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)
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
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
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.
And I guess you don't have anything to gain from your post in Slashdot ? the FSF does exactly what you do : giving their opinion on a subject, and by doing so, they would only gain or loose "Karma".
If that license was ok, they would say so, but it's not the case, and they have perfectly valid points.
The QPL had issues as well, and these issues were resolved, and now you can use this license without problem from the FSF point of view.
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.
Exactly. Everyone is dumping on the Free Software Foundation for no reason again. The FSF says that the APSL is a free software license (a high form of praise indeed coming from the FSF), but that it is somewhat unfair to users, mainly because it gives Apple rights that other users don't. Thus it recommends that the licensed not be used for new products.
This seems entirely reasonable to me. FSF is telling people not to use the APSL because they will be giving some of their rights to Apple. Duh! No one would do this anyway.
Slashdot: say something obvious and get flamed for it.
Exactly. Everyone is dumping on the Free Software Foundation for no reason again. The FSF says that the APSL is a free software license (a high form of praise indeed coming from the FSF), but that it is somewhat unfair to users, mainly because it gives Apple rights that other users don't. Thus it recommends that the licensed not be used for new products.
This seems entirely reasonable to me. FSF is telling people not to use the APSL because they will be giving some of their rights to Apple. Duh! No one would do this anyway.
They're also telling people not to use the APSL because it (like Linux) allows people to link code released under it to proprietary code.
Sounds a bit disingenuous to me. After all, where would GNU be without Linux... which has the same 'problems'?
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.htmlf ero Liscense.
Af
look at the first non-GPL compatable liscense. They clearly accept changes that match their Dogma.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
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.
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....
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.
I use Apple's products partly to manage a lot of my personal data, like my address book. If I had no way of using this data with other software, I'd be pretty screwed if Apple fell of the face of the Earth. I think that's more important than whether or not the Address Book is an open source package.
That is all I'd really hope from a commercial company in terms of being 'Free'.
It is programmers deciding to give away their work for free.
and be compensated by the fsf? if it looks like a duck...
bite my glorious golden ass.
You have a funny idea of what constitutes the "vast majority" of an OS if you reckon that most of Apple's OS is closed.
/ fact_sheet.html). How long do you reckon that business model is going to support a company with ~12,000 employees? (http://news.com.com/2100-1040_3-978535.html, those are 2001 figures - I can't be bothered to look through Apple's SEC filings to find out exactly how many employees they currently have)
Most of it is in fact open source, Darwin is a complete OS in it's own right. What Apple have chosen not to release into open source is their window client/server Quartz which is understandable if you ask me and a whole load of Apps that ship with the commercial OS which aren't actually part of the OS iTunes, iMovie, etc. The other notable exception that springs to mind is QuickTime, but that would be pretty useless anyway unless the community licensed the Sorensen and MPEG4 codecs used to play and create it's content.
Now maybe you think that Apple can survive like Redhat, the whole PC market in this case only supports that company of ~600 employees (http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/presskit
Now maybe you're just a troll or maybe you're just an impulse poster. Sometimes I wish people would think a little before they post.
Don't blame me - this
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
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.
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!
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
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.
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.