Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Changes the APSL Rules

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the breakdown-shakedown-yer-busted dept.

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.'"

3 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. Re:"Operating system" by bhima · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wouldn't exactly call this a non issue but basically you are right I can still develop my little application and I can still screw around with the OS just like I have been. I suppose I won't be able to go out and buy a dual socket motherboard and two of Intel's new quad core chips and gobs of memory and expect to easily or legitimately run Mac OS on it. But I'm fairly sure that does not impinge on my liberty or my human rights.

    Nice bad analogy... btw.

    --
    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  2. Excellent phrasing by msobkow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  3. Re:Slashtards by bedouin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.