Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Apple (part 2)
Several people followed up the today's earlier apple
Open Source article by pointing us to
Apple's Official
Website on Open Source. Features Yet Another License, the
Apple Public Source License
but requires a login to get much more than the license and a
faq.
Update: 03/16 07:52 by CT : Virtually unrelated, thanks to
darren wilson,
the original creator of the crystal apple icon there.
Read section 12.1 "Termination"
If anyone files a clam against apple at any time they can force you to remove all copies from your machine and prohobit further distribution but it does not prevent apple from continuing to distrubute it.
This means they are allowed to leech off the opensource community then at any time they can pull the rug out from under us. This is clearly not "Open Source" I prefer the term Free Software anywa.y..
9.1 Infringement. If any of the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement
("Affected Original Code"), Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (a) attempt to procure
the rights necessary for You to continue using the Affected Original Code; (b) modify the
Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing; or (c) terminate Your rights to use the
Affected Original Code, effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on
the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License.
12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate:
(a) automatically without notice from Apple if You fail to comply with any term(s) of this
License and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of such breach;
(b) immediately in the event of the circumstances described in Sections 9.1 and/or
13.6(b); or
(c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this
License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple.
Couldn't have said it better myself. All this non-free crap should go away, the sooner the better too.
uhh no this does not rule
apple can terminate your license at ANY TIME. Meaning when they say so you have to remove the source from your machine, yet they get to keep distributing it
Yes, it is terminated by YOUR violation of the license. The APSL is can be terminated through anyones actions. Bill Gates sues apple, woops there goes your license...
No, all someone has to do is even threaten with a patent infringement. There is nothing saying the case has to be won in court... and it doesn't matter if apple would do this or not. It's the fact that the possibility exists. What if management 5 years from now doesnt like "opensource"? Then we are screwed.
Well, the GPL clause is only because of a *court decision* forcing you to stop distributing it.
Apple retains the right to revoke the license if they are even threatened with a patent infringement, it says nothing about a court judgement.
I know there has to be a filing first. And this is bad. The license should be terminated only AFTER they have lost a court battle.
"Modifications and/or Larger Works may require additional patent licenses from Apple which Apple may grant in its sole discretion."
You took that sentence out of context. They are saying that while Apple is granting use of any patents they own which cover the code in question, you don't get a free license on all of their patents if you happen to include some of their code in a larger work which would otherwise still infringe on some patent of theirs. Arguments on whether software patents are A Good Thing or not aside, this is reasonable. If you have code which would infringe on their patent(s), including some of their code does not change that.
"or (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code, effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License."
This would be them covering their asses, and rightly so. If they have infringed someone else's patent in their code, they can't really continue to license it to anyone else, now can they? A more relevant and distressing clause is 12.1(c) (12.1 is the section on ways in which the license can/will be terminated):
"automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple."
This says that if you sue Apple for patent infringement, however unrelated to the current code, you lose any license to use the code. This means that Apple can blithely infringe on any patent held by anyone using their code and, if sued, can sue for copyright infringement on the code covered by their license since the license terminates the moment the (first) lawsuit comes up.
I am much more bothered by this clause than any other. I am not sure if this qualifies as open source or not... the source is free and open AFAICT, but its use weakens the position of protecting one's patents from Apple. Oh, and incidentally, IANAL.
If Darwin is the core of OS X (everything below gui) then what is to stop someone making a Finder replacement? Maybe someone can port X11 to the mac in this form. Personally, I would love to be able to boot into my G3 and choose to boot into the Finder or not. How cool would e or gnome be on a mac??!! (or better yet sheepshaver!!)
2^5
The Apple license is not Open Source. Read the Open Source Definition, read the Apple license, and ignore ESR for a minute.
If Apple is willing to work with the community to make their licenses actually Free Software (according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines) and Open Source Software (according to the Open Source Definition) then there's probably not much to worry about yet and most likely it will not be long before the community and Apple both reap the benefits of the source being truly Open Source.
If Apple is unwilling to work with us on this, we just have one more company trying to cash in on the community without supporting it. I don't know about you, but I don't mind them making money off my efforts provided that they're giving something back. MacOS X has been looking pretty damned cool and it would be SWEET to have an x86 version. It's possible and Apple has come a long way toward that goal already. Yeah Apple, the water's fine, hop in.
I take licenses very seriously. I'm sorry you don't. And I hope you never have to find out the hard way why I am.
Posted by necros coitus:
http://www.stalker.com runs MacOS X, Intel edition on P166 with 32Mb of RAM.
Posted by mkultra:
If you read the specs on OSX SERVER it mentions that Web Objects has the yellowbox stuff plus the web specific stuff yellow box
over&out
"If all the reports of the high web server speeds on Macs are true, this is truely awesome. We'll have access to some of the /and/
;)
most efficient network code there is. We'll also get to see the base that X server will need to run off of, if you want to kill the
Mac Finder, and run an X Server instead. Does that make all you Mac Haters happy? You can have the high speed
your X."
We already do. It's called LinuxPPC. I doubt that anything running UNDER Mach could be as fast as a native monolithic kernel
After all, it's what we do best around here.
Don Negro
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
Her love of money was always second to her love of productivity and the capacity for creative work. If you want to sell it, fine, give it away, fine.
She'd hate software licences cause you don't get a thing of objective value in return for your money.
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
I'm with you.
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
You're confusing this with the IBM license. There has to be a filing first, although IANAL. Read the license to be sure.
Don Negro
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
The price was cut by 50%. It is $499 for a 5 user license. $250 for edu purchases.
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
The price has been lowered over 50%. As cheap as $250. A 5 user license is $500
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
They meant 1st OS company. Netscape doesnt have a OSS OS. Neither does IBM.
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
Guess what -- that's what would happen anyway! Apple is just spelling out what others leave unsaid.
While Sun's and IBM's licenses threaten to pull entire products if there are IP claims against them, Apple's license doesn't. This is good.
The APSL is praiseworthy, and it is Open Source.
-- Chip Salzenberg, a Director of Open Source Initiative
IBM and Sun pull whole products. Apple pulls a subroutine -- and replaces it.
So, something here is ugly, but it's not a termination clause...
Hey, BSD is cool, but even it can't make a quadra fast =)
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
what's scary about it? Don't support it if it doesn't benefit you or entertain you.
Does full support from apple consist of money?
My bet is that funds are tight at be, but that's just a guess.
Ignoring the few license restrictions, if you write a finder then you've essentially got the complete source to a MacOS. Which means that if you're a mac user and your motivated enough, your platform will outlive windows, be, and all the other closed systems regardless of Apple's fate (which looks remarkably good compared to 2 years ago)
We can argue and discuss the limits and the problems (I'm surprised how many people are worried about using up all the OSS talent, like the pool is shallow or something...or like anyone does it for any other reason than because they want to) but if you or your org. uses macs then you can now mold mac to better fit your organization, fill your needs, etc.. I used to use OS/2 and I've wondered if I still would or where it would stand if it was OSSed, I'm inclined to believe I'd still have it on a partition.
We're winning the war. The only stumbling block I can see right now is the potential that MS would wake up and release their source code with an even more liberal license... Fortune 500 would be right back in their camp unless the code is so twisted that it is useless. Congratulations apple and congratulations mac users. This is becoming the only way to compete and competition is good, MS spends a billion dollars a year on OS R&D and they are getting beat by Linux and soon they will be getting beat by Linux and Darwin... If it works, I bet they will open the license even more.
Success requires trust in the people you work with.
Trust requires sacrifice, because no one is completely trustworthy.
Is the solution, then, to completely distrust those who've been untrustworthy in the past? Not by a long shot. It's about taking prudent risk, given an adequate reward.
The power of the MacOS desktop and Yellow Box development environment is PLENTY of reward to consider trusting Apple again.
-Stu
The license is a fair and equitable one, and it meets the OSD requirments.
Their actions increase the freedom of Mac developers to improve their platform.
WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?
You can either be a complainer, or a coder. Pick one.
-Stu
Not as quickly as Apple, though. While I'm in favour of GNUStep and would definitely work on it if I wasn't bogged down with work, I don't believe they'll have as powerful a system as Mac OS X is now, and will be by year end.
GNUStep has been churning for a long time, and it has sort of lost a lot of its glamor because of that.
-Stu
ESR and the Apache team are contibutors to this community in both code & ideas
all I see here is complaining. Show me the code.
-Stu
Excuse me, but Apple *is* going along with the obligations of being an Open Source (tm) company. Or at least OSI says so. It's not exactly an us vs. them situation.
Apple's intention is not to be evasive, it is to embrace the model while protecting their rear-end against shitty software patents.
-Stu
Apple may or may not patent bits of its code and may or may not grant you the right to use that code
If any other party sues Apple for patent infringement on bits of "Original Code" Apple may completely withdraw all license to use this code
These two specific parts are not compatible with the Open Source Definition - there may be other parts which I cannot identify
Nearly the whole dang thing.. Most of the libs, along with the core kernel itself.. Basicaly, nearly everything the OS itself would have, minus stuff that is under copywrite..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
I've skimmed the license and it seem pretty okay, anyone did read more and found something wrong or everything seem just fine?
Full Article
Because all of those things are already ported to Linux/PPC.
More generally, I think the question should be "Why use Darwin when Linux already works?"
Apples and Oranges, so to speak. Try comparing with LinuxPPC on a 400 MHz G3 and get back to me.
I would believe that the G3 is faster than the PII. The OS is probably not the bottleneck (at least in the case of Linux and possibly Solaris).
Doesn't the gcc have objective c support now? I thought so. -P
--
The real Paul Vallee is slashdot userid 2192, and, what do you mean it's not cool to point out your low userid?
MauiMail.com is running Rhapsody, which I believe is an early version of MacOS X Server.
Look at what it says. If you violate the license, either your software's going to get legit with Apple's help (possibility A), be modified so it's legit (possibility B) or become illegal (possibility C).
Those seem to be the same things that happen if you violate the GPL. The difference is that Apple's enforcing it instead of the FSF. That and the fact that Apple spells out quite plainly what it will do right in the license, which the FSF doesn't do.
First, consider that, stupid as it may be, Apple still considers itself a hardware company.
Second, consider that this is in fact the first time this has been done with an operating system (Linux and *BSD do not count, since their chief maintainers aren't computer companies).
Third, Netscape did this, but with with a browser which wasn't making money, IBM did it with a Java VM which isn't making money, etc. Apple intends to make money from this. I personally think it'll be a great experiment in the commercial viability of Open-Source software. Even if whoever wrote that press release did, admittedly, word that particular phrase quite poorly.
Apple could have down the Free Softare a _huge_ service by freeing the code of the Yellow Box/OpenStep which will be marginalized in MacOS X anyway. The free Unixes would have gained an open standard, technically supreme desktop which would by far surpass the reinvented wheels of KDE and Gnome. The GNUstep project is trying to accomplish this since years, but it doesn't seem as if their effort would benefit in any way from "Darwin".
gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70
But I don't see how this 'hits linux between the eyes' (as the cnet story said)...
Mainly Nextstep/Mac developers will be interested in getting the source. While I think it's a good move I doubt a signifigant number of linux users are now going to go buy a G3 and start hacking away...
-- Are you an EFF member yet?
I gave the license a quick once-over, and it seemed okay. What parts did you have a problem with?
It'll be interesting to see how this turns out in the long run, but I'm quite pleased for now, as:
This seems very reasonable to my eyes, and I can't see how it's anything other than either a positive--or perhaps irrelevant for some--development for the industry. It's certainly not a negative turn of events, though.
But, still, I've got a few comments in response to the various recurrant threads.
Termination and Liability
First of all, regarding the license's termination clauses in case of an intellectual property lawsuit, I do think that you all have to think for a moment about the forces at work. Apple's a large corporation; they have to protect their employees and stockholders. I think that it's clear enough from the license that they would make a good faith effort to work around the dispute if possible. All licenses issued from large companies will most likely harbor similar clauses to protect the company from liability.
Liability from Termination
In that same vein, I believe that it's not especially reasonable to expect Apple to use that clause to terminate your licenses on a whim. The APSL protects Apple's interests, certainly, but it doesn't make it easy for Apple to back out, either. If Apple were to bribe a company to sue for intellectual property violations, it would certainly create a scandal and perhaps even a class action lawsuit. (I am not a lawyer, however.) In my eyes, it would be more likely that, if Apple wished Darwin to go away, it would simply let the project languish instead of risking condemning press and exposing itself to even more liability. The company is under no contractual obligation to synchronize the Mac OS X and Darwin projects, so letting the project die out is not a difficult path to take.
OSS vs. Free (Again)
Thirdly, those of you arguing against Open Source and for Free Software should perhaps take a dose of pragmatism. Apple is has just taken a very large step closer to your ideal; that they have not acheived it yet is an invalid justification for criticsm in the face of the fact that they are working toward that end. Given, they are moving cautiously, but that is as any entity of this company's scale should. Multibillion-dollar corporations do not turn on a dime.
Issues of Trust
Finally, the arguments against trusting the company certainly have their justifications, and I won't pretend to contest them. Apple has a long history of turbulent management. From the Apple II, to clones and PPCP, to OpenDoc and the Newton, there are many instances of about-faces that were damaging to third parties. Looking at more recent history, though, I think that most of you would find that Apple has kept far more of its new commitments than it has broken in the past two and a half years since Steve Jobs assumed the titles of interim CEO and chairman of the board. The projects that died early in his reign were those which bogged down the company, spread its resources, and those which were not profitable. The company's management seems to have stabilized greatly, as Apple's "iCEO" Jobs has lent to it spark, focus, insight, and, not least of all, charisma. While it is not advisable to ignore the past when passing judgement, it is neither wise to dwell entirely there, ignoring in fact the present. In the end, investing even the smallest bit of faith in this company is a personal decision, but it is best to consider both the present situation and history instead of rejecting a concept out of hand.
Concuding Remarks
With that, I'll conclude my discussion. Obviously, I'm fairly upbeat and optimistic about this all. My biases are that, admittedly, I own a G3, I run both LinuxPPC and the Mac OS, and I enjoy following Apple's moves in the market; few companies are as continually interesting.
Before I go, I do have a major gripe, though. There is no bug-tracking service or CVS repository! :) I'm sure Apple will rectify that in short order, though. Otherwise, Darwin might just die immediately. :>
- Mali
Methinks she'd regard the GPL as evil and collectivist, in that it takes away one's right to crush the competition, as Gates (a true latter-day John Galt) does.
See www.moral-defense.org.
The Apple licence, whilst a step in the right direction, has some worrying provisions. For one, the BSDish copyright clause, and the requirements for registering modifications with Apple. And then there's the termination clause, a significant Achilles hell.
If parts of Darwin are integrated into the base of Linux, all it would take would be a patent/licence dispute, and Apple (or plaintiffs) could order all affected code (i.e., all copies of Linux with the Darwin code) destroyed. Linux would recover, after a fashion, but it would be painful, and would make Linux and OSS look unreliable.
Therefore, Darwin should be kept as far as possible from the base Linux tree. Which is not to say that there shouldn't be experimental patches or kernel modules based on Darwin; by all means there should. Use it as an ornament but not a cornerstone.
GNUStep would be a pretty cool alternate UI for Darwin, IMHO.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The issue is not BSD vs. GNU; the issue is mostly the termination clause. If Apple has a change of heart about open-source and decides to revoke its license, it should not affect the base Linux kernel, or anything critical.
I think the operative word is _buy_. Whereas with Linux, you simply need to "get" the OS.
Yes. A few years ago Apple and IBM announced several joint development programs, including Kalaida (sp?) and Taligent both of which died quite ugly deaths.
I've browsed through these comments and here is my take: It is clear that anyone who ever worked with Apple knows what a sucky company it is. Only the naive and truly innocent seem to be enthusiastic about this.
Apple is a company that changes directions every 6 months. Its headquarter's name, Infinite Loop, is quite an accurate description of how the company is run. But I don't think this is a reflection of evil. I don't think Apple screws its developers and partners on purpose. While others might see conspiracy, I see absolute incompetence. Apple has raised incompetence to an art form. I won't regale you with the details of a meeting I had once with Apple. Suffice it to say I left open-mouthed, in awe of the level of incompetence displayed from the minute I walked into one of the Infinite Loop buildings. One amusing anecdote - I had to wait 45 minutes just to get to my meeting, cause the guy had moved desks (as part of one Apple's infinite loo-reshuffles), and the phone system just couldn't deal with it. It was downhill from there....
Why argue over this? Anybody who wants to waste his/her time coding yet another Unix clone just to help Apple slow down its inevitable slide into oblivion - the force be with you. You'll end up in the mire along with Apple. Moreover, all that code will go down the tube, when some corporation buys up Apple's assets and closes off any free aspect of it.
Darwin is an apt name here. The lower life forms will migrate to the loser Apple, and end up as an extinct species. The more realistic and intelligent species will work on the only free OS around - Linux, which will continue to evolve from strength to strength.
...and neither do all of you who are involved in detailed arguments of the license terms.
GNU/Linux is a raving success not because it's open source. Open source is a neccessary but not sufficient condition. Even the GPL is only a necessary not sufficient condition. GNU/Linux has succeeded because everyone who uses it and everyone who CONTRIBUTES to it benefits equally. This is the community benefit factor, and it is the necessary and sufficient condition. It is more important than the exact terms of the licence. I think this is the point RMS tries to hammer home with his use of the term free. Free benefits everyone.
Take Mozilla. Since the browser client is essential to the Internet economy, having a free version of it was critical to the future growth of GNU/Linux. So Netscape's putting it out there had 100% community benefit. The license, while it may not be perfect, is good enough. Even if AOL/Netscape kills Mozilla.org tomorrow, the code is out there forever. The GNU/Linux community will take it over and make it grow, cutting lose any proprietary strings AOL/Netscape might hold. But the key point is the community benefit. Netscape did us all a huge favor and deserves our thanks and kudos.
Darwin is YAUC - yet another unix clone. BSD-variants, Linux, MkLinux, that other Mach project someone mentioned (not to mention all the proprietary UNICES) - these aren't enough? Who needs YAUC? No one but Apple, to get their truly sucky hardware to work. (don't jump on me for this statement: PPC is a Motorola/IBM product - not an Apple product. Apple boxes suck big time). There is zero community benefit from Darwin. So even if the license is pristine GPL who cares? Apple is looking for free developers without giving anything back. Go make LinuxPPC better. Go make MkLinux better. That will at least help the community of people (like us btw) who are stuck with old Apple's and don't know what to do with 'em. But Darwin? Puhleeese!
So in the future, when you see some corporation putting something out there as open source, don't niggle about the license details. If the license is good enough to allow some future fork to be liberated and GPLed that's all you need. The key criterion whether to praise or damn should be the community benefit.
Whose benchmarks are these? From what I understood these come from an Apple arranged demo, not some independent tester. Are you sure the machines compared are indeed "comperable"? Are you sure Apple didn't do some special tweaking to the OS X while leaving the rest out of the box? One benchmark hyped by Apple does not mean this is the "truth." You have to be out of your mind to base any decision based on a marketing benchmark by ANY company.
And I never said you shouldn't look at the code. I just said you shouldn't waste your time developing it.
Because I wouldn't have to shell out $300 for the "Nexstep-derived" GUI and live with the million and one bugs the proprietary GUI wrapper will add to the stable UNIX base. Actually, from what I understand the GUI is MAC-derived. For an open-source Nextep-derived GUI try Afterstep. And as I said in another post those "indications" about performance, are Apple marketing hype, not the real thing. Finally, if you want a really elegant user interface, try GNOME/icewm.
Redhat still has to and does use the GPL. Redhat, unlike Apple and Netscape CAN'T turn arownd one day and screw over the programers. Redhat at can't one day say they OWN linux...and they also can't say what you can and can't do with the code. The GPL is for the good of the people and the software...the APL/NPL or what ever is for the good of Apple and Netscape.
Apple making programs open source is a good thing..it lets companies make in house bug fixes etc...BUT apple/Netscape/whoever making programs opensource just to cut R/D costs and get good PR is a BAD thing.
I have to return some videotapes...
but he is right...
I have to return some videotapes...
>>Look how scared Sun has been to open Java. Sun >>now talks about opening up Java
>> and Solaris,
They had no real choice if they wanted JAVA to take off. And for Solaris...it's on it's death bed. Sun gets it's money from hardware. So i dont realy think they care if you put Linux or Solaris on their sparc's.
I have to return some videotapes...
Give slashdot a brake. I dont think most webserver's have to do the work that Slashdot's does. Most big websites are run by a team of people with backup servers etc. Slashdot runs on one server, is run mainly by a guy who was in school most of the time, and was/is writing the slashdot server software on the fly!
I have to return some videotapes...
>>Their actions increase the freedom of Mac developers...
How so?!? Can i use some of Apple's code in my OWN programs? What ever work i put into coding for Apple "Opensource" has to stay with Apple "open source".
With the GPL i can take some code from emacs or the linux kernel and put it into my program and still be able to release it. The GPL lets companys like Redhat and Bob's Linux computers and bait 'n' tackle release software...and do what they want with it. (as long as it's with the GPL)
I have to return some videotapes...
I for one feel that there's plenty of room in the world for the BSD-style and the GPL-style licenses to co-exist.
I think distributions of NetBSD and OpenBSD have more to fear from entanglement with Darwin, which is primarily a nice BSD distribution, than Linux or any other GPL distro does.
For those of us who prefer a BSD style *NIX, Darwin holds a lot of promise. For those of us who already have Mac hardware, it'll probably be the best straight *NIX distribution we'll be able to get our hands on for some time (though my home server is an OpenBSD Mac68k machine that chugs along quite reliably).
Server: Apache/1.3.4 (Unix)
May be it's still "StarWarsed"
Well, at least it makes good hardware documentation.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
So who is going to want to dig through the (x) million lines of code once M$ comes out with their own License? I bet they will try to put more spin on it then this also...."How do you want to commit suicide today?"......Anyone know how big OS X is, lines of code that is? Gotta give Apple some credit.....I think they got big brass ones, and encourage them no matter what.
Who is the master of foxhounds, and who says the hunt has begun? -Pink Floyd
Finally, some common sense on
I've never seen so many people get so upset for such a stupid reason. You'd think that Steve Jobs himself assassinated RMS or something. What has Apple done to open source? Did they take anything away from open source? No. They are giving the community some of their software. They didn't have to, they could just keep it closed-source. They had every right to keep it closed source. If you don't like their software - DON'T USE IT!!!
>Hear us, Apple. Open up the hardware specs to the
>G3 machines. Let Be compete with your prized Mac
>OS X Baby. I guarantee BeOS could run rings around
>OSX when it comes to media development. Open
Oh, blah. Be isn't keeping their BeOS up to standard on the PowerPC platform because Be doesn't want to. Yes, they make a killer OS and everyone I've communicated with from Be seems to be really cool, but don't tell me you buy this "We are sticking with Intel because Apple won't give us the necessary information to do so" garbage, are you?
C'mon, think about it.
1. Intel has invested untold fortunes in Be.
2. MkLinux, LinuxPPC, and now ANOTHER OS (Darwin) has appeared that works on such hardware. Open source. Since when is Apple 'holding out' on Be? just because Apple isn't willing to subsidize Be's R&D efforts doesn't mean they're holding out.
3. Be used to tout the PowerPC platform as the best thing since sliced bread, a "cutting edge OS running on cutting edge hardware". Now, you can hardly get them to say a decent word about it, instead they tout whatever legacy crap Intel is pushing. If their reason for not staying with the PowerPC is political (bad relations with Apple), how did that make the PowerPC so technologically inferior to the Intel platform ?
>Source doesn't mean shit when your product is only
>available on one architecture.
Too bad Be has practically dropped any future plans for the PowerPC, no? Not to mention it's closed source (not that I consider that a 'mistake' in every situation, but you mentioned it). very shortly, the BeOS will be mono-platform.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
Interesting license. Especially this part:
2.2 You may Deploy Covered Code, provided that You must in each instance:
b) make all Your Deployed Modifications publicly available in Source Code form via electronic distribution (e.g. download from a web site) You must continue to make the Source Code of Your Deployed Modifications available for as long as you Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial Deployment, whichever is longer;
(c) must notify Apple and other third parties of how to obtain Your Deployed Modifications by filling out and submitting the required information found at http://www.apple.com/publicsource/modifications.h
Deploy, from earlier in the license seems to mean any production use at all within your company, with any lines of code changed.
This is quite a bit more anal than the GPL in that regard, since the GPL only stipulates that you must make the source available if you distribute it.
There's got to be more in here that stinks. I just haven't had time to look at it all.
I thought deploy was exactly that without the not....
I guess it's not as annoying as I thought.
I don't like that clause, then. Why do I have to release my code if it's for an internal project?
This will keep commercial interests from modifying the code for internal projects, since many of them will not want to release the code. This takes away some of the usefulness of the Open Sourcedness.
good. we'll get our work done faster and better than you with your slow free bloated xwindows
---
people paid alot of $$$ on their mac clones. open source means nothing to these consumers-it's peanuts. Open hardware is much more important than open source.
---
Last time I check you needed binaries to install Linux or any OS
Supporting and making it run are two different things. I have read that it will run on every PCI PowerPC, just don't annoy Apple with bugs if you don't have a current machine.
1.3 "Deploy" means to use, sublicense or distribute Covered Code other than for Your internal research and development (R&D), and includes without limitation, any and all internal use or distribution of Covered Code within Your business or organization except for R&D use, as well as direct or indirect sublicensing or distribution of Covered Code by You to any third party in any form or manner.
They can get Multiple Processor boxes for Solaris, they can't get production boxes for their own server OS yet.
It is open so there will be a binary distrubution in no time at all
Check your facts, there is $250 educational version, and you are only paying for the GUI, the OS is open. Very much like buying CDE from Metrolink
What is RedHat, but a for profit company. What about all the for profit companies who use gcc, apache, gzip, etc. Apple and Netscape have decided that there is no reason to keep that part of their code propriatary, lets support them on this, the more code that is freed the better we all are.
They were the ones that did MKLinux at least 2 years ago
according to Alexa www.omnigroup.com has 1483 Alexa visits www.apple.com has 160790 Alexa visits I can understand needing more power than a G3 to run Apple's site
Oh you mean apple is going to not require licence fees for the portions of its patented QT software that make it into MPEG-4?
If Apple owned the Sorenson Patent they might
9.1 Infringement. If any of the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement ("Affected Original Code"), Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (a) attempt to procure the rights necessary for You to continue using the Affected Original Code; (b) modify the Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing; or (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code, effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License.
If I were a large multi billion dollar company that employed thousands of people, and I was releasing large portions of code I would certainly want to protect myself from liabilty that said code could inflict. Anybody who thinks that Apple is being a jerk for doing so needs to think about the janitors that Apple employs, they too have to eat.
That portion of the Licence seems very liberal
This rules!
9.1 Infringement. If any of the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement ("Affected Original Code"), Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (a) attempt to procure the rights necessary for You to continue using the Affected Original Code; (b) modify the Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing;
or (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code, effective immediately
upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for
implementation of this License.
--
Infuriate left and right
Beowulf is about compute power. Even if the crunched numbers display as a rendered pic, what diff does the GUI make? Like rejecting a honking powerful engine for your car because you think the radiator hose is the wrong color.
--
Infuriate left and right
(sic) Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (sic) (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code,
I edited the original, but if you read the paragraph, it can be simplified to this. The rest is not very concrete and open to broad interpretation.
-Steve
Termination clauses as yet do not stop something being open source. My take is that its just a description of what would happen anyway in the case of patent violations being dragged through the courts. At to your other point, all that says is that apple may or may not open the rest of its source code. That is their right.
What is this Darwin thing? Apple's page claims that it is an "operating system." I thought they were only opening the source to the drivers, not a complete kernel or OS. Can anyone shed some light?
of course , there's nothing stopping them from selling the mac os x gui - the workspace manager - as a linux gui , and sell it as 'linux for the rest of us' .
would anyone out there pay $50 or so for a kick-ass gui ?
do you suppose they could make some of the gui open source and get it on a red hat distro ?
that would never happen , realistically , but then again , i never saw darwin coming - and i run mklinux on my g3 .
It's just about everything below the GUI.
Agreed. Linux benefits from these things: Microsoft's bungling of NT (they lost the plot after 3.51) and the Unix hardware vendors' bungling of OSF/1 and damn near any other interoperatbility standard.
They don't manufacture or design any of it.
From the FAQ:
Q. Do I have to post back my modifications to the original source code?
Yes, in most cases--unless you are using the original source code purely for internal research and development--you must make source code of your modifications publicly available under the terms of the APSL. Please read the APSL for details.
Computers are useless: they can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
Tuesday, March 16th updated 9:25 pm EST top stories Apple today announced the availability of Mac OS X Server for $500--with an unlimited client license and single-server license. The AppleStore (which incorrectly lists a 5-client license) expects availability by March 23rd. --from macnn.com
Just keep repeating it over and over, and it'll be true...
craig
You have to register distributed modifications with Apple, you are not allowed to close off your modifications (which you can do in BSD), but Apple is allowed to close of their modifications, even of code you distributed.
This whole thing is just good for a press release and will not have much impact on Linux or other *Nixes.
craig
I'm waiting to see just how much is released.
i.e., what they mean by "Mac OS X Server foundation".
>because the terms of use are still anything but free.
Actually, as far as I can tell, this is truly open source in the sense that as long as you post changes, you can distribute it for free.
Bruce,
I could've sworn your problem with the IBM clause was that they could terminate if ANYONE brought a patent suit against IBM.
Here, they can only terminate if YOU bring a suit against Apple. Isn't that the key difference?
They even have that whole section about how if they revise the license, you can still always use an earlier version.
Or am I misunderstanding the issue?
Check out section 7. It says that if Apple revises the license, you are still allowed to use any earlier version of the license.
Well, I guess the point is that someone could potentially place a claim on ALL the code, and Apple would have an excuse to terminate the entire license.
Yeah.. but it's the principle of the thing..
Someone COULD conceivably sue Apple for all of Darwin, and Apple would then have the option of terminating it all!
OS X is more than just YAUC because it also integrates many Mac OS features.
And whether or not YOU like the Mac OS, there are some of us who do like its interface a whole lot.
Thus, I'd rather use a Un*x that has a Mac interface than X-Windows, or GNU/KDE.
You seem to be saying that Apple's products being better benefits only Apple.
Products benefit their consumers as well!
So if Darwin makes OS X better, not only Apple, but us users are benefitted as well.
The other major difference (I think) is that in apple's case they only get to terminate the use of the Affected Code. So they can't terminate your liscence to all of Darwin over one infringement case. This seems to be much better than the IBM liscence was.
--Artemisia
Yes, it is terminated by YOUR violation of the license. The APSL is can be terminated through anyones actions. Bill Gates sues apple, woops there goes your license...
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer!
From http://www.publicsource.apple.com/apsl. html
9.1 Infringement. If any of the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement ("Affected Original Code"), Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (a) attempt to procure the rights necessary for You to continue using the Affected Original Code; (b) modify the Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing; or (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code, effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License.
From http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
So I'm working on my GPL program, YAM (Yet Another Mailer) and I find out after a year or so that one of my major contributors has borrowed code from Outlook Express.
Microsoft sues me, whoops; there goes my GPL license -- assuming I can't get their permission to use the code, or work around the disputed code, which as far as I can tell is exactly what the Apple Public Source License allows!
Jay (=
Well, the GPL clause is only because of a *court decision* forcing you to stop distributing it.
Re-read that section of the GPL: "If, as a consequence of a court judgement or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason [...]". Is there any reason why an "allegation of patent infringement" in the GPL is different than a "claim of infringement" in the APSL?
Apple retains the right to revoke the license if they are even threatened with a patent infringement [...]
For the "Affected Original Code" (which is, according to the APSL, the code that "becomes the subject of a claim of infringement"); the license still covers everything else. Someone would have to sue Apple over the entirety of Darwin for Apple to justify yanking the entirety; anything else, Apple (or its contributors) can rewrite the affected portion.
Jay (=
sic) Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (sic) (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code,
I edited the original, but if you read the paragraph, it can be simplified to this. The rest is not very concrete and open to broad interpretation.
But again, Apple's sole discretion applies only to the "Affected Original Code" -- that is, the part of the code that is the subject of the infrignement claim. Why couldn't I (or Apple) take the rest of the software, re-write the disputed code, and keep on working?
Jay (=
Well, the GPL clause is only because of a *court decision* forcing you to stop distributing it.
Re-read that section of the GPL: "If, as a consequence of a court judgement or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason [...]". Is there any reason why an "allegation of patent infringement" in the GPL is different than a "claim of infringement" in the APSL?
Apple retains the right to revoke the license if they are even threatened with a patent infringement [...]
For the "Affected Original Code" (which is, according to the APSL, the code that "becomes the subject of a claim of infringement"); the license still covers everything else. Someone would have to sue Apple over the entirety of Darwin for Apple to justify yanking the entirety; anything else, Apple (or its contributors) can rewrite the affected portion.
Jay (=
Yeah.. but it's the principle of the thing..
Someone COULD conceivably sue Apple for all of Darwin, and Apple would then have the option of terminating it all!
And as far as I can tell, Apple can still do the same thing under the GPL.
Don't get me wrong; I'm an Apple fan (I've used their machines for as long as I can remember) but I'm also impressed with Open Source movement, and I want Apple to be doing the right thing with Darwin.
But I haven't gotten a response yet as why the GPL, which says...
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement [emphasis mine]
...will prevent Apple from doing what everyone says it can do under the APSL?
What is the difference between a "claim of infringement" in the APSL and an "allegation of patent infringement" in the GPL?
Jay (=
I wrote:
And as far as I can tell, Apple can still do the same thing [terminate the license and keep the modified code for its own use] under the GPL.
After reading the GPL a bit more, I found this is not the case:
7. [...] If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
So in my reading, if Darwin were to be distributed under the GPL and become the subject of a claim of infrignement, then the GPL would prevent them from doing anything with it at all. (No wonder lawyers shudder at the GPL...)
It would have been nice to get this answer the first time I asked the question, instead of slogging through "Apple is evil" posts. It could have saved us all some time...
Jay (=
Because Darwin is not OS X. It is just the low-level unix stuff, not the GUI and other high-level pieces.
Apple makes its money from hardware, but there is a serious danger for them: If they were to completely open-source their OS, someone could port it to the PC, and then people would have no particular reason to buy a Mac. So I don't think they can afford to completely release the source.
I guess if want to write hardware device drivers, having low level source code would be very helpful... (Hmmm.. maybe OSX/Intel is not that dead.)
Other than that, the only thing other open source projects (Linux, BSD) dont' have that Apple does have is the GUI and the OpenStep/YellowBox. And Apple isn't certainly isn't open sourceing that part.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Looked to me like GNUStep was a long way away at my last visit to their web site.
If finished, I guess GNUStep + Darwin + KDE/Gnome = Free MacOS-X
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I can name one hardware architecture I'd like to see supported by OS/X -- NeXTCubes!
(Maybe Apple forgot to take out the old low level Black hardware stuff, and there's something in there the Linux/68K people can use. One can hope.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Striking a blow against the your-solution-is-not-my-favorite-so-it-sucks-and-
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Maybe someone can explain the Apple/GNU rift in the eighties to those of us who weren't paying attention back then.
The only thing I know was that it was really hard to do certain things on A/UX because of the GNU ban.
10 PRINT "A/UX HAS A BETTER GUI THAN LINUX",,
20 GOTO 10
30 REM Sorry!
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Earlier there was two apple threads -
1) Apple releases Source Code
2) MacOS-X released
#2 seems to have disappeared. Database problems or sinister evil cryptofascism?
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
"For the hell of it" is the only answer I got.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
This is a huge win for a graphics shop, or someone wanting to go from web design to web hosting. In a couple of hours (probably alot less), you can configure apache, set up security, and start pumping out the pages.
Thank you apple. A gutsy step in the right direction.
Hooray for open source. All of the linux geeks should be proud that they've gotten IBM -and- Apple both onboard.
Hooray for the guy who said 'some people just love to bitch about the paint job when Apple is out hanging wallpaper' (above this somewhere). Apple just admitted open source is the right way to go.
Sure, they haven't decided to go out of business, give away everything for free, and live on the beach. Sure they covered their asses with a termination clause. But they aren't done here.
This is a first step people. Please don't be bitching, moaning lamers. You won. Apple did the right thing. Cheer them on. Encourage them to make it -even better- next time.
You've been begging Alicia Silverstone for a date for years. She finally said yes! Don't cancel because she won't go to the 'right' restaurant.
What not? I read it as what you originally said, OTHER THAN FOR R&D, you can't use the code internally (for production) without distributing your modifications.
Can it be read any other way?
Hmmm. Seems to me that they would revoke the license of the affected part of the code in those circumstances, and not necessarily ALL code. I get the impression that they would even be willing to create another tarball with everything except the code in question...
*sigh* ...and what's wrong with that?
What do you want? The entire desktop environment and all of your applications to be free source?
This is already available with GNOME and the FSF applications. And we all know how much better that software is than anything Apple sells.
Apple clearly thinks they have an opportunity to make a return from selling Mac OS X licenses. They might be right. They might be wrong.
You might not like it, but no one seriously disputes that they have a right to open only part of their source code.
jhw
If at this time next year they still have the same strategy, they haven't pulled the rug out from anyone and Mac OS X turns out to be Good... THEN I'll give Apple props for taking a step in the right direction.
I've seen too many about-faces from Cupertino... reserving judgement for next year's WWDC.
The only stumbling block I can see right now is the potential that MS would wake up and release their source code with an even more liberal license
Who wants to dive into the mess? It would help the WINE effort more than anything.
I don't hear developers chomping at the bit to get their hands dirty in Microsoft's code.
I have to agree with you to some degree on this, Apple has been historically bad when it comes to product roadmaps (not that any OS company has really stolen the show in this regard) especially with Rhapsody/YellowBox/MacOS X. However in fairness to Apple (and its developers) I think this years WWDC will help firm up the "Apple Roadmap". This will be the first WWDC in a long time that Apple will have a real tangible OS solution on the market, and in developers/users hands prior to the WWDC opening. Whereas in the past its been questions, questions, questions coming in and charts, graphs, promises, and more questions coming out. So with a real product going in I expect there will be some real answers coming out, not only about MacOS X server/consumer but also about Darwin.
One thing I would like to see is for Apple to open up the WWDC more. With this emphasis on community development it would be great to see WWDC more accessable. I know that last year some of the keynotes/presentations were webcast and the slide visuals from all the presentations were avalible online after the fact. However a lot of the slides were meaningless without hearing the presentation.
except the 603e desktop machines...
it was explained to me that the reason the 603e desktop machines won't work, and that the 603e portables will isn't a matter of cpu, but of chipsets.
The 603e notebooks use the same chipsets as the G3 notebooks/iMacs. Hence, the motherboard works.
The 603e desktops use a different chipset than the 8500/8600/9500/9600/G3s, so getting them to work may be problematic.
Hopefully, this release combined with my copy of Rhapsody DR2 may allow me to use my Performa 6400/180 with something besides MacOS 8.5/LinuxPPC/MkLinux/BeOS...
dennis
>Here, they can only terminate if YOU bring a suit against Apple.
>Isn't that the key difference?[...]
>Or am I misunderstanding the issue?
You are. Read it again..
They will terminate *your* license immediately if YOU bring a suit against apple, but they will also terminate it (by putting a note at its webside) in case (from memory):
a) They can't aquire the patent/rights (apparently they will try that..)
b) They can't change the code to work around it
c) is the last one -- they terminate the license with a note on the web.
TA
where are the drivers? i want drivers! i want a zilog 8530 driver! i don't want to have to port netbsd's to osfmach3. i hope they release at least some of the drivers soon.
who do you think started the mklinux project? and ported linux to osfmach3?
and ultimately, apples reasons for release the source are irrelevant, it's released and you and use it. tomarrow (wednesday) i'm porting darwin's zilog 8530 serial driver to osfmach3, if you need an example of how darwin is helping already.
The entire point of Carbon is to provide a transition to yellow box. Yellow Box == NextStep, and stevie boy isn't going to toss it.
Where are you getting your info from?
hey... wasnt quake developed on NeXT?
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
GPL'd code does have a single, specific owner -- whoever holds the copyright for it. If it didn't have a single, specific owner then isn't that the definition of public domain?
I thought you could have more than one kind of license for any given piece of software (e.g. end user licenses and site licenses, doesn't perl do something similar)?
In that case, can I release my code under the GPL and under some more commercial friendly license? What happens to code contributions at that point? Can you have two licenses whose terms are totally at odds with one another? Does all code get merged into the code base or you have a branch for the two licenses? Would a contributor have to prove that they agreed to the GPL and not the other license?
Darwin is a big step forward.
I think it will be very simpel to run Xwindows on it.
And people that are complaining about the policy to not include the GUI are forgetting that you have to pay for Motif too.
The "Hits Linux between the eyes" comment was a random potshot made by a suspiciously anonymous source. To the contrary, I'd say Apple is giving the open source model the sincest form of flattery. I swear, ZDNet isn't the only news site that needs to rein itself in.
Without any help from starwars.com, despite what the news websites told you. Every person who went to download the trailer from starwars.com was sent to an apple server. Of course, they were running solaris...
any what what apple released as open source is open source... .. (I think)
just that some of your modification might have conflict with other non open source components so you might need permission from apple to change that part
I think many mac users use linux as their secondary Os. .. Darwin some how will do some good to other opensource GNU projects like gnustep.
anyway
If their GUI was open sourced, this would be a big deal. For the lower level stuff, yeah, it's nice, but so what? Could someone please enlighten me on the functionality and technical enhancements they're adding to previously available open sourced systems?
Secondly, how will this affect Apple's MkLinux support (I'm sure this is on a faq somewhere)?
Halloween documents anyone? If Apple wants to ensure the license is valid, it must enforce it.
No. If you don't release it (or the binary), they can't touch you.
Proof would be nothing more than a one-liner in the source-code. bzip2 had its license changed from .1* to .9.*. That still leaves .1* under the GPL.
It doesn't say that. It says they may terminate YOUR right to use the software if any of the original source (ie. their *original* source code) becomes the subject of a *claim* of infringement by anyone (note they didn't mention that YOU had to make the claim) (ie. obviously this code doesn't infringe, but the GNUstep/KDE/GNOME/XXX on top of Darwin initiative(s) is taking away our (apple's) sales, so we're going to ask Joe Blow on the street corner to make a claim in court, so we can pull the license).
If they pull the source out using this clause, there will be no earlier license to keep it free under.
* Where YOUR = the License reader.
Odd that you, as a seeming Mac afficianado, would quote a person who nearly tanked the company, and was "replaced" because his management sucked so badly.
uhm which machines are those? java is still too slow for me... id'e rather just use a scripting if java speed is acceptable...
....................
This could be a useful thing to have. All the benefits of NT's central registry but still maintaining compatible UNIX style ASCII configuration files.
--
Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Check the website for my Internet
I think Netinfo could be useful
Have a look at this page at Apple about Netinfo
This could be a useful thing to have. All the benefits of NT's central registry but still maintaining compatible UNIX style ASCII configuration files.
--
Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Check the website for my Internet
See section 4.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided
under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. [...]
I certainly have no problems with Apple's 12(c), and can understand the motives behind 9.1 and the rest of 12.
I'd like to see more licenses with sections like 12(c), even the GPL, although I might restrict it to software patents. It'd help weaken the whole software patent mess.
-- Alastair
Their http://www.publicsource.apple.com/ server is barely alive..
cpeterso
www.publicsource.apple.com isn't responding, but other Apple web servers seem to run Netscape-Enterprise /3.6 on Solaris.
Funny they're are using Mac OS X Server! Why are web servers so easily melted by Slashdot?? Don't they test these things?
cpeterso
Everyone seems to be chastising Apple for "jumping on the bandwagon" or "not doing enough". Give 'em a break! They're doing more than most other commercial software companies. Apple isn't completely new to Open Source; they have MkLinux.
Look how scared Sun has been to open Java. Sun now talks about opening up Java and Solaris, but have they done much with that? Apple is making good progress for a company well-known of closed, proprietary systems! Remember that Apple makes money from hardware, so opening their software will HELP them increase software quality and mindshare!
cpeterso
So when do we find a public web site running on Mac OS X? That would make an interesting target for some /. server melting! Mac OS X is a /. virgin.. :-)
cpeterso
This makes a lot of sense. With Linux and the BSDs making the OS a commodity, Apple follows suit. What prevents someone from making their own Darwin Distro, like Red Hat? Probably not much, but the proprietary Mac GUI and Boxes are Apple's added-value. I think that is fair (and smart for Apple).
cpeterso
Would Omnigroup be running their web server on a beta release of OS X? If Apple can't get production (or even pre-release) servers for their sites, why would someone else bother yet?
cpeterso
It's steve'd. Apple is a very media savvy company, and the login site was down before the slashdot mention. Still doesn't say much for their wonderful new server os though. You can't even get a login to see the source, the server is too bogged down. sheesh!
I really don't think Apple is trying to compete with Linux. Apple realizes that Open Source is going to be the name of the game (if it isn't already). They may be behind Linux, but they are ahead of Microsoft. They just stuck a toe in the water to see if it's warm.
--
InstantCool
Wow is that true?!
--
InstantCool
Nonsense. Apple is clearly quite different from Microsoft, and the release of OS/X code proves it.
Just that it has that termination clause that Bruce Perens wrote a rant a few days ago. Basically, if the software gets challenged in a patent, Apple can remove the license at will.
excellent.... Finally, there sticking the money where there mouth is... Well done Steve..
I'm increasingly leery of all these proprietary software manufacturers who are jumping on the "Open Source" bandwagon. I think it is a Bad Sign that you can't even get past the first page of the site without consenting to their license agreement. "Open Source" *can* result in more stable code more quickly, but it's also an excuse for companies to look like Nice Guys when all they're really doing is cutting their R&D budget by getting end users to contribute free labor to their product. I suppose I just resent the idea of channelling my time and skill into refining code, which might make Apple/IBM/Netscape richer, but won't particularly benefit me or the general public, because the terms of use are still anything but free. I think Open Source can be a good thing, but it can also be a danger if it detracts attention (and programmers) away from truly free (as in free speech) software, from which everyone can benefit equally.
The danger with Open Source is that a company could decide to change the terms of the licensing at some point in the future, pulling the rug out from underneath the program's users and developers. This could NOT happen with the GPL, because GPL'd code doesn't have a single, specific owner. Richard Stallman may have written GNU Emacs, but the GPL prevents him from being able to turn around and make it into a proprietary, closed-source commercial package.
Don't get me wrong - I still think Open Source has its benefits, and I'm happy to see Apple taking a step in this direction. While I am an enthusiastic proponent of software-without-owners (for both technical and social reasons), I also realize that Rome wasn't built in a day. :D
At least this one actually requires there to be a claim of infringement, rather than just that one is "likely". I'm not sure that there is a way around this for a company the size of Apple -- they have to protect themselves if someone incorporates (inadvertantly) patented code. The way software patents are these days it could pretty easily happen. I guess the other option is to do what netscape did and spin off a separate non-profit company.
----
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
Yes, but at least here it has to get challenged -- in the IBM license it just has to appear "likely" that there will be a challenge. It seems that IBM can basically terminate the license at will by claiming that they found a patent infringement or something, whereas in Apple's case someone actually has to file suit first.
--
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
I believe this is Bruce Perens problem with the IBM Jikes license as well.
of course I'm not the lawyer, and someone else can decode the license better than I can.
I think it's sad that ESR is calling the APSL an Open Source (tm) license, even though it contains a termination clause which clearly violates the Open Source definition. We can clearly no longer trust the Open Source label.
"Apple is closed and proprietary," they keep telling us, as Apple-developed technologies are incorporated into vendor-neutral standards like IEEE 1394 and future versions of MPEG.
Oh you mean apple is going to not require licence fees for the portions of its patented QT software that make it into MPEG-4?
Apple is closed and proprietary," we keep hearing as Apple further incorporates standards and changes not-invented-here into their products...like USB and PC-style monitor connections. Or builds a case that with one finger fully reveals the system's internals.
Huh? I don't think anyone complaining about apple being closed meant that their cases were hard to open.
"Apple is closed and proprietary," they tell us, as Apple adopts a UNIX variant as the core of their OS, and makes its deepest internals accessible through open source distribution.
Internals that were already open sourced. Big fat deal.
The only things closed here and certain people's minds. Yes, Apple spent quite a few years there in the middle totally full of themselves and blind to the world. But then they grew up.
Oh yes, that would be the day they killed the clone market...
Think different? I'd settle for apple supporters who just can think.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
apple can terminate your license at ANY TIME. Meaning when they say so you have to remove the source from your machine, yet they get to keep distributing it
And what would you suggest Apple do to protect themselves?
Go read the clause again, it only speaks to the section of the original code being contested. So if a claim is brought agaist one part it does not give Apple the ability to stop distribution of the rest of it.
"terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code"
For an example of the dollar amounts that can be involved in this kind of action just look at the ColourSync suit.
If Apple gets sued for infringment and ordered to stop distributing XYZ code, then they have to stop. Without such a clause Apple would be in violation of the court order if you kept distributing your modified version of it.
Instead of just whinning about it, why not propose an alternate that satisfies your desires while still protecting Apple in the event of a suit.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
You really goota wonder if Steve Jobs is on vacation now, and he'll come back from Tahiti in a week and just say "WHAT THE #$%^?!@"
Hehe.
You're a suburbanite.
The license is a fair and equitable one, and it meets the OSD requirments.
/any/ code. All it says is that if some code they release turns out to violate a copyright, they have to close it back up. The way I read it, they can /not/ close this code up if it doesn't meet that clause. So rejoice: This code is here to stay.
/and/ your X.
Indeed it is, and the 'Terminiation Clause' that everyone was so upset about is just a statement of what is inherent in
Their actions increase the freedom of Mac developers to improve their platform.
Indeed it does! Apple will even incorporate changes we make to the kernel code into their shipping version, if they feel it improves the product. And this will definately allow developers to fine tune their applications. They can now see exactly what low-level calls will be doing, which means that they will know what situations to look out for.
If all the reports of the high web server speeds on Macs are true, this is truely awesome. We'll have access to some of the most efficient network code there is. We'll also get to see the base that X server will need to run off of, if you want to kill the Mac Finder, and run an X Server instead. Does that make all you Mac Haters happy? You can have the high speed
Matthew Walker
-- My DNA is Y2K Compliant
--
Matthew Walker
My DNA is Y2K compliant
Matthew Walker
http://www.tweeterdiet.com/ - My Diet Tracking Tool
This latter point (which I am not the first slashdotter to bring up) could be one of the strongest. An OS will not be successful in the broad market without good apps, and the ability to make more. The source gives developers a lot of confidence in stability and behavior of the underlying OS -- good for new development. The OpenStep platform was always a real pleasure to develop for, because of the superb tools and interface. (Mac OS 8, Win and Linux/X are relative bears by comparison, at least for GUI apps). This move strengthens a strong hand.
Apple's GUI is consistent and beautiful. This is something nearly every other *nix lacks, and is an especial weakness of Linux/X. You can make Linux/X look pretty decent. But consistent? Forget it. Anyone reading this can probably deal fine with inconsistent app interfaces. End users can't and won't.
So a good GUI in turn attracts end users, who (Microsoft's case shows) are very symbiotic with app developers. Is this enough for Apple to start to really challenge Microsoft? I don't think so, but it helps.
OS X is a good, stable implementation of BSD and Mach. NeXT was not just sitting on their thumbs, waiting for the money to roll in -- they did real work on the OS. (Enough to take over OS development at Apple when Apple bought them) There's a lot of work they did for OpenStep that the community hasn't yet gotten 'round to doing for open source OS's. If I had to choose an OS for, say, a dedicated screen trading app (I work in the finance industry) today, I would choose OS X. For a webserver, probably FreeBSD or Linux.
About the build environment: I would expect that most folk will have to do a lot o' tweaking to get any of this newly released code to build. Obj C isn't the issue, since gcc handles it fine (/bin/cc on Apple/NeXT has always been based on it). It's all the other cruft. Anything but an OS X machine is going to have something in the "wrong" place.
Although it would probably be pretty easy for Apple to support lots of hardware architectures (OpenStep ran on Intel, Motorola, HP-PA, SPARC, and [unofficially] PPC) I think other people's arguments about Apple needing to make their money off the hardware are valid. They won't keep people from recompiling the underlying OS on other architectures, perhaps, but it will be a long time before you see the GUI on anything but their own hardware. That's OK with me. Last week, they had open sourced nothing from OS X. This week, we've got lots of it, whatever the quibbles about licensing. The world is a better place.
OK, so who loses from this? Nobody but Microsoft. And maybe some other commercial Unix outfits, like Sun. Who benefits? Well, I count
Apple developers: obvious reasons.
Apple: more developers, better apps, maybe some free OS work.
Developers of other OS's: examples to peruse, ideas to copy, a benchmark.
- Brian K. Boonstra, Ph.D.
Thirty years ago Unix was born. In the intervening years it has migrated to nearly every system on this planet. Mac OS and Windows are new comers to this territory. They have now both taken steps into the Unix arena with OSX and NT [don't laugh; MS "bought" the DEC team that developed their Unix, VMS, and released NT as a result -- See NT Magazine vol 4, no 12].
This is My Little Bet that I'll place in a hermetically sealed jar and bury somewhere safe: In thirty years time there will be a more or less equal distribution of companies writing kernels, objects, drivers, and GUI's that match an international standard. I'll call it the Microcomputer Architectural/Interface Standard [MCAIS 1.0] of 2010. After the decade of senseless [and sometimes dangerous -- think air traffic, medicine, power distribution, etc.] battles over OS's and hardware configurations, the software and hardware communities and governments will come up with a set of standards out of necessity.
You think I've been eating bad rye bread, huh? Look at the new-fangled miracle device that revolutionized the way human beings communicate, the telephone. They all conform to a standard. Twelve identically labeled keys in a predictable pattern. A predictable placement of the earphone and microphone. An identical set of tones generated each time. I could name many other standard devices that had varied origins and configurations, but settled on a standard over time.
Funny, I didn't realize what I just did! AT&T -- Creators of UNIX and providers of telephone service.
In thirty years Apple and Microsoft may or may not be around, but computers will, and the need for them to interoperate will be paramount. However, the file recycle receptacle on the GUI in my starship will still be named "Cat Box".
FIN
The party's over
Okay, my definition of "a Unix" was really loose; a HAL or hardware dependent code sitting on top of the hardware.
Heck though, golly, didja like the rest of the polysyballic swill I sloshed? Huh?
The party's over
The worst bit, actually, is the 'postcardware' clause - you have to inform Apple of any modifications you make.
The two termination clauses are both annoying. The first means that Apple can withdraw the license at the slightest scent of a claim, and the second (12.1(c)) means that if I sue Apple because they infringed my patent on ergonomic chairs, I lose the right to run their software, which is very odd...
-- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a perl script.
Why are people with HOTMAIL acocunts so whiney?
......
Any site with this amount of traffic is gonna get killed - if not by the server, then by the bandwidth to the server.
Look, the alternatives to this new Apple open source fray are Linux and
between linux and $250 for the ability to run my MacOS apps alongside - i make enough money to pay $250 for a WebObjects server.
Right now, for $6k, i can run a medium sized company's email, web, ftp, ecommerce, etc all on one box prepackaged, and ready to go - and dont tell me that you can do with with Linux, because you can't.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
AOL is usually pretty slow this time of day...
got my account 10 minutes ago, no trouble.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Apple's servers are giving me 25k/sec downloads (i just downloaded emacs from www.publicsource.apple.com)
they aren't using linux, okay? so sue them.
some people just love to bitch about the paint job when Apple is out hanging wallpaper
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Apple should be making open hardware and open software, giving warm lunches to the poor, repair the national debt, pay for NATO troops in Kosovo, and pay off my student loans....
/., then they buy a pregonfigured Apple system.
enough with just making a semi-open operating system...
folks - like it or not - and i know you dont - clones were killing Apple Inc. Period.
Microsoft survives because it sells OSs and applications.
Intel survives because it sells hardware.
Apple survives because it sells complete systems (ever heard of the iMac?)
Like it or not (again, many here don't like it), Apple must make money. It cannot live by giving away its software (free X server) and its hardware (clones) and make Apple.com a f__ing web portal.
Apple sells system solutions - they sell tools to get tasks accomplished. Their products are computers with operating systems on them.
If their product is better than Dell's product, then buy it. If not, buy the Dell.
You people act like Dell and Gateway are hemmoraging money by actually selling closed-box systems? Guess what? Not everyone has the time nor the inclination to put together computers- they want servers and clients - tools - to get work done. If a small art company doesn't want to hire someone that would frequent
Like it or not, packaged solutions are becoming very popular - if you doubt that, check Dell, Gateway, or Compaq's stock price.
if you don't want a packaged solution and want to live in this freakzoid serenghetti plain of obscure hardware configs with marginally compatible Cyrix processors and motherboards - go ahead - but computers are tools - and for too long, the computers have been tooling us.
____
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Umm..you need a login for their Open Source site?
Anyone else see the irony here?
Let's not forget that the first WWW server was... a NeXT machine.
Umm, the releasing of the code proves nothing. Read the license. The GPL or a BSD license would have been much better. This is a publicity stunt, exactly like Microsoft would pull. MS even stated they plan to start releasing source. Apple and MS are both cut from the same mold.