting post. Thanks for the read.
RE: anti-capitalism and Linux. I don't think you can say that the philosophy which drives linux development, or it's use, bears any relationship to political anti-capitalism. That is, I don't think you could reasonably argue that Linus codes the kernel out of anti-capitalist political aspirations (though you might be able to make this argument about rms). As you rightly point out though, the anti-capitalist effect of free software distribution is not the promotion of "communism" or "socialism" as an ideological political force across society. It's very limited to the software market, and it's limited to this market primarily because cheap internet communication and code distribution is the underlying infrastructure of communal free software development.
Ironically, it's commercial hardware vendors who are using Linux to better position their products line against competitors. This is a totally non-intuitive and unexpected outcome, assuming an anti-capitalist outcome from the distribution of Linux. That is, vendors like IBM, HP, Dell, et all, using certain capabilities of Linux to unify their product line across CPU architectures and vendors turns out to be a tremendous communal benefit to all the players in the market, even though this kind of community agreement and exchange could never have happened before. Witness the UNIX wars of yesteryear for the previous failure at this attempt. It's as if a kind of tit-for-tat game theory, practiced among all the market players, previously prevented this level of cooperation in the market. So a new force, out of the control of any one business, had to rise up on it's own and take the market by force (this being Linux).
One could say then that out of an anti-capitalist "spirit" in development one sees a common market form where Linux becomes a unifying force of common intellectual infrastructure, rather than just wholesale market destruction. Interesting outcome, no?
Cheers,
--Maynard
No. I suggest to those not agreeing with 'good will' not to tolerate 'do-gooders' to as much extent as our legal framework permits.
How? What specifically do you suggest be done to limit or prevent those who would give their work away by free choice? If it's communism, something should be done - right?
That's the policy. You don't like them? you cut them because they will need support from outsiders at some point and some level of expected tolerance. That tolerance will not be there when they need it.
Again, I have no idea what this means because it's so vague.
Realize that I'm taking your assertions to extremes in order to point out the potential pitfalls of what you seem to suggest is the appropriate outcome to a communist threat. Not that I really know because I have no idea what "you cut them because [...]" means in any physical or policy sense.
You maligned free software as socialist and communist, and seem to believe that it should be attacked at the policy level. I argue that to do so undermines basic rights across the board for all citizens. It is anti-democratic and in opposition to the the basic tenets of our national (American) foundation. Free software is about expressing freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of commerce - these are fundamental rights of our republic as expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You can't restrict the creation of free software without undermining our fundamental liberties. JMO.
--Maynard
Tell me. If I get taxed in order to support everybody's education (including mine) how am I gonna enjoy quality private education?
Wish I had decided to include this in my previous reply, but it didn't have direct bearing on the issue of free software as an expression of "communism". I have to make this quick as I'm heading out to meet a friend.
Regarding public education, you seem to imply that the only way you can "enjoy" private education is by denying everyone else a public education. But I'll be charitable and assume you mean that if one purchases a private education, why must one also pay taxes for everyone else's public education?
Because it benefits the society as a whole, and in so doing it benefits you as well. If you're an employer you need an educated workforce. If you're a member of society you want educated peers. Widespread hunger and desperation from an unemployable citizenry leads to rampant crime and dissolution of the fabric of society. The society you seem to desire would tear apart the basic compact between citizen and government, leading to total anarchy and violent chaos. Frankly, this is not the kind of society I choose. Further, I don't think voters would choose this kind of society, so to implement you'll need some mechanism to enact the policy outside of our democratic framework. JMO. Now, it's coffee time!
--Maynard
I followed the "not recommend" link, and what I saw was this:
"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 described in this page are still potential issues for other possible licenses, but they do not apply to version 2.0 of the APSL."
How is this a non-recommendation? What am I missing?
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
Here is what I mean by tolerance and cutting, at least for the FS & OSS movement. In the commercial sector, more aggressive content-charging of networks that traffic FS/OSS software; selective sponsoring of FS/OSS software; black-listing of FS/OSS developers. Then at the govermental level, blocking of non DMCA-abiding software; taxation of non-tangible entities (software); prohibiting GPL licensing of software developed in the academaic sector...
Does any of those sound un-democratic? I don't thinks so.
Hmmm... What about Einstein? He wasn't rich, but no one can refute the fact that he was smart. Being smart doesn't guarantee you wealth. The problem is that a lot of stupid Americans equate wealth with everything positive. This is because they've been so polluted with uber-capitalist crap that they can't tell what's real and what isn't anymore. Look at all the incredibly stupid people who have money:
-The Bush Family
-The Clinton Family
-Pro sports idiots
-The WWF
-Bill Gates
-Madonna
The list goes on and on. They aren't smart, they are cunning. There is a huge difference. If you want to be wealthy, then you have to be willing to be competitive and cunning. You have to be willing to stomp over every obstacle in your path including other people. There is nothing intelligent about that at all.
If you want to be smart, you have to be born with the innate ability to absorb and synthesize information. I'm glad I'm smart and not cunning.
"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."
All of which are features not bugs! It's their code, why would ANYTHING they do with it be unfair??
And the way I see it is this:
Apple flopped dismally at their efforts in the 90's to produce their 'next generation operating system.' They spent millions and millions of dollars on the effort, going through cute 'code words' and the other marketing detris that, umm, makes Apple what it is. Finally, they gave up. They just didn't have the talent or resources. So they bought NeXT and put some new greasepaint on NeXTStep, and called it their new OS.
This is MAJOR egg on the face of all the pundits, so-called 'gurus' and various other sorts on the development staff at Apple. They couldn't code their way out of a cooperative kinda-sorta multitasking kludge. So they bought their new OS, the same way Microsoft does 'innovative' things.
A Good Intro to NetBS
There is a major flaw in Socialist theory and practice. While Socialism has not had quite the detrimental effect here in America as in Russia and China, Socialism has major problems that need to be addressed.
If you subscribe to Darwinism, you realize that it is the design of nature and humanity that the strong survive. By absolving the need for want, it interferes with the process of natural selection. People who once would not be selected for breeding because of a lack of traits necessary for survival on their own, now are assured of survival and means of existence. In fact, the very same people who shouldn't otherwise be breeding are breeding most.
Like the band says, "Been around the world/I find that only stupid people are breeding"
While I'm sure you can find examples in America (if you can't, turn your radio to the show "Loveline" on any given night), a great example of this is China. China is horribly over populated because of the "Safety Net" socialism allowed.
The weight of a welfare state is affecting *you*, financially, ethically, and politically, and just because it's accepted practice doesn't make it right.
A rolling stone is worth two in the bush!
The FSF is not saying Apple is evil or that the APSL is bad. What they are saying is that they don't recomend that you put new programs that you write under the APSL. They are also warning you that anything you do under the APSL is owned by Apple. The also warn to to combine code from APSL and GPL as they are not compatible.
You raise a good point. Is there actually much community participation in Darwin development?
I haven't heard of many features or bugs in Darwin being fixed outside of Apple.
So, anyone have any good stories for how the open source parts of Darwin are being used?
My video compression blog
Actually, the kernel was written by Apple/NeXT. Only userland code was taken from FreeBSD.
I'm actually happy both with what Apple has done and with FSF's response.
I credit Apple with the work they did with FSF to come up with a license that can be called Free, and consider significant the set of software they have released under the license.
However, I also understand why they haven't release the whole of Mac OS X under the license. While Apple may be mostly a hardware company in terms of revenue, I don't know a lot of Mac users, myself included, who would buy the hardware if it weren't for the software that goes along with it. And who, conversely, would be happy to buy hardware from a different vendor if the software were available for it.
Thus, though reasonably up to date hardware doesn't hurt, it's the software that keeps the hardware selling. Just imagine where Apple would be if they had to compete with Sony or Dell systems running Mac OS X.
So, I'm glad Apple keeps some significant things (like Quartz) close to its vest, even though I would love to run Quartz on Linux instead of X11. This is what keeps Apple alive as a company that can continue to be creative and innovative in both hardware and software.
And, on the other side, I'm glad that FSF is taking the line it is. I think the GPL is a great thing and without it and the contributions RMS and the FSF have brought to both free software and the cause of free software, the software world would be a far more proprietary place today. And I'm grateful that they continue to push this cause, even if in this case this means they would prefer a course of action that I would prefer Apple not to follow.
So, I like the tension. I'm glad the FSF is the FSF and the hard pull they provide to the cause of Free software. And I'm glad Apple takes a more nuanced and evolutionary approach that helps them survive as a company and the Mac as a compelling platform.
They both provide an important service, and I think the state of software today would be much poorer without them both. So, Apple and FSF, keep it up. Please.
As a result windows users would not be on the internet but BSD users (through samba like re-engineering) would have been on the windows-net (ms proprietary internet). All in all it wold have been a good thing. A windows-less internet and a separate and proprietary windows-net for all the fuckups.
I hope you understand that the seperate and proprietary windows-net would have to be the network which "won out" in the end, simply because MOST WEB BROWSING IS DONE USING WINDOWS MACHINES.
Arguably, the continued rise of Linux, enterprise java, PHP, apache, perl and all non-microsoft technologies which are internet related, is due to Windows users being forced to use the non-proprietary protocol (TCP/IP) and (inter)network on which said technologies/communities depend.
Unfourtanately, windows is where the critical mass for end users is and a microsoft windows net would have lead to proprietary web servers, proprietary web protocols and proprietary web services which all ISPs would have implemented. Eventually, TCP/IP would have been dropped by the majority (if not all) ISPs and where would that leave the non-mickeysoft technologies?
That's why the BSD licence has saved the world...
First off, I would like to congratulate you on such a refreshing perspective on capitalism vs. other economic systems. The best possible Communist society is filled with happiness, love, and concern for your common man, with the government coordinating it all. In contrast, the highest form of Capitalism is full of greedy, squabbling businessmen, trying to rip each other off, with the government making everyone to play fair. Socialism is capitalism where everyone succeeds, whether they fail or not. Capitalism is the only one that works in the real world, however, because human nature puts your own survival first, instead of the survival of the race. Now that I've covered that, Linux is not any of the above. Linux breaks the rules. More specifically, technology breaks the rules.
In a capitalist sense, linux should not exist, because price is indicitive of relative worth.
And why is price is indicitive of relative worth? Certainly because of supply and demand. If something is worth a lot, you would not wish to part with it, and would only do so for a relatively large amount of money. However, if I could copy it freely, I would give it away freely, because I could still keep my own. Intellectual Property (TM) is an attempt to extend the logical framework of capitalism into the technological realm, where there is infinite supply. It is fundamentally illogical to extend a conceptual framework bases on supply and demand into a realm in which this concept does not exist. Open Source Software beats capitalism at its own game, providing an environment in which both capitalists and communists can cooperate. Capitalists help themselves out by contributing their software for others to improve, and communists help everyone at the same time. YAY FOR OSS!!!
MacOS X is riddled with stupid usability problems, trivial example: dragging the CD to the trash can in order to eject it. Woo, intuitive.
In Mac OS 8, I could select any removable disk and choose Eject from the File menu, or I could ctrl+click any partition and choose Eject from the context menu, or I could drag the removable disk's icon on top of the Trash icon. All would accomplish the same thing.
(To those who remember Mac OS 1-7's eject command that produced an ejected-but-still-mounted "ghost disk", where the user who wanted to unmount a disk was supposed to "Put Away" the disk rather than "Eject" it, this behavior was changed in Mac OS 8.0.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
Now, as we all know, the only thing that sets Apple systems apart from the rest of the pack is the software. The hardware is different from generic stuff, yes, but this is done more to prevent piracy of the software than because Apple's PPC-based hardware is any better than, say, Intel hardware. (MacOS X might well run quite well on Intel hardware if it were ported, in fact. But Apple would have no luck getting it preloaded... and so would face piracy problems that Microsoft doesn't face. What's more, Microsoft could exert strong pressure on hardware vendors not to publish drivers for MacOS.)
If Apple can't sell its software, it's dead. Of course, this matters not to the FSF, one of whose fundamental tenets is that all licensing of software for money is evil and must be stopped by the spread of GPLed code.
So, ignore Kuhn's ravings. Apple won't (and shouldn't!) commit suicide just because he wants them to. MacOS X is the only truly usable, solid GUI for any UNIX-like operating system, and the only one that's not GPLed. Since I don't use GPLed software unless my back's to the wall (as a programmer, I do not want to promote the FSF's anti-programmer agenda), I'm glad I have that alternative.
Reading the link on the FSF's page, Kuhn says that none of their objections apply to version 2.0 of the APL:
m l), Kuhn repeats that he has no objections to APSL 2.0:
The problems described in this page are still potential issues for other possible licenses, but they do not apply to version 2.0 of the APSL.
On another page (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/historical-apsl.ht
The current version of the Apple Public Source License (APSL) does not have any of these problems. You can read our current position on the APSL elsewhere. This document is kept here for historical purposes only.
In particular, the three bulleted items discussed in other posts here (APSL allows linking with proprietary code, gives Apple extra rights, is incompatible with GPL) do not apply to 2.0. Based on my reading of these links, Kuhn is being quite consistent. He had objections to past versions of the APSL but accepts the current one.
Here is what I mean by tolerance and cutting, at least for the FS & OSS movement. In the commercial sector, more aggressive content-charging of networks that traffic FS/OSS software; selective sponsoring of FS/OSS software; black-listing of FS/OSS developers. Then at the govermental level, blocking of non DMCA-abiding software; taxation of non-tangible entities (software); prohibiting GPL licensing of software developed in the academaic sector...
Does any of those sound un-democratic? I don't thinks so.
OK, now I have some specifics to respond to. You suggest network owners should charge either the sender or recipient based on the content (OSS) and not the number of bytes transferred. I don't think that would be possible with IP. Selective sponsoring of OSS is already done - you don't think IBM bothers to fund sourceforge, do you? They have selectively chosen not to fund a project which does them no good. Black-listing OSS developers requires implementing an ideological/political means test by employers, which I think would be illegal. Employment can not be conditional on political agreement in this country (not that it doesn't happen anyway), so formally I think this suggestion is out. Finally, you suggest implementing a requirement that all distributed software be encrypted per DMCA copy controls (even when said software is freely offered to be copied), taxation of software (there's one I bet Bush won't sign), and limiting how academic developers may license their intellectual property.
Most of your suggestions are already either illegal or unworkable. The policy suggestions for new regulations and taxes are possible - but unlikely. The most workable suggestion you offer is to demand that software developed under government grant be released under a license different from the GPL. The most likely outcome under this scenario would be release to the public domain, which would essentially be another OSS style of release.
And yes, I find your suggestions mostly repugnant and un-democratic; especially black-listing by political means testing. Frankly, disgusting. JMO.
--Maynard
I'd like to see what FSF thinks of these....
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/
Shut up, an EULA is up for scrutiny by the FSF whether they like (or know) it of not!
What difference does it make? You've still got the original, and people will only have to deal with Apple's license if they choose to use Apple's enhancements.
It seems to me that they would be under no obligation to compensate you for anything.
Of course not. If you wanted compensation, why did you release it as free software?
I wonder if they could also prevent you from further development on the code you wrote?
They couldn't. Once something is in the public domain, it stays there; Apple could only copyright their derived work.
Capitalism:
It would appear to me that Linux meets all of these requirements.
The majority of the capital goods used in the production of Linux are certainly within the private domain. In the early days probably 100%.
Investment (or not to) in Linux is a personal or corporate decision and not determined by any collective or government.
And the "prices, production, and the distribution" of Linux is 100% in a free market. NB: Capitalist by this definition doesn't imply it must have a non-zero price, just that its price is set by a free market (ie a market without significant interference).
I am not prohibited from charging for the distribution of GNU/Linux. In fact I can set whatever price I like. However what I can get away with will be determined by my customers and their perceived value of my distribution vs the competition.
Socialism:
Whist Linux is under the GPL the "production and distribution" of Linux is certainly not under collective nor government control and hence fails your supplied definition.
To go further your assertion that postwar Britain was "essentially a socialist system" is true for the examples provided, but also during that period a significant private economy also existed.
Welfare is not something exclusive to Socialist systems. The idealogical difference between the systems is who is responsible for the production and distribution of goods and services, not whether minimum standards of welfare are supplied by the State.
Enough said!
There are very good reasons to dump on their condemnation-by-slight-praise approach. They can point out what they see as flaws in the licence, and are probably expected to. But their real politics are revealed in the end:
"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."
Huh? What does their APSL opinion have to do with other parts of the MacOS? They are not protesting the APSL in this statement, but that fact that Apple releases any proprietary code at all, which apparently is a no-no for the FSF. Most telling is their last sentence about 'judging the company' - since they don't like the APSL, they are now judging the company on it's decision not to release the entire MacOS under another open source license not even part of the review? At this point the opinion has stepped beyond a mere opinion on a license and has become more of a political message. It's no wonder that the more practical approach of the OSI is more effective at generating positive change.
Discriminating against someone on account of their beliefs(i.e. blacklisting), is an assualt on one's right to one's freedom of associaiton, and therefore, is un-democratic. And it's elitist, selfish ass-clowns like you that fuel communism, not people who willingly give time and money to those less fortunate.
Stands on what? Congratulations, you made a generalization. Generalizations are by nature fallacious.
Lets have fun with statistics. I bet there are more gay pc users than gay mac users!
Have fun with that one.
Scott Wood knocked out everything you had, but I'd like to add one thing.
The fact that allowing someone to make propritary derivitive works does not in any way deprive you of what you have released is the principle that every other open source license has operated upon. The GPL is really the exception. The idea that you should force people to release their changes if they use any of your work at all is newly in vogue, unusual, and frankly troubling, and quite probably unenforcable in the US.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Apple Licence was bad. Now it does not suck that much... Of course you should release new software under the GPL... Apple Licence was born to "protect" DarwinBSD and such things. Remember that for a company grown up with proprietary software (which is, even if super high quality, apple software remains proprietary) it is hard to accept a new way. They need time to convince themselves (and the owners of their shares) it's a Good Thing.
I don't want to start any blasphemous rumors but I think that God's got a sick sense of humor. DM
Dear Apple,
I am a homosexual. I bought an Apple computer because of its well earned reputation for being "the" gay computer. Since I have become an Apple owner, I have been exposed to a whole new world of gay friends. It is really a pleasure to meet and compute with other homos such as myself. I plan on using my new Apple computer as a way to entice and recruit young schoolboys into the homosexual lifestyle; it would be so helpful if you could produce more software which would appeal to young boys. Thanks in advance.
with much gayness,
Father Randy "Pudge" O'Day, S.J.
This is both their best and most irritating feature. RMS makes an excellent obstinancy server - until comes the day you have a reason to change is mind. (-:
However, no GPL, no Linux. No Linux, no answer to the likes of Microsoft - and IBM would've simple absorbed any BSD-style OS players' software instead of piling onto the bandwagon. To be sure, a BSD-licenced OS may have arisen if Linux had not, and it may yet turn out that the BSDs end up more popular than Linux, but I think that without the GPLed Linux to go icebreaker for them the *BSDs wouldn't have done as well as they have.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Am I missing something? The FSF doesn't have any real problems with the license, so all the "Free Software" evangelists can now code away on existing Darwin stuff. They just don't recommend using the license for something totally new that isn't already licensed under AFSL2 and doesn't have to be licensed under AFSL2 due to some other requirement or dependancey.