Slashdot Mirror
Apple Clarifies iBooks Author Licensing
bonch writes "After drawing criticism over iBooks Author's licensing language, Apple has modified it in a software update to make clear that Apple is claiming rights to the .ibook format itself and not the content therein: '[The license restriction] does not apply to the content of such works when distributed in a form that does not include files in the .ibooks format.' In other words, the content may be sold on competing book stores as long as it is not packaged using iBooks Author."
Hands up all those people who didn't already realise that's what it meant.
What are you talking about? The summary is clear that the EULA is about the .ibook format. It says "Apple is claiming rights to the .ibook format itself and not the content therein." The output of iBooks Author is an .ibook file.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I still find it absolutely mind-boggling that anyone thought Apple was claiming rights to the content...
The term implies that you cannot distribute using the .ibooks format, not that you cannot distribute the output of iBooks Author.
Actually it's the combination of both. .ibooks format generated using iBooks Author..."
"If you want to charge a fee for a work that includes files in the
Which doesn't restrict you from using the iBooks format if it was generated with something other than iBooks Author.
Nor does it restrict you from using output from iBooks Author if it's in a format other than iBooks. For example iBooks author has an export as PDF feature. You'd be OK to sell that through some other store.
Apple has modified it in a software update to make clear that Apple is claiming rights to the .ibook format itself and not the content therein:
Bet the ball on this got rolling just after somebody in Cupertino read the knee-jerk comments on Slashdot.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
It is worth noting that you can't export to standard EPUB3 file format, only to PDF. PDF is obviously non-interactive, while the EPUB3 standard would allow for most if not all of the interactive elements that can be created with iBooks Author.
Many argue that they are in their right to put that EULA, and that others have done it before (Microsoft's Word, for example). And they are absolutely right.
That does not mean, however, that this isn't a very greedy move - many even describe it as 'evil' - and just like it happened with Microsoft in the past, I can totally understand why.
Having a right to do something is not incompatible with being greedy or even evil.
A peek into .iba files and a comparison with epub files evidences that Apple deliberately re-designed and implemented features in order to make the ibooks file format incompatible with industry standards. Again, while they are fully in their right to do this, this should be worrying to anyone who appreciates healthy competition and doesn't enjoy Microsoft-like monopolies. Ironically, this has happened with Apple being a member of the International Digital Publishing Forum, who manage the EPUB standard.
(This really smells like embrace-extend-extinguish to me.)
Perhaps what bugs me the most is that in spite of all this, no-one (AFAIK) has taken the time to provide an alternative tool which allows to create interactive ePub documents just as easily. It seems to me that Apple was first to do this "properly" (as it usually happens), and in this case there is no technical reason why it could not have been created 1 or 2 years ago by other industry leaders - I have used iBooks Author and it isn't much more than a glorified presentation editor.
Nor does it restrict you from using output from iBooks Author if it's in a format other than iBooks. For example iBooks author has an export as PDF feature. You'd be OK to sell that through some other store.
The most important case is this: You wouldn't create the contents of a book in iBoos Author. You would use a word processor, some graphics program, a camera to make photos or movies, a 3D design program etc. You would create all these assets, and then use iBooks Author to create a book that looks really good on an iPad. You would then take the same assets and find some software to create a book that looks as great as you can manage on other devices. The panicky claims that were made were that the second use wouldn't be allowed - obviously ridiculous, but now it is clarified.
It's still equivalent to saying that if I make a PDF with Adobe Acrobat that I can only distribute it through Adobe's services. Or that I write a Word DOC that can only be hosted on a Microsoft service.
Proprietary formats already have deeply annoying lock-in, this is taking it one step too far.
iBooks author can export as an .ibook file, pdf, or text. And it's an .iba while you're working on it.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Whats the hubub over fancy document formats which reinvent the wheel. Compressed postscript is fine.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
is legally restricted to not be used for commercial purposes--in nearly exactly the same way that iBook Author is. I assume you are going to start protesting that now?
Isn't this the same as the complaints about the GPL being too restrictive? You're offered a tool that is free as long as you abide by the license (no option for a paid version with fewer restrictions for this tool). If you don't like the restrictions, don't use the tool. Big deal.
There are a lot of differences between a piece of software licensed under the GPL and under this license from Apple. Things like who can create or distribute derivative works, restrictions on what you can produce using the tool, what you can do with the tool (e.g. share it, copy it), and where you distribute the output.
But let's make this really simple. Here's the big difference:
The license from Apple was designed to retain control over both the software and the content created with the software, and to place that control in the hands of Apple. I mean, that's what it's saying, right?
The license from Apple wasn't designed to empower the content creator. It wasn't designed to empower the content consumer. It was designed by a profit-driven corporation (Apple) to create and establish a locked-in market of creators and users that would be tied to Apple's software and Apple's market.
And oh wait, did I mention that Apple wants to do this with our education system? With our textbooks? Who in their right mind would think it was a good idea to put more restrictions on that?
The GPL was designed as a clever hack on copyright to empower people to create and share software and to empower the recipients of GPL-licensed software to share the original software and derivative works thereof in a "share-alike" commons. It was specifically designed to pass along to end users (who might also be creators/modifiers) the rights necessary for them to share and distribute their work, and making sure that they retain those rights, even if the upstream authors "change their minds" and wish later to rescind distribution rights based on use purpose, distribution mechanism, etc...
I mean, look: Apple might be a powerful and well-staffed company. And it might make amazing tools in both hardware and software, but the question I think that we all need to be asking ourselves is whether it's ethical to support a company that is encouraging people to create their own content in a manner that prevents them from distributing that content without a permission slip from Apple. And it doesn't just stop there -- is the IBA file format even open at all? Is Apple going to sue us if we try to write/read the file format without using their software under their terms?
How about this: If any big company wants to create a new file format, they publish a spec of the file format, along with a copyright/patent license, somewhere easy-to-find on their website. Someplace like www.big-company.com/fileformats/newformat/v1/{format_v1.blah, format_v1_license.blah, ..} would be nice, but I'd settle for just a few docs that could be (1) indexed by google, (2) slurped up by archive.org.
coding is life
It's equivalent to saying that if you want to sell an iBook on the Apple iBook store to be consumed on Apple iDevices, you may use this tool. That's the purpose of this file format and authoring tool. The purpose is not to create a new interoperable format. It's equivalent to saying that if you want to program a widget for the HyperFridge 3000, you have to learn and write it in VisiFoo++ 3.4 and compile it to ProprietyARMBinaryCode 25E, which will only run on HyperFridge compatible devices. The EULA is limiting because the purpose of the tool is limited.
Bitten Apples are still better than dirty Windows...
What are you talking about? The summary is clear that the EULA is about the .ibook format. It says "Apple is claiming rights to the .ibook format itself and not the content therein." The output of iBooks Author is an .ibook file.
But it is not another AUTHORING TOOL that produces .ibook format. THAT's what they are trying to prevent. They are NOT claiming IP rights to the CONTENT, just the FILE FORMAT.
Learn to read.
Apple looking at the source code of apps sold on its store make me feel safer.
They don't do that, that's why a tethering app was able to slip through disguised as a "flashlight" (show a white screen) app.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel