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.'"

Comments

Re:Apple is more heavy-handed then Microsoft

[FLAGGR]

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.

Darwin is no longer Open Source

[sfraggle]

People are missing an important fact here: Darwin is no longer Open Source under the Open Source Definition:

• 3. Derived Works
  

  
  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.
  
  

• 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
  

  
  The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
  
  

• 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
  

  
  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.
  

Re:"Operating system"

[drinkypoo]

Let me make this clear. You do not purchase the product but rather a license to use the software.

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:

Federal district courts in California and Texas have issued decisions applying the doctrine of first sale for bundled computer software in Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) even if the software contains a EULA prohibiting resale. In the Softman case, after purchasing bundled software (A box containing many programs that are also available individually) from Adobe Systems, Softman unbundled it and then resold the component programs. The court ruled that Softman could resell the bundled software, no matter what the EULA stipulates, because Softman had never assented to the EULA. Specifically, the ruling decreed that software purchases be treated as sales transactions, rather than explicit license agreements. In other words, the court ruling argued that California consumers should have the same rights they would enjoy under existing copyright legislation when buying a CD or a book.

In a more recent case involving software EULA's and first-sale rights [Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004)][2], the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued a ruling which appears to contradict the position of the district courts in California and Texas. The first sale reasoning of the Softman court was challenged, with the court ruling "The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement." In addition, the court found the plaintiff's EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because "The defendants .. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and Terms of Use by clicking 'I Agree' and 'Agree.'" This runs counter to Softman v. Adobe. The difference in these rulings has yet to be resolved by a higher court.

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 the government.
You are jurisprudence.
You are the volition.
You are juridiction.
And I make a difference too.

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