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."

Comments

It's Just an Opinion

[MSTCrow5429]

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.

This has probably been said before but . . .

[ReciprocityProject]

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.

Is it just me or ...

[Heartz]

does anybody else notice that does not recommend APSL 2.0 for new software does not mean APSL is EVIL.

Re:not so orwellian anymore

[Ben Escoto]

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.

FSF doesn't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Let's get down to brass tacks here.

[Senjaz]

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.

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/ 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)

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.