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

"Operating system"

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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.

Re:"Operating system"

[bhima]

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.

Re:"Operating system"

[drinkypoo]

Indeed. I fail to see how this affects anyone's kernel hacking, unless of course they were hacking in such a way that it enabled the violation of other Apple licenses, and they intended to release it. If thats what this guy was doing, all I can say is tough shit, hippy.

Once you pay for a product, according to first sale law, you are permitted to make modifications to it.

The DMCA prohibits most reverse engineering, except that which is done for the purposes of interoperability. While this does not involve reverse engineering (the code is provided) I feel that this indicates a legal attitude that interoperability is valuable and protected.

Making the software run on hardware not approved by Apple is an interoperability issue.

Running the software on non-Apple hardware is a violation of the license.

A kernel patch that would allow the software to run on non-Apple hardware would seem to provide only interoperability, and would seem to be valid under first sale law, which protects your rights to make modifications to things which you have purchased.

Apple is both relying on the legal validity of a shrink-wrap license which you do not sign, AND doing all they can to take away your first sale rights.

Apple is seeking to separate you from your rights. This is wrong no matter what you say about it. Apple is also strengthening the validity of the shrinkwrap license if they pull this off, which benefits no user.

If you accept this kind of behavior from Apple, they will continue to step on your rights.

Re:"Operating system"

[NemosomeN]

This doesn't stop you from making OSX run on stock hardware, it just says that if you want to do that, you can't use their source. This basically says you have to reverse engineer in a clean room for it to be legal. This makes things very complicated, since almost anyone who cares enough to reverse engineer is going to have a hard time not being tainted. (Having seen old code wouldn't make you "tainted" though). This would be akin to ReactOS having to stay clear of the Win 2k source that is floating around, except in this case the source is gift-wrapped on their doorstep with a "Do no open!" sticker on it. (This analogy is flawed in that nobody can tell if you opened the present.)

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

Re:"Operating system"

[drinkypoo]

Dude, I stopped reading after the first paragraph. Learn to express yourself more concise and post links instead of long quotes. Copyright exists in order to prove an incentive for people to create new content.

Short-term copyright existed in order to provide an incentive for people to create new content.

Our current long-term system of copyright is the result of legislation purchased by big media; the latest extension was a clear and obvious conflict of interest, being pushed as it was by Sonny Bono. Its purpose is to protect media monopolies and to minimize the amount of new content which must be created, because the old stuff can be milked eternally.

If you think that Disney's not going to step up with another wad of cash looking to buy more legislation when Mickey would end up in the public domain for the third time, you're not thinking.

If you were to create something creative, would you not expect people to respect your copyright?

Sure I would. However, I wouldn't expect the system to create that monopoly for as long as it currently does; that way lies stagnation, and if you pay attention you'll notice that the amount of creativity in hollywood, or in the music industry, is not exactly at a high point. Almost everything being produced is actually a pathetic rehash of an idea that, frankly, predates copyright. I mean, if copyright were extended to something not substantially different from the original, then assuming that Romeo & Juliet were even allowed to be written (it's not like willie the shake was entirely original either) then we wouldn't have a West Side Story, let alone a William Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet starring Leonardo DiButtboy and what's-her-head that looked like she was 13 years old in that movie. And why shouldn't it be extended to concepts and not just implementations? It's a totally artificial concept anyway, an act of government providing a monopoly. In a truly free market, there would be no copyrights, no patents, and those who can, would.

Re:"Operating system"

[drinkypoo]

Even if you are correct, it's still true that this is no longer Free software, since Apple is restricting the uses to which you can put your modifications and prohibiting you from distributing them.

Re:"Operating system"

[Baricom]

Dude, I stopped reading after the first paragraph. Learn to express yourself more concisely and post links instead of long quotes. Copyright exists in order to provide an incentive for people to create new content.

If you were to create something creative, would you not expect people to respect your copyright?

1. Before criticizing people for being long-winded, please consider not making two English errors in four sentences.
2. Copyright is a lease. The public, which owns the idea, grants the creator a right, for a reasonable yet limited time, to profit off his/her/its work, subject to fair use conditions. I don't consider copyright terms of a century to be a reasonable amount of time - this harms the public more than it benefits it, because copyright holders can make money selling the same work over and over again in lieu of making new, original work.

Ah well.

[Funkcikle]

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.

Re:Ah well.

[elrous0]

Apple is a corporation. The only "interests" they keep in mind are their profits. Too many people talk about Apple like they're some sort of fracking philanthropy that only makes money as a side-effect of their noble works. They're not. They're a business and they have an obligation to make money by selling their products, not just giving them away.

Apple doesn't want you porting their OS over to your generic Intel system. They want you to buy one of THEIR systems. Deal with it.

-Eric

Excellent phrasing

[msobkow]

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.)

Re:Excellent phrasing

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you need to read up on the current state of Apple's open source development initiative. I believe the process for submitting a kernel patch goes something like this:

1. Obtain the source by reaching up into the ivory tower and taking it. Notice that you're fetching tarballs over http, not svn or cvs. I'll bet that's current.
2. Beat yourself with a stick trying to build it until you discover darwinbuild.
3. Develop your patch.
4. Submit a bug to the Radar.
5. Announce it in Darwin-kernel.
6. Wait.
7. Wait some more...
8. Read this and give up.
9. Go back to whatever *BSD you came from, fool.

So far Apple has done open source as a publicity stunt, not for open source. If it truly were for open source it would have to be run a lot more like the BSD projects are and not like some corporation trying to keep their secrets all tied up by any means necessary. Even if it means crippling Darwin as an OS. If it were truly for open source, they wouldn't use a proprietary build system, either. I suppose we ought to be happy that we even get tarballs, but it doesn't mean I can't be bitter about it. While this may pass some suit's standard for open source, it is clearly not acceptable nor does it pass for what I consider "open source".

Re:Excellent phrasing

[Maximalist]

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.

Re:Excellent phrasing

[jcr]

So far Apple has done open source as a publicity stunt

Linux weenies consistently miss the point of Darwin. It's not another BSD distro, it's ther for the convenience of Mac developers who have to work with kernel code, such as driver writers and third-party hardware manufacturers.

-jcr

They should give up their right.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:They should give up their right.

[MightyYar]

Apple is not a software company. They write software - some of it quite good - but they are a hardware company. At this point, they are phenomenally profitable for a PC vendor, and probably care little about trying to achieve profitability down the road-less-traveled. Arguing that Apple should open source their operating system is like arguing that one of the car manufacturers should open up their engine-control software - it removes a core advantage of their hardware and makes you less likely to buy it. If you are tired of car analogies, use Boeing's flight control software or IBM's mainframe code.

Now if you want to argue that it is in Apple's best interest to become a software company, you'd have plenty of company. Personally, I think it would be nuts to try to compete with Microsoft and all of the various UNIX-type OSes out there.

Re:They should give up their right.

[mysidia]

The restriction is based on an extrinsic, characteristic: how you intend for your modifications to be used.

This is discrimination based on field of endeavor, which causes software licensed under the new APSL to no longer be open source software.

It is unlikely that the license with these added restrictions is anywhere close to fitting the OSI criteria for an Open Source software license.

The restriction may be well-intentioned; however, it causes the software to not be open, since now you can't modify your kernel and release source based on APSL source, if there's any theoretical way, someone could use what you released to circumvent Apple's proprietary OS software.

Since you have no way of proving that nobody will ever be able to use your work to enable circumvention of Apple proprietary software, it may be that you cannot safely release any software derived from APSL software, without a risk of liability, should it later turn out that someone uses your derived product in some way (which you might or might not have intended), that Apple deems to enable distribution of unauthorized copies of their software.

Even a simple FTP client, using a small amount of APSL code could be deemed to violate the terms, since it's theoretically possible, the user of your software could connect to someone's FTP server, and use the client to enable receipt of unlawful copies of Apple software.

Re:They should give up their right.

[jcr]

Apple's licensing is from an age that has (thankfully) passed us by: the age of proprietary software.
What color are the little elves and pixies on your planet? Are they friendly?

-jcr

Re:They should give up their right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. John C. Randolph:

If you have ever been to Europe, you have likely encountered for yourself these "little elves and pixies" that you speak of. For I work at a fairly large European financial institution, and just over a year ago we completed our transition to open source software. Aside from anything we've written for ourselves, we use open source software from the hardware up. Our servers run FreeBSD, and PostgreSQL is used for our relational database needs.

The benefits have been enormous: we immediately noticed a 35% improvement in performance, even before tuning our systems. After tuning, we were able to eliminate our need for some of the hardware we previously required. The decreased electricity costs alone have made the transition worthwhile.

Our developers are now free to deal with problems, when they rarely arise, immediately and without worrying about violating some obscure term of licensing. That's the beauty of using BSD-licensed software.

I know you worked for Apple in the past, so I see your bias in this situation. But we've seen the light, and it does not involve closed source software. We need our systems to work, and we need to have complete control over the software we do use. BSD-licensed software gives that to us, far better than any proprietary software ever has. So unless Apple is going to be as open as the BSD license with their software, we have no use for Apple nor their products.

Re:They should give up their right.

[massysett]

Arguing that Apple should open source their operating system is like arguing that one of the car manufacturers should open up their engine-control software - it removes a core advantage of their hardware and makes you less likely to buy it.

I thought the argument was just the opposite. That is, if Apple is a hardware company, then software is merely a cost center. By this theory, you open source the software to drive down the cost of development so that you can focus on the hardware that differentiates your product. That's what Bruce Perens said anyway.

That wouldn't mean Apple would open source all its software. Some of its software--like the OS X GUI--do differentiate Apple's products, so Apple would keep that proprietary. But it seems much less likely that the Darwin kernel would be viewed as a differentiating feature of OS X. Perhaps it would make more sense to open source the kernel then.

Re:They should give up their right.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Apple is not a software company. They write software - some of it quite good - but they are a hardware company.

Apple is a personal computer company. They write both software and build hardware, but they are both simply components. Microsoft is a software company. They create one component of a PC, which is assembled by Dell or someone.

Arguing that Apple should open source their operating system is like arguing that one of the car manufacturers should open up their engine-control software - it removes a core advantage of their hardware and makes you less likely to buy it.

Hmm, I'd say it is more like arguing Mitsubishi should give away their engines for free to promote sales of their cars. They are competing in the PC space against Dell and HP. No one sells OS's to end users (in real quantities). They are sold to corporations and OEMs that put together systems for end users.

Now if you want to argue that it is in Apple's best interest to become a software company, you'd have plenty of company. Personally, I think it would be nuts to try to compete with Microsoft and all of the various UNIX-type OSes out there.

The only way to compete with a monopoly is to sell a complete vertical chain of components including the one they sell as well as other products. Apple sells OS's, but only bundled with hardware and other software. Thus they don't currently compete with Microsoft (which is pretty impossible unless the courts step in). I agree it would be dumb for them to risk everything on such a venture.

Re:They should give up their right.

[Gr8Apes]

Isn't that pretty much what the situation is now? I don't recall Darwin being closed, last time I checked.

Re:They should give up their right.

[jcr]

I see your bias

What you call bias, I call experience. Congratulations on migrating to BSD from whatever you were using before, but that in no way means that the "age of proprietary software" is over. Are you giving away your in-house apps that you're developing for your own use? QED.

-jcr

Re:Slashtards

[bedouin]

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.

Re:This is the sort of thing keeping me away.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so full of shit my cable modem is starting to smell.

If you bought a Mac, the license change has pretty much no effect on you, since it only targets changes to software that DOES NOT RUN ON APPLE HARDWARE.

Summary:

[countach]

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.

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.

Re:Slashtards

[chill]

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.

No longer open source?

[mjg59]

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.

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.
  

What does this mean for the APSL?

[jonwil]

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)

Re:Slashtards

[voidptr]

My little sister's a whore. But it's not too late to keep my OS pure. It's all I've got left.

Re:Slashtards

[AusIV]

Seeing teenagers download my favorite OS for free ... bothers me.

I love seeing my favorite operating system downloaded for free. And amazingly, the experience is more or less the same whether you're running on a 32 bit PC, 64 bit, or PPC.

seeing the experience cheapened in the eyes of others because its running on unsupported hardware bothers me.

I know a guy who used to run OSX on his HP. He claimed it ran better on his HP than Windows did. I was never aware of him having any problems with the operating system because of his hardware, but on the occasion that he had software problems, people automatically assumed it was because he was running on the wrong hardware, even if that had nothing to do with it. He finally quite when he decided he didn't like stealing it, but he still intends to get a Mac when he can afford one. Most of the people who see it simply think it's cool that he's running OSX on his PC.

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.

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.

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.

Re:Apple is more heavy-handed then Microsoft

[xonicx]

They're being pretty damn generous even letting you see the source code.

its not Their code.

Re:Apple is more heavy-handed then[sic] Microsoft

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Still the same license?

[salimma]

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?

Re:Slashtards

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Till you come up with a better way to make money..

[NDPTAL85]

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?

Oy.

[jpellino]

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."

Re:Oy.

[Lord Kano]

...OSX an uber-amazing OS that runs on museum-worthy hardware...

Is it cool in here or it it just the fanboy?

LK

Re:Oy.

[SilentChris]

I find your post amusing.

Recently I purchased a MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo. For all intents and purposes it's an excellent machine. Runs a little warm, but works well. It's replacing a Dell Inspiron that decided to commit suicide.

So anyway, first day I crack open the box, dig into System Preferences and play with the settings. I go into the Display panel, which has perhaps the weirdest slider widget in the history of all operating systems. Basically, you set the brightness then (if you decide to let it) the MacBook Pro uses an ambient light sensor to raise and lower that brightness based on the lighting in the room. It's a neat feature, but if you set the brightness too high (or too low) it doesn't really work.

So I play around with it a bit and save. Too bright. I reopen the preference pane and decide I want to set it to the default base brightness. No "Reset to default" button. Hmm. Maybe there is no default. So, I create a new account, log into it and open up the Display preferences. Ok, it has a default brightness setting. So where's it stored? I start digging around through plists trying to find the one that controls the Display pane. Nothing.

Finally, I call up Apple support and say "Hey, I want to reset this thing back to the default value. Do you know what plist I'd need to delete to do that?" Their answer: "Sorry sir, that's privileged information about the operating system." Huh? It's just a plist -- I'm not talking about hacking the kernel, just deleting one file. "Sorry sir, can't help you."

Aggravated, I dig out the Property List tool. Can't find the setting anywhere. Finally (combined with other issues I was having with the machine -- Office was causing Kern Protection errors) I wipe it and install from scratch. I then lock that Display panel and never touch it again.

Now, you talk about Apple being open. You say you can hack 99% of the OS. Yet, I changed the brightness using Apple's OWN tool, and they weren't able to tell me where the setting is stored. WTF?

Also, you talk about Grandma not needing kernel mods. I don't know about you, but when I set up my Mac for grandma, I installed Parallels. I told her "Go here if you can't see a website." Put the IE shortcut right out in the open for her.

Parallels uses kernel mods. So when you say "will never EVER need the sort of kernel mods that you are discussing here", I guess you're talking people BESIDES the all the new Mac owners who bought these machines because they could now run Windows.

Except consumers don't think that way

[blueZ3]

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.

aitikin is a dumbass

[torstenvl]

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?

The mind buggles

[Medievalist]

You analogy leaves me breathless, like a glass eel.

Re:Apple is more heavy-handed then[sic] Microsoft

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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

Dual licensed software

[aristotle-dude]

Look at the dual licensed software out there. Copyright owners have a right to license as they see fit. Abusing the spirit of the APSL by distributing patches that allowed for patching pirated versions of OS X with Darwin code would be the same as taking any additional documentation supplied in a dual licensed situation and including it with the Open Sourced code.

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.