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.'"
Yeah, why doesn't Apple just release its kernel under the GPL like Microsoft? Oh wait.
They're being pretty damn generous even letting you see the source code. If you don't like the license, don't view the source, it's not necissary.
Well, there is no independent exclusive right to "use" code that is licensable under copyright law. The relevant copyright rights are to copy, distribute, publicly display, and to make derivative works. Language about a license to "use" is an invitation to litigation over its validity. Despite the fact that such language is a common meme, its basis in the law is tenuous.
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)
They're being pretty damn generous even letting you see the source code.
its not Their code.
Let me make this clear. That is far from a given and it can be argued either way in court. Please read this wikipedia bit on The first-sale doctrine and computer software before you come on like a hard-on again - while I am not a lawyer, clearly you are not either, and you should be sure you know what you're talking about before you open your big fat mouth. To wit, from the linked page:
Or, as I said, it could be seen either way. It has not yet been resolved, so this falls into the area of legal ambiguity.
Ultimately, as Greg Graffin says in the song he wrote for the punk band he's fronted since the eighties, Bad Religion, entitled "YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT":
You are clearly purchasing a product when you buy software, especially if you are given the physical media. Outside of copyright law, you have the right to do anything you like with the physical media. When I buy a magazine, I am not interested in the physical magazine so much as the data, yet I can do anything I like with either one so long as I am not violating copyright law.
How is software any different? I have purchased a physical copy of the media; the law says that so long as I transfer it and any copies, it is irrelevant whether it is software, music, or a book; I may sell it to another.
If you think that's it's okay that this is the way the system works, then that's fine. Live within its confines and, as it closes on you, reflect that YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT.
I think if there's one thing we can do to bring about societal change, it should be to inform all citizens that, as potential jurors, they can vote "not guilty" not only if they feel that a person did not violate the letter of the law, but also if they feel they
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Read in particular section 4 and 6 of the GPL. It says:
You can't take a code that is GPL'ed, and turn around a year later and say "oh sorry, it's no longer GPL'ed". Which is why forks can exist, they took GPL code, and continued to maintain it, regardless of what the original copyright holder decided to do with their code. Now, if the forks people want to dual-license it, they would have to get permission from _all_ the original holder, because he is the only one who can sublicense the code.
Maybe you worded it wrong, but your statement could be taken in either of two ways:
1. Coder writes code. Coder GPL codes. Coder revokes GPL code. Coder is saying that you can't use code that was GPL'ed.
2. Coder writes code. Coder GPL codes. Coder revokes GPL code. Coder writes some more code. Coder says you can't use the additional code that was not licensed under the GPL.
GPL protects against case #1. If it didn't, it'd be no better off than closed source software, because it does not guarantee the freedom that the GPL provides, mainly the right to modify and distribute those modifications. GPL has nothing to do with case #2. The additional code that was not licensed under the GPL is not governed by the GPL, only copyright law (and any additional license).
--sf