Slashdot Mirror
Apple Changes the APSL Rules
aitikin writes "Apple recently changed their license for the OS X kernel. According to semthex's post, Apple has reworded the APSL to prevent him and others from open sourcing the kernel hacking under the APSL:
'This file contains Original Code and/or Modifications of Original Code as defined in and that are subject to the Apple Public Source License Version 2.0 (the 'License'). You may not use this file except in compliance with the License. The rights granted to you under the License may not be used to create, or enable the creation or redistribution of, unlawful or unlicensed copies of an Apple operating system, or to circumvent, violate, or enable the circumvention or violation of, any terms of an Apple operating system software license agreement.'"
I suppose if you stretch the meaning of the words "operating system" like you stretched your mom's belly in the womb, you could somehow come to the conclusion that Apple is trying to restrict you from developing and releasing your little application. If you read it like a normal human being who's stretching your mom's baby hole, you'd understand that Apple doesn't want you to release the suite of open applications as a whole.
I am disturbed to see that people would jump so hard on this non-issue.
Apple attempts to plug license hole which was used to circumvent Apple's valid (even if unwelcome) desire to protect own commercial interests. Locals up in arms. Villagers outraged.
I think Apple has done a very smart thing for a CSL (customer source license) by specifically limiting the use in such ways.
I would be more restrictive -- the source is available for debugging purposes only, and may only be modified through it's core project. I view using/linking CSL code as a variant on LGPL -- I don't care about the specifics of how code is linked (static, DLL, dynamic, whatever), just that any and all changes to such code must be submitted to the core project regardless of where someone deploys the changes.
i.e. No GPL escape clause of "internal use only" that lets weasels try to lawyer their way out of releasing changes by hiding apps behind web interfaces (the equivalent of screen scrapers IMNSHO.)
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I've truly considered getting a Mac. From what I've seen, they offer some serious technical and usability benefits. But then we hear about stories like this, which seem very much like something we'd hear out of Redmond. And it makes me want to have nothing to do with Apple or any of their products.
As great as their software supposedly is, the licensing uncertainty is keeping me away. I like the certainty that the BSD license brings to NetBSD, and that's why I'll continue to use it instead of getting a Mac and running Mac OS X.
Expense, yes, but quality no. I'd love to have more Macs around if I could afford them. The ones I have just wont die, and I never tire of looking at them. Of course, I'm perfectly happy typing this response on my Dell Insprion 9300, running Ubuntu.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Dear Apple, Good luck with that. Love, Billy
Someone at Apple woke up one morning and said..
"Wait.. you mean that by opening this up we won't have iron clad control over everything the user does with the product? And who is this in bed with me?!?!?!"
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
Jobs is worst than Gates. I say boycott all Apple products.
It's their right... they developed the software. Your trollish comments about expense or quality have absolutely no bearing on the situation.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Sometimes it makes very good business sense for a company like Apple to give up some of its rights. In this case, they probably should have. There's a very significant trend towards the use of open systems that can be freely modified and redistributed. Apple may not like it, but it's how the software world now works.
Pulling a stunt like this makes them look extremely bad in the eyes of open source developers and users. Now, you may think that we're a small group. And yes, we are. But we have influence. Our friends and relatives come to us when they're considering a computer purchase. Our managers ask for our technical input on company purchases. When we see this sort of nonsense coming from Apple, it makes us no longer want to recommend their products. While Apple isn't a small company, they do need our support to continue with their strong growth.
I _really_ wish Apple would work out more licensing options --- if they're not going to make a replacement for my Newton MessagePad, the least they could do would be to allow licensing Mac OS X for use on hardware which doesn't compete w/ their products.
As much as I like my NeXT Cube at home, and Mac OS X at work or on my wife's Powerbook, I'm simply not willing to give up the flexibility of having a tablet computer w/ integrated graphics tablet capability (I currently use a Fujitsu Stylistic), or to go back to schlepping a graphics tablet around w/ my laptop as I did before I got my NCR-3125.
William
(who really wishes that there was a better handwriting recognition system for Linux than xscribble)
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
The key difference being, those who choose (notice the emphasis on choose) to run OS X to fulfill their computer needs enjoy their experience. I support Apple because I think OS X kicks ass, and have no trouble paying to enable further development of a solid OS and cool hardware. Seeing teenagers download my favorite OS for free, or seeing the experience cheapened in the eyes of others because its running on unsupported hardware bothers me.
And Microsoft already does do this; last time I checked I couldn't recompile XP to run on my PPC PowerMac. None of Microsoft's licenses are even close to open source, while a number of Apple's key technology are.
Summary: "This licence can't be used to create unlicenced copies".
DUH. That doesn't rule out much. You can't do that on the GPL either.
And Microsoft already does do this; last time I checked I couldn't recompile XP to run on my PPC PowerMac. None of Microsoft's licenses are even close to open source, while a number of Apple's key technology are.
That's because Microsoft is honest about their position towards FOSS and Apple isn't. At least you know where you stand with Microsoft, but with Apple, they do the bare minimum with FOSS -- just enough to let the Apple fanboys use the argument "Apple DOES do Open Source! What it isn't open ENOUGH for you? Fanatic."
Seeing teenagers download my favorite OS for free, or seeing the experience cheapened in the eyes of others because its running on unsupported hardware bothers me.
Seeing your precious OS-X running on Dell bothers you? The experience is cheapened by not being on Apple-branded hardware? I know this is Slashdot and all, but you really need to get a life. It is software for Christ's sake, not your little sister.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Reminds me of the old "frog and scorpion" or "Navajo and the snake" stories... someone gets together with a known enemy (OSS advocates cozying up to Apple), and then later, when the enemy screws them over, they get all indignant and surprised.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Seeing teenagers download my favorite OS for free, or seeing the experience cheapened in the eyes of others because its running on unsupported hardware bothers me.
I agree... there's nothing more reprehensible than teenagers leeching and hacking away at operating systems. Sure, some might argue that we've had some amazing software developed as a result of nefarious kids like these but that's proved inadequate when balanced against the posters (and Apples) discomfort.
The fact that the license prohibits you from doing illegal things may not be a problem. However, it also appears to to claim that you may not modify the software in such a way that it allows the circumvention of EULAs. Depending on jurisdiction, there appears to be some degree of uncertainty about whether EULAs are legally enforcable. So, in effect, one of the limitations of this license may be that it prevents you from doing some things that are perfectly legal, but which Apple don't want you to do. It's pretty easy to argue that that sort of restriction prevents it from genuinely being an open source license, in much the same way that a license that said "You may not use this code to produce a Windows version of the product" wouldn't be an open source license.
Note that I'm not passing any sort of judgement on Apple here. It's their code, and they absolutely have the right to do what they want with it. I'm surprised that they feel that unauthorised use of the OS on PCs is sufficiently important that they need to restrict their license terms to make it harder, but, well.
The GPL doesn't limit this sort of thing - you're permitted to use the code for anything, but there are certain limitations on how the resulting work may be distributed. The distinction is subtle, but real.
It's not good to compare yourself against the worst that is out there. We see many American politicians and media pundits do it, when they state that America's human rights record is better than that of shitholes like Uzbekistan and Rwanda. Yeah, I'd fucking hope it's better!
Likewise, just because Microsoft isn't open with their kernel source code doesn't mean that Apple shouldn't be, either. Apple should be comparing themselves with the best of the best, including Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris. All three of those systems have source code that is widely and freely available for modification and redistribution. Apple needs to get with the times.
Scorpion and the Frog (Aesop's Fables)
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
Does it mean the new APSL is no longer OSI complient?
Does it mean that its no longer "free software" (and that the GNU project will start listing it on its "licences to avoid" list again?)
On the other hand, it should mean that apple will continue to provide kernel source code for both x86 and ppc quite quickly after kernel releases since if someone does use it to pirate osx, apple can sue them right away (and force removal of the source code)
My little sister's a whore. But it's not too late to keep my OS pure. It's all I've got left.
This
As I stated earlier, my favorite operating system is Ubuntu. I'm not going to go into all the reasons why, however I will say that the number one thing it has over OSX is that it can win converts without having to spend hundreds of dollars on new hardware. I have to take off my shoes to count the number of people I know who say "My next computer is going to be a Mac." But they aren't about to throw away a year old computer to upgrade the operating system (which is what they're interested in). With Ubuntu, they can (legally) download the ISO for free, burn it to a CD and install it on the hardware they've already got. And like a Mac, it just works. I installed Ubuntu Dapper Drake on my computer, and every piece of hardware was automatically recognized. Now, if I could go out and buy a copy of OSX, install it on my computer and have it work as well as Ubuntu, I'd be more than happy to fork over a couple hundred dollars, and I may consider a Mac for my next hardware purchase, but I'm not about to get rid of perfectly good hardware because it won't (legally) run the operating system I'd prefer.
Way to appeal to the Windows fanboys here on Slashdot... Wait. Why is Apple "open source"? Is there anything legal and advantageous you can do by recompiling a modified version of the source? I get the feeling it's open source only by name. Since they closed Darwin, I've not seen anything from Apple that bares a resemblance to the Open Source community I know and love. I'm not saying everything has to be open source, I'm simply saying OSX hardly qualifies as open source.Seeing teenagers download my favorite OS for free, or seeing the experience cheapened in the eyes of others because its running on unsupported hardware bothers me.
I love it when teenagers download my favorite OS for free and especially like to see it running on previously unsupported hardware.
The other difference between us is that if I ever started worrying that the product of some random corporation was being "cheapened" by the actions of others, I'd probably shoot myself.
Does slavish devotion to companies which you don't have a personal stake in come bundled with every Mac or is it an optional add-on?
Oh wait, what's that? News flash, Apple borrows FreeBSD code to base their kernel on and what does the Open Source community get for it?
I won't argue the accuracy of your statement because it is irrelevant, but I think it important to answer your question. The "Open Source Community" and specifically the developers who wrote the BSD licensed code Apple adopted for their OS got exactly what they asked for. They got their code more widely used and on a lot more desktops than they could otherwise have hoped for. They helped define the standard, promoted interoperability, and gained in reputation.
The BSD license doesn't force you to keep the source open, but for fuck's sake, you got it for free.
You seem to be of the opinion that those who developed the code were morons. They intended to license their code as GPL, but they were just too dumb, or they copy and pasted the wrong thing or some such thing. They really wanted the code to remain open to all, even if that made companies like Apple choose something else. I submit that you're assuming that the "community" should ethically be able to restrict code and keep it open, even when the developers who put in all the hard work specifically licensed it otherwise.
You're saying you wouldn't at all feel obligated to support the industry that provided you with the basis of your entire wildly popular operating system?
Apple supports the "industry" but that is not relevant here. Apple supported the individuals who developed the code they used in exactly the way those developers asked them to. They have kept it open in that people can see it and suggest modifications/fixes which is a huge step up on some other possibilities. It also keeps them in step with the rest of the industry. Because they have some of the same underlying code it means developers can target both OS X and FreeBSD more easily with less work.
If you have a beef, bring it up with the people who wrote the code and licensed it via a BSD license. They did all the work and make all the rules. Your assumption that the rules they chose are wrong is presumptuous.
No, just the usual band of Apple apologists. Just about the only positive thing you can say is that it probably has no useful validity in practice.
Apple really wants to have its cake and eat it. It wants to benefit from Open Source as a PR thing (its shown no signs of actually wanting contributions from the community), and as a way to get cheap source code (as in drawing in large tracts of BSD code to help build the first Darwin), but it really doesn't like this "Freedom" thing much.
You know, if Microsoft did this, I don't think anyone would care. Microsoft isn't actually promoting itself as a provider of open source. Apple is. They really should remove this and this images from their web pages. It would at least be a little more honest.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Says you: "The problem isn't what those developers are doing"
Well they've got nothing to worry about then, have they!
I don't think we've seen an APSL change yet, given that statement is from the header from each file - not the APSL. (Header in full posted below.) However, what is more puzzling to me is the shift from APSL 2.0 back to APSL 1.1 (the non-Free one) with regards to Xnu done sometime before 10.3.9 but post 10.3. It was not immediately clear if this was a mistake or a marks a policy shift. While on one hand, the APSL that you have to agree to is 2.0, and what few other projects that ship with the APSL file is 2.0, and the Xnu project itself is also labelled with the 2.0 license, the file included is 1.1 which I find hard to believe could have gone this long without someone noticing if it was a mistake.
"/*
* Copyright (c) 2000 Apple Computer, Inc. All rights reserved.
*
* @APPLE_LICENSE_OSREFERENCE_HEADER_START@
*
* This file contains Original Code and/or Modifications of Original Code
* as defined in and that are subject to the Apple Public Source License
* Version 2.0 (the 'License'). You may not use this file except in
* compliance with the License. The rights granted to you under the
* License may not be used to create, or enable the creation or
* redistribution of, unlawful or unlicensed copies of an Apple operating
* system, or to circumvent, violate, or enable the circumvention or
* violation of, any terms of an Apple operating system software license
* agreement.
*
* Please obtain a copy of the License at
* http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/ and read it before using this
* file.
*
* The Original Code and all software distributed under the License are
* distributed on an 'AS IS' basis, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER
* EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AND APPLE HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL SUCH WARRANTIES,
* INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
* FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, QUIET ENJOYMENT OR NON-INFRINGEMENT.
* Please see the License for the specific language governing rights and
* limitations under the License.
* * @APPLE_LICENSE_OSREFERENCE_HEADER_END@
*/
Apple fanbois hold up Apple as a Good Company. Items like this show that they are merely a Company. Not as bad as some, maybe, but still more interested in what we can do for them than what they can do for us.
IANAL, but does this just count as additional limitation under the same license, or would the reworked license count as a new license altogether (i.e. not the same version 2.0 that OSI approved)
If not, would it not need to be recertified?
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
I reckon Apple would do better to have Mac OS XI as true open source -- as in GPL or, if they've really got the bollocks, BSD licence. They could continue to make truly wonderful hardware like the iPod range, and supply the all-important drivers to allow it to be used to its full potential with OS XI Macs. Imagine Apple printers, built like old HPs and running on cheap generic bulk ink. Imagine Apple scanners, that actually work. Right now, nobody is making peripherals that are anything but crap; and the market has no choice but to put up with this. An Open Source Mac OS XI could be spread far and wide. Running it on cheap no-name hardware is going to be a no-brainer. Being Open Source, Apple won't then have to worry about piracy. Instead they can concentrate on making stuff that actually works.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
That's because Microsoft is honest about their position towards FOSS and Apple isn't. At least you know where you stand with Microsoft, but with Apple, they do the bare minimum with FOSS -- just enough to let the Apple fanboys use the argument "Apple DOES do Open Source!
Microsoft has been promoting their software as open for years with their "shared source" initiative. Apple has been producing and selling both open and closed source software for years as it fits with their business interests. The situation is only unlcear if you try to oversimplify as "Microsoft..closed...bad, Apple...open..good." The real world does not work that way. Apple releases a lot of software as open because they recognize the advantages of open source and believe in that model. This is not philanthropy, it is good business. The same goes for IBM. Nothing forced Apple to release their zeroconf implementation as open source, or even to help port it to Linux. They didn't do it because they want people to like them either. They did it to promote the technology and interoperability and new standards. We all benefit, and so does Apple. That is how open source is supposed to work.
What it isn't open ENOUGH for you? Fanatic.
I think anyone arguing here that Apple is screwing people over is probably a fanatic. Apple is in compliance with the license chosen by the people who wrote the code. Anyone who thinks they know better than those coders and everything should be treated like GPL is being fanatical.
Not that I don't think people should not complain about what Apple is doing if they want to or try to convince them to be less restrictive (although in this case I don't care). Just be clear that whiners don't have some sort of moral high ground here. It is just as ethical for Apple to close their kernel as it is for them to keep it open. Anyone who wants it released one way or another is arguing their own (perceived) best interest, and nothing more. I'd like Apple to give me 10 million bucks, but I don't think they have a moral obligation to do so.
Sure... that sounds like a great plan. Apple should spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a top-notch OS and then... just cuz a bunch of geeks wanna play with it... they should release the whole thing as open sounce and get ZERO return for that investment. Sounds like sound business practices to me!
Apple would do better for WHO? You or Apple? Do you open source people even think these suggestions through from the standpoint of the business making the code? Do you know anything about business? Seriously?
As for peripherials I don't know what crap your using but my Hewlett Packard 3-in-1 Printer/Copier/Scanner works by just plugging it into my Mac. No installing software or drivers or anything....It Just Works. So why does Apple need to GPL its OS again?
You are aware that Apple is a hardware company right? They make most of their profits from hardware. Insane margins like 25% on hardware sales. From Macs, not iPods. Just exactly how are they going to replicate that lost revenue if they open source the OS allowing it to be run on any cheap generic PC? Do you REALLY think they'll be able to sell enough copies of OS X to make up for that? And at what price? Right now OS X sells for $130. Apple would have to up the price to $250 or more, maybe even $400. Who's going to buy an alternative OS thats that expensive when they can just stick with Windows?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Apple's purpose in releasing any of their source is to make sure people can write apps and add-ons that make OSX an uber-amazing OS that runs on museum-worthy hardware and makes people want to buy more of their systems.
You can modify 99% of what happens on a Mac through writing apps and add-ons and tweaking the system through available source.
Apple, and every other for-profit computer company has to balance the attractive value of the modifications they allow against the remaining allowances that would torpedo their business model.
Hence opening everything would not be in their best interest. Beyond that, the serial grousing about the APSL limits is a bit like grousing that your fork isn't on the left. It will still get food to your mouth.
And let's see - that last paragraph pretty much says "that's a nice computer company youse got there - wouldn't want nothin' to happen to it, if you know what I mean - I'm not sayin' anything, I'm just sayin'..."
Please. You're going to stop recommending Apple to grandma and her gamer grandkids who will never EVER need the sort of kernel mods that you are discussing here. Never mind that when they get to the Apple store how much influence do you think the dire warnings of their local Nick Burns (or was that Christopher Moltisanti?) is going to have in the face of great hardware that can run the three major OSs? How soon do you think we'll hear "Sorry, Steve, but Boeing's going to WalMart for Linspire boxes - hey, but you call us when we can totally hack your kernel."
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I am not sure what this means. Does it mean that an open source OS must be named differently?
Probably clarification from Apple is needed.
To your average consumer, a PC (or Mac) is a package deal. When there's an OS problem, they don't think "I'll call Microsoft about my problem" they call HP or Dell. If you ask your great aunt Matilda what's wrong with her computer, chances are she won't differentiate between a software and hardware problem. Anyone who does "support" over the phone for non-technically-oriented family and friends can confirm this. When the printer doesn't work, half the problem is determining if it's a hardware (printer/ink/cable) problem, or a software (Windows/driver) problem.
If Apple made Mac OS "Open" then they have to support it, because that's what consumers expect. I agree that right now, software is a cost center for Apple. But I completely disagree that opening the kernel is guaranteed to reduce that cost, especially in light of the complications it would introduce into Apple's support and QA organisations.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Don't forget that most of the source code was not even written by Apple - they just took it from BSD Unix. Of course, the BSD people are naive to the point of idiocy if they don't realize that the BSD license is just a license to steal their code. Apple is legally clean, grabbing several programmer-centuries worth of code, adding about 1% of their own, then locking it up and saying it's all theirs. But no, in a world populated by decent human beings, this would never happen.
The OSx86 project is far more than "kernel hacking." Nothing whatsoever prevents you from hacking Darwin as much as you want. Admittedly, it would have been less ambiguous for them to prohibit unlawful or unlicensed copies of an Apple-branded operating system, or a commercially available Apple operating system, but its meaning is clear enough to stand up in court if they were to sue you for hacking on Darwin.
Semthex's OSx86 project may be out-of-luck-ish (I don't know the OS X EULA - if running OS X on non-Apple hardware doesn't trigger the "unlawful or unlicensed" condition, then it seems fine to me).
Incidentally, Apple's legal department isn't that great. As far as I know, they still haven't updated the AppleCare terms and conditions to cover displays bought with MacBooks and MacBook Pros. "Apple covers the Covered Equipment and one Apple branded display if purchased at the same time and registered with a covered Mac mini, PowerBook, or Power Mac computer." Apple Computer, AppleCare Protection Plan Section 1(a)(i), available at http://www.apple.com/legal/applecare/appna.pdf.
PS - Anyone know why the section symbol ( ), entity §, isn't showing up?
You analogy leaves me breathless, like a glass eel.
The "Open Source Community" and specifically the developers who wrote the BSD licensed code Apple adopted for their OS got exactly what they asked for. They got their code more widely used and on a lot more desktops than they could otherwise have hoped for. They helped define the standard, promoted interoperability, and gained in reputation.
For the most part, I agree that this is the purpose most BSDs choose to serve. However, it is my most humble and honest opinion that the BSDs are successful due in part to the openness that they have achieved. Take for instance "make buildworld". That is open, whereas "darwinbuild" as a build system hack (and a good one at that) to get around Apple's proprietary distributed build system is clearly not. In the "spirit" of open source, giving someone the code is only half the battle. Providing them with the tools to contribute and supporting that in a sustainable manner is, in my opinion, one of the most important technical goals of OSS.
You seem to be of the opinion that those who developed the code were morons. They intended to license their code as GPL, but they were just too dumb, or they copy and pasted the wrong thing or some such thing. They really wanted the code to remain open to all, even if that made companies like Apple choose something else. I submit that you're assuming that the "community" should ethically be able to restrict code and keep it open, even when the developers who put in all the hard work specifically licensed it otherwise.
You seem to be of the stock of people who like to put words in other people's mouthes. ?!? Come on, when did I say anyone was a moron? I have the utmost respect for the developers of the BSDs (and even a few at Apple). I'm merely pointing out in a rather dramatic style that taking from BSD without giving back is not cool, though legal. I understand the license doesn't require anything but recognition of the original authors, however that does not mean that you should make effectively proprietary software out of it and then get to parade it about as OSS! Apple says they are open source, and they are in the strictest sense of the notion, but they are not behind it (yet?).
The purpose of these comments are to spread awareness of the issue, and for anyone who gives a damn to speak up and leave some feedback at apple.com. They are not to bash BSD developers or the BSD licenses. I have an unfortunately pristine picture of what a corporate legal department considers a non-starter for proposals and contracts; needless to say, BSD is a stretch and the GPL doesn't even have a snowball's chance in the Sahara.
Apple supports the "industry" but that is not relevant here. Apple supported the individuals who developed the code they used in exactly the way those developers asked them to. They have kept it open in that people can see it and suggest modifications/fixes which is a huge step up on some other possibilities. It also keeps them in step with the rest of the industry. Because they have some of the same underlying code it means developers can target both OS X and FreeBSD more easily with less work.
Please explain how that's not relevant when that's the entire point of my guilt-trip ridden comment? I'm appealing to a common sense of decency, where if you borrow something you give it back the same way you got it or better. So, supporting the "industry" is indeed the entire point of my comment. Do go on... oh wait, you did anyway. So it was, in fact, relevant.
So let me get this straight here. You are still clinging to the notion that Apple has kept "it" open, where "it" is Darwin and "it" can't be built as delivered? Go try to do something useful and update Darwin to FreeBSD 6. Your efforts will fall on deaf ears.
If you have a beef, bring it up with the people who wrote the code and licensed it via a BSD license. They did all the work and make all the rules. Your assumption that the rules they chose are wrong is presumptuous.
Your assumption that I am assuming the rules they chose are wrong is presumptuous.
Cheers
I'd be willing to bet that with this change, the APSL is no longer free enough to be considered a Free license. As such, it'll be removed from the OSI-approved list. That means that any projects using it can't be hosted on SourceForge, Google Code, etc.
This shouldn't really be surprising to anyone. Apple never really intended to truely open up their stuff and allow others to fully use it without their blessing.
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
I know this is Slashdot and all, but you really need to get a life. It is software for Christ's sake, not your little sister.
Corny as it may sound, it's really a lot more than software. It's the device I have to deal with when I want to contact close friends thousands of miles away, edit projects, write documents, watch films and clips, read the news, apply for jobs, and be entertained. The computer is more vital to my day to day operations than an automobile, because at least when the car breaks down I can ride a bike or take the bus/train. With that in mind, when I encounter an operating system that doesn't need reinstalled every six months to be reasonably functional and doesn't require me to recompile a kernel each time I buy a new piece of hardware (assuming it can be supported anyway), I'm a pretty happy guy. And in the 20+ years I've been using a computer now, OS X has been pretty much the only environment that gets problems out of my way and just lets me focus on the task at hand -- whether it's serious or not. So yeah, I'll admit with no hesitation that I'm defensive when an OS I think rocks could potentially have its revenue for R&D lessened by people running it on vanilla hardware.
However, it is my most humble and honest opinion that the BSDs are successful due in part to the openness that they have achieved.
The adoption of the network stack in Windows from BSD licensed code is a success as far as advocates of the BSD code are concerned. It is in no way open. For some reason a lot of people who are GPL advocates see it as a failure and a reason why BSD licensing is flawed, as though it was not doing exactly what the developers intended.
This entire argument is based upon your notion of what a success is. That is entirely subjective and not a point worth arguing.
In the "spirit" of open source, giving someone the code is only half the battle. Providing them with the tools to contribute and supporting that in a sustainable manner is, in my opinion, one of the most important technical goals of OSS.
I think that collaboration between a given user of some code and other users and the community can be very valuable. That does not, however, mean it is the goal of licensing code. Apple doesn't keep Darwin open so that they can get collaboration from hobbyists. They keep it open as a way to aid developers for OS X make things work better on OS X and understand bugs.
That may not be what you wish they would do, but that does not make it antithetical to the goals of those who licensed their code as BSD in the first place.
Come on, when did I say anyone was a moron? I have the utmost respect for the developers of the BSDs (and even a few at Apple). I'm merely pointing out in a rather dramatic style that taking from BSD without giving back is not cool, though legal.
And in doing so you're assuming you know better than those who wrote and licensed the code in question. The coders here wanted people to be able to take their code, close it, and never contribute any code back. Those developers were paid for their work, not with the potential of other code (as with the GPL) but with the affect their code has on those projects. From their perspective, taking BSD code, closing it, and integrating it into a project is cool. That was what they wanted. Just because you don't understand the payoffs or like the payoff is irrelevant.
If you want to write a third of a kernel and license it GPL, then great. Probably, however, no one will use it since we already have Linux for that.
Apple says they are open source, and they are in the strictest sense of the notion, but they are not behind it (yet?).
Apple is not open source. Some projects Apple works on are open source. The problem is that you seem to want open source to mean something that it does not. Open source simply means the source is open to all to see. Maybe you want Apple to produce free (libre) software. That is something else.
I have an unfortunately pristine picture of what a corporate legal department considers a non-starter for proposals and contracts; needless to say, BSD is a stretch and the GPL doesn't even have a snowball's chance in the Sahara.
Funny. I'm slacking off from working at a corporation on a project built largely on GPL software. The corporate lawyer I consult is a sharp guy, but we're by no means the only corporation to adopt GPL software (Linux anyone) in our products. We also contribute quite a bit to various BSD projects (I think we have 4 OpenBSD developers on staff). Maybe you need to find a different company?
Please explain how that's not relevant when that's the entire point of my guilt-trip ridden comment?
Apple's support for open source software and the OS/computer industry mostly has nothing to do with their kernel code. They contribute to a lot of open source projects and have founded a number of them. They help author and drive the adoption of standards that benefit the entire industry. Thus, Apple does help the industry, but the kernel code they post is not a significant part of that. It is mostly useless to those not planning on working on OS X.
So let me get t
JCR explains that tall buildings are nothing new, and that the odds of actually being killed from one falling over is remote.
No license be it LGPL, GPL, or APSL removes any right (copyrights) from the original copyright owner(s). You cannot use any license as a defence of wilfully violating the copyright of the authors of any software regardless of the license used.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Thank you 99Bottles. You have made crystal the self induced mind warp that some oss zealots engage in. Maybe it's an age thing?
This kernel hacker was violating the copyrights of Apple. It does not matter what license they used, their copyrights remain intact. Circumventing the dual licensed MySQL would be just a illegal as what this guy was doing.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The adoption of the network stack in Windows from BSD licensed code is a success as far as advocates of the BSD code are concerned. It is in no way open. For some reason a lot of people who are GPL advocates see it as a failure and a reason why BSD licensing is flawed, as though it was not doing exactly what the developers intended.
h ings-ought-to-be comment. Feel free to "correct" me in saying that Apple's doing a damn fine job with the Darwin project. Please. Because as much as I'd rather Darwin succeeded with flying colors, I just don't see that as where it's going. Especially in light of such open source projects like FreeBSD. Darwin has no hopes of being a standalone OS anymore and although that may not mean anything to you, that is a crushing reality to a lot of people who had hoped for and had worked for that. It didn't help that Apple led them on.
This entire argument is based upon your notion of what a success is. That is entirely subjective and not a point worth arguing.
I understand and I agree that this is a success insofar as the BSD developers are concerned. My comments are and have been, strictly speaking, my opinion concerning Apple's claims for open source and how I "believe" in a different religion. So, when you say my argument is based upon my notion of what success is, you ought to realize that yes, I'm writing my opinion on Apple's open source effectiveness and how it falls short of how the BSDs do it. Why would you think elsewise? It's a I'm-frustrated-so-let's-vent-and-talk-about-how-t
I think that collaboration between a given user of some code and other users and the community can be very valuable. That does not, however, mean it is the goal of licensing code.
I'm not sure who you're arguing against here about licensing. We are on the same page as far as I'm concerned with that topic.
Apple doesn't keep Darwin open so that they can get collaboration from hobbyists. They keep it open as a way to aid developers for OS X make things work better on OS X and understand bugs.
And now we get to the meat of our disagreement. Are the volunteer developers for FreeBSD nothing more than hobbyists to you? Is the spirit of BSD solely to be open source to aid developers for their respective platforms? Clearly, it is not. The BSDs are best served in a fashion similar to how they currently serve the public. And I have been saying this entire time that should Apple ever lower itself to supporting a project such as FreeBSD, Good Things(tm) will happen and they as well as others will benefit greatly from such efforts. To say we have the Darwin sources just to aid development for OS X and understand bugs is not what Apple led us to believe Darwin was. If you don't believe me, why don't you do me a favor and read up a bit at opendarwin.org before it closes completely. Then, if you can tell me with a straight face and with no reservations that Apple is honoring the BSDs with Darwin I will buy you a beer for your efforts.
That may not be what you wish they would do, but that does not make it antithetical to the goals of those who licensed their code as BSD in the first place.
Right. The primary goals were served, but there is more to be had. And that is more along the lines of libre software, as you mentioned. I think the rest of your post was based on a simple misunderstandings which really aren't worth dragging out much further. We are both being overly literal and argumentative when we out to be figurative and general. Sure, let's argue about details, but first let's at least agree to what we're talking about. It's almost like we're picking apart the words and not really listening to each other.
That's about all I've got to say really. If you're ever in Ohio you ought to at least try and get that free beer. At least the conversation will be interesting.
Cheers
Why would YOU want THEIR property on YOUR computer?
Why would YOU want to PAY for a mere "license" that RESTRICTS what you do with YOUR PROPERTY?
You're talking interests.
Apple is a corporation, an abstraction, which has its own interests.
People are consumers, another abstraction, who have their own interests.
Corporations' interests are in conflict with consumers' interests.
If it is ok for Apple to pursue its interests, then it is ok for consumers to pursue their interests.
So stop with the apologetic, apathetic, disempowering platitudes.
So, when you say my argument is based upon my notion of what success is, you ought to realize that yes, I'm writing my opinion on Apple's open source effectiveness and how it falls short of how the BSDs do it.
I think this is our major disconnect. I've been talking about BSD licensed code in general, while you seem to be thinking more of certain BSD licensed OS projects in particular. I think maybe a lot of people saw the Darwin code and thought, "cool we can build an OS using what Apple has here." The problem is, not enough people were interested in such a project and Apple was not particularly interested in it either as they were already building OS X on Darwin.
Realistically, most of what came of Darwin is what Apple cared about. They wanted to make OS X development easier. There is nothing inherently stopping other people from taking the code and running with it, but there also aren't a lot of advantages to doing so versus working on an existing, established OS like Linux or FreeBSD. Especially, there was not a lot of commercial reasons to build on it and realistically it is commercial interests that do a lot of the work on existing OS's.
Feel free to "correct" me in saying that Apple's doing a damn fine job with the Darwin project. Please. Because as much as I'd rather Darwin succeeded with flying colors, I just don't see that as where it's going.
Apple is doing a fine job with Darwin, from their perspective. It is doing what they want and need fairly well. It could be managed even better in a way so as to elicit more contributions from the community, but that is not a priority for Apple. I think the problem you have is that Darwin is not useful for what you want.
Especially in light of such open source projects like FreeBSD. Darwin has no hopes of being a standalone OS anymore and although that may not mean anything to you, that is a crushing reality to a lot of people who had hoped for and had worked for that.
I agree it does not have much hope of ever being that, but I never really thought it did. FreeBSD has a well stated mission and unique features that provide developers with incentive to work on it. It makes a great foundation for a lot of specialty devices and workstations. It is a good platform for experimentation and educational projects. What does Darwin bring to the table for a stand-alone OS? Why would people want to work on it over already established projects?
It didn't help that Apple led them on.
I'm not sure it's fair to say Apple lead anyone on. The code is there if someone wants to fork it and build an OS. They can even pull in new features from Apple as Apple finishes them. Apple didn't kill OpenDarwin. Lack of interest did.
Are the volunteer developers for FreeBSD nothing more than hobbyists to you?
No. There are a lot of people working on BSD for a variety of reasons in education and industry. There could be a variety of people doing the same on OpenDarwin, but there aren't. Apple doesn't spend resources supporting the FreeBSD project except when it also happens to help Apple. The same goes for OpenDarwin. Expect companies to work on their projects and if you want to use part of that, great but you better have enough people to do the rest of it or it won't get done.
Is the spirit of BSD solely to be open source to aid developers for their respective platforms?
The "spirit of BSD" is for people to work on what they want or need and contribute to the pool of code, when it benefits them. Developers certainly license BSD code for their own benefit more than anything else.
And I have been saying this entire time that should Apple ever lower itself to supporting a project such as FreeBSD, Good Things(tm) will happen and they as well as others will benefit greatly from such efforts.
So here's the thing, Apple does help FreeBSD and Linux and a lot of other projects that use open source code. Like most other companies, they do this for thei
The key difference being, those who choose (notice the emphasis on choose) to run OS X to fulfill their computer needs enjoy their experience.
The ends justify the means then? And this gets modded up?
And I suppose you think that Ford just gives its products away.
Ford needs to begin selling restrictive vehicle licenses instead of actual vehicle property.
That way Ford, and morons like yourself, can tell consumers at large that they can't reasonably expect to install their own personal selection of hardware and modifications into the cars they've purchased, because, "...it's Ford's car - not yours."
Irrelevant. This change still means the APSL no longer fits the Open Source Definition, because it discriminates against developers whose "field of endeavor" is running OS X on non-Apple hardware. Running OS X on other hardware isn't necessarily a copyright violation, and even in those cases when it is, that doesn't mean Apple is exempt from the OSI's requirements.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
-- I speak only for myself
Good luck coming up with a definition of "field of endeavor" that includes genetic research, excludes portability, and won't get you laughed off of this site.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
You're right, 25% is definitely a good margin for hardware sales. It's horrible for software sales. Apple could stamp out a CD and user manual for a couple of bucks and sell it at $130, and they'd have a much wider audience than just people who can afford Macs. Software development costs might be slightly higher to support more hardware, but the user base would be significantly higher. And I'm sure the marketing folk at Apple could find a way to make Macs appealing.
I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I suspect Apple could make quite a profit if Leopard came out for PCs.
I have two comments to make.
...)
1. In the late 1990's, Sun decreed that ANY employee who ported Linux to a Sun workstation would be FIRED. Hey, look at SUN now !! Aint they do'in great ??
2. When Xerox invented the laser printer, it was a 4-week job by the PARC PhD's who did brain surgery on a copier, adding a spinning mirror and a computer interface. It took THREE MONTHS, however, to write the software. Now Apple, the "THINK DIFFERENT" company that will supposedly "SET YOU FREE", is restricting what you can do with their products. What a buncha Scooter Libbeys !!! (I was gonna say "Benedict Arnolds" but realized the overseas people might not understand what I was talking about
'nuff said
Read it again. I wasn't suggesting open-sourcing OS X. I was suggesting open-sourcing OS XI, a hypothetical successor which probably will break legacy compatibility and run only on Intel-based machines. (Such a move will probably also give a speed boost; right now, Apple apps have to have both PowerPC and Intel code segments. The data -- text and graphics -- will be shared, but every Apple application is dragging around some redundant code; and whatever it's doing, it ain't making it any faster.)
There's next to nothing to be gained by selling software; the simple fact is that people are only going to pirate it anyway. Up until now, Mac OS has required a hardware-based protection device -- an actual Mac machine with an electrically-different architecture -- which somewhat limited the options for piracy. But now Apple are using Intel processors, there's a huge hacker challenge factor there, and even if there are a few electrical differences -- things like memory mapping and I/O port assignments -- they will be insignificant compared to the different instruction set (it's quite feasible to, say, search and replace all instances of 0x0378 with 0x03bc, and you don't even need the source code to do it). Someone will get Mac OS running on generic hardware -- and even if the whitehats know to stop at proof-of-concept, you can bet the blackhats will go further. Apple might as well save themselves most of the effort -- sell a few shiny boxes with stamped discs for the few people that actually give a rat's arse, but rely on the existing independent distribution network to do the majority of the work for them.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Man you just still do not get it. Its like you are blinded by all things open source. Listen to me, OPEN SOURCE DOES NOT BENEFIT EVERYTHING!
Its not a matter of if or when black-hats will get OS X running on generic PC hardware, its been done now for over a year. Where have you been? Thats not the issue. Its possible certainly, its just not easy. The type of people who go through the trouble of getting OS X to run on a Dell are not the type of people Apple wants as customers for two reasons. 1. There's too few of them. Geeks on that level are always small in number. 2. They aren't attracted to Apple in the long run anyway. Eventually they get tired of fighting Apple's copy-protection mechanisms and go back to Linux.
So to review, you already CAN get OS X running on generic PC hardware. What exactly does Apple have to gain by open sourcing OS X (or OS XI)? How would open sourcing the OS "save themselves most of the effort?" WTF would Apple want to HELP people run the OS on non-Apple hardware? In your three posts on this issue so far you have yet to give even ONE good reason why Apple should open source their OS. Focus, hunker down mentally and give it to us simply in one paragraph. Why should Apple do this? Why why why?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
What Apple have to gain by open sourcing OS XI: more users.
Open sourcing the OS will "save them most of the effort" of distribution, because customers will take care of distribution themselves. The most Apple need to do is seed a torrent, or whatever technology replaces that.
Apple would want to help people run the OS on non-Apple hardware in order -- however counter-intuitive this may sound -- to sell Apple hardware. Get people used to the operating system on any old cheap hardware; then when they inevitably run up against the limitations of said cheap hardware, sell them properly-built hardware. It's a little bit less cynical than Microsoft's policy of allowing people to run pirated Microsoft software to allow them to get used to it (and incidentally kill off competitors; who's going to buy a £50 software package when they can get a £500 one for nothing?) then threatening them with jail time if they don't stump up the full price.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!