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?
"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!
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.
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?
There's a difference between choosing to do pro bono work and someone trying to force you to do all of your work pro bono...
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.
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
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.
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.
First of all, the FSF does not promote Open Source at all. They're called the Free Software Foundation, and there's a difference between the two. They're job is to be objective, not to kiss the asses of companies that want in on a movement that's not theirs at all (the open source one).
If all you see on their page is criticism, you need to get a grip, or you're clearly biased. They call the APSL Free. That is very, very positive. Anything that's free is not evil, from the FSF's point of view. It is, however, not smart to use it. That is TRUE. It grants Apple some important rights that you don't get. I wouldn't want to use that kind of license if I didn't have to, and I'm sure many people think the same. You should THANK the FSF for being objective like this, instead of convering it up just to please Apple.
Thirdly, the FSF is the one institute that CAN lead the free software movement (note: I said FS, not OSS). Why? Because they ARE idealistic and they do NOT make compromises to kiss megacorp ass. If you start out with a compromise, you'll end up with nothing. Cheers to the FSF for remaining completely true to their goals.
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?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?
"The GPL is the opposite of free speech; it's a highly detailed copyright agreement with the purpose of restricting the expression of derivative works."
Yes. This is true. So why does the FSF do this?
From their site "copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them."
In other words, the GPL puts this restriction in place in order to protect greater freedoms, these being:
# The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
# The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
# The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
# The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
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?
I have to correct myself a bit here. The Ogg Vorbis toolkit was originally licensed under the GPL, from what I remember, and they later shifted to a BSD-style license, which move was not begrudgingly accepted by RMS and the rest of the Free Software Foundation. They actively encouraged the move, IIRC, as Ogg Vorbis is a technologically superior format unencumbered by patents, unlike the dominant MP3 format, for which a legal codec would be impossible for Free Software (LAME and Bladeenc are legally a gray area, and that isn't a good thing). Think GIF vs. PNG. RMS and the FSF have always understood that software patents pose an even greater threat to the cause of Free Software than proprietary software does. The GPL is designed to protect against software from going proprietary, but is of no help at all when dealing with patents (for which there can be no effective legal defense, short of having your own cross-licensable patent pool or having software patents abolished totally, which the FSF and the LPF are actively working to do).
Care to give a link that shows that RMS and the Free Software Foundation did not fully endorse Xiph's decision to move the licensing from GPL to BSD-style? Another link I've found, again RMS's own words, shows more pragmatism than anything. For reference, here's the original link from which i got the first RMS quote.
You are right of course that yes, rare are the cases where another license would serve the cause of Free Software better than the GPL would, but these cases are not unknown. For another example, someone else points out that the FSF actually discourages people from GPLing components at the core of the X Window System. The FSF as a whole and even Stallman in particular are not as inflexible and unpragmatic as many here seem to think.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
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