Slashdot Mirror
Response to the APSL
Bruce Perens has written a
response to Apple's Public Source License (APSL). The essay discusses
reasons why the license does not consitute an open source license (ala the Debian Free Software
Guidlines (DFSG) or the Open Source Definition (OSD)). The essay has been endorsed by
the Debian Project Leader (Wichert Akkerman), and Ian Jackson, president of SPI. Many people, including myself,
feel that one of the biggest threats to the free software community is almost-free software.
"we hope that Apple can address these issues to everyone's satisfaction. "
Replace 'everyone' with 'bruce'
It should be pointed out that this is a joint
statement on behalf of Debian, and Bruce is
only one of the signatories.
Bruce's proclamation was at least partially about trying to make Eric look stupid.
WAR!
It used to be said that Amiga fans made Mac Fans look like Windows fans.
In their war of attrition against the Enemies of the Revolution, Slashdot Linux fans make Amiga fans look like Windows fans.
This whole Apple brouhaha brings to mind once again the writings of Mao Tse-tung:
"Attack dispersed, isolated enemy forces first; attack concentrated, strong enemy forces later."
Amidst all of this, I see Bruce being quite logical, carefully analyzing each case as it comes up, rather than immediate rejection (RMS) or immediate acceptance (ESR). He has offered ways that Apple's "open source" license can be improved, and IMHO probably has made the best contribution of ideas..
I think that the license termination clause needs some work.
The bit about returning modifications is wierd tho. I don't think you can enforce something that is impossible because the company ain't there any more. It just isn't your fault that this URL don't exist.
Actually RedHat is almost as strict about only free software as Debian but not quite. Caldera and SuSE are MUCH worse and they include that evil DE, KDE.
Are we forgetting something?
Apple has been developing closed systems since the company's inception. This is an old dog trying to learn new tricks. I, personally, give them mad props for taking a step in this direction. They're being very cautious right now, they have to be. If you stop bashing them they may actually go further, instead of deciding that the Open Source movement is just a bunch of Linux snobs and not worth their time. It sounds to me like these so-called open source advocates are a little closed minded. That's just my opinion.
As long as everyone KNOWS the license is pseudo-OSS, I don't see what the trouble is. It would be an obvious problem, though, if somebody wrote an add-on for some code thinking the code was OSS when it was not. ESR has just contributed to this problem. Oops.
This is why standard, widely-used licenses like the GPL and the BSD license are cool. Such are much better than a "rubber stamp" that goes on all sorts of licenses (like "open source.") A standard license is always the same thing, verbatim; a stamped license still has to be read word-for-word, even if the stamp is correctly applied.
You can point Apple's error out to them, but it's their license. If they choose not to change it, it's their choice -- and in that case, before you write add-ons, keep the license's differences in mind. It might be worth it anyway, or it might not. Watch Apple's stock and judge for yourself.
(Of course, I rarely write addons to other people's code; I prefer to write my own code. Then _I_ can set the terms of the license.)
-- An Ayn-onymous coward
Don't expect any "Well actually now that you put it that way I think Apple is trying to do a good thing..." type responses...
The greatest enemy? Ourselves, ya' morons.
I call it Freedomware
Not much more to say.
/.er's can't agree on the possibility that the sun will be coming up tomorrow or not.
Then again, I'd like to point out most
I'm enjoying watching everyone whiping themselves into such a wild flury, trying to bash apple more, or give them a pat on the back. Or both.
God forbid apple make a right move.
>Bruce's proclamation was at least partially about trying to make Eric look stupid.
...as though Eric needs any help with this.
I couldn't agree more with these sentiments.
If you don't like the license then don't touch the code.
PUT UP or SHUT UP.
Apple has made an effort - if encouraged they will do more in the future. If we throw it back in their faces they're going to stop.
finally a voice of reason in here..
This proves that RMS is better than ESR
I kind of liked the Amiga community circa 1986; they were excited about their computers to the point of being zelots, but they didn't have all the social/idealogical baggage dragging along behind them.
Flamming aside, this is exactly what companies need. Our help.
:)
Did everyone think big companies would get it all righ the first time out? I hope not. It will take trial and error to get big companies to fit nicely within this new culture.
Hopefully a less socialist Open Source movement will spring up around Apple, and those of us more interested computers than minding other people's business can get back to hacking.
Because it is fact that the license can be terminated, revoking our right to use any of the code we create for this OS, it is stupid to even write any code for it. This is just apples to attempt to 1.) jump on the latest publicity band wagon via semi-opening their source, and 2.) get the open source community to write code for them. Simple case of this stunt being best of both worlds for Apple.
My suggestion is to simply to write code for this garbage semi open source release.
unless apple changes the termination clause dramatically or removes it completely, i for one will stick with Debain GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd
The requested modifications are small.
What is the problem?
damnit i ment to NOT write code for it
The whole reason for apple wanting the bazaar is for free development of OS X. The reason the bazaar works is because the developers still own the rights to their hard work. In fact, everybody owns to rights to their hard work. With apple's license, the bazaar won't work because the developers don't own the rights to their own work, apple does.
So, in the end, don't worry about it. It doesn't matter if the users don't know the difference between almost-free software and free software. The developers do know, and it's the developers that make the whole system work. The system will correct itself. Nobody is going to contribute their hard work just to have apple own the rights to it, and in the end, apple will be forced to change the license.
Look what happened to Qt. It was almost free, and it has been forced to evolve into a free license in order to survive against the religious ferver over gtk, and impossible competition with the likes of Harmony. They are lucky they changed their license before Harmony got off the ground, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to compete.
How long do you think it will be before a GPL'd clone of all the non-free stuff in OS X is available. I bet their is a project already started...
I could not disagree more with you and your post on this Rob. I'm not a strong Apple supporter, nor am I a Linux uber-alles kinda guy.
/. to welcome them and help them move towards a common ground.
/.'ers move towards finding it.
However, I understand your passion for wanting to protect the interests of the free-software movement. But the conflicts of ESR, RMS and their differing opinions and organizations are doing more to harm the movement than good.
The free software must find a way to involve the economic reality of our world. Software programmers who love to program should be set free to do so. They also need to eat. This is why Microsoft has so many programmers. You never go hungry working for MSFT.
The open source community must evolve beyond such premadonna attitudes and embrace newcomers. Especially newcommers with a lot to add. The Mozilla liscense will likely be modified by AOL to include this. IBM includes this. These are corporations reacting to change. They are taking small steps...and it is the responsibility of organiztions like
The world will not become a programmers paradise where all the software is open source. People need to make a living. Within those constraints there is common ground. I certainly hope that
It is that "baggage" that will sustain Linux.
If you look at the SPI web page, it says that the "OpenSource" trademark is managed by ESR. If ESR told Apple their license is OpenSource, then that is good enough. If ESR and BP get into a tiff every time some commercial company releases some source code, then the name will become meaningless very fast. It is only a matter of time before people start inventing new "Free Software" terms. "Software Libre" anyone?
I am not arguing that APSL is good or bad. I am arguing that the self-proclaimed leaders of our community need to get their shit together.
Ken
By the time you read this, it'll be gone!
It's ok for Apple to license their software as they want, but it's not ok to claim it's open-source when it's clearly not. ESR doesn't seem to care either about free software or OSD, but just support companies to make their code semi-free...
I guess the powers that be didn't like my comment about crayons and shrink-wrapped redhat boxes.
And I guess they're coke drinkers too...
Welcome to the real world. Not everyhting is perfect.
I'm just glad the source is out there, legally. It's Apple's code, they can distribute it how they please. There's nothing wrong with Apple closing up the tree if they want to. It's their product, they've spent millions in development (Well NeXT did at least), they want to make sure that open source additions to the code are in line with their business plan, and they want to make sure that competitors cannot take advantage of them. They ARE out to make money, they answer to their stockholders, not the Open Source community. You dont agree? Dont work on the projects.
This whole thing is very simple. Can you obtain the source legally at no cost? Then it's "Open". Are you forced to operate without source code due to rewstrictive licenses and prohibitive pricing? Then it's "Closed". Everything else is splitting philisophical hairs. You dont agree? Dont work on the projects.
The ASPL is likely the future of software, a compromise which allows the company to still retain control, but allowing users hands on input into the future of the product. You dont agree? Dont work on the projects.
Destroyed? Sensible?
~heavy long exagerated sigh~
If OSI can withstand the IBM liscense, it can withstand Apple's.
Your comment makes me wonder about the religious zealotry of software lovers..."If the community does not do exactly what has been done here we will be destroyed."
Can you not evolve or are you a creationist (~grin~)? Or do you want to eat soup and hang out in college the rest of your life? Apple and IBM are trying to find a way to make money and incorporate the concepts of the open source movement. This is attempt number one. Your reactions will determine if there are more. They are trying to evolve.
Perhaps you should as well.
I liked this one. I like my Debian also :)
Was kind of tired of all those blaoted, fluffy
articles in the media. ( especialy the idiotic
"fight RMS" war cry that is getting fashionable )
but it's not ok to claim it's open-source when it's clearly not.
It clearly is open source. It's just not Open Source (TM).
"(a) You hereby grant to Apple and all third parties a non-exclusive, royalty-free license, under Your Applicable Patents and other intellectual property rights owned or controlled by You, to use, reproduce, modify, distribute and Deploy Your Modifications of the same scope and extent as Apple's licenses under Sections 2.1 and 2.2; and"
IOW, it's just saying that any code you submit can be used, distributed, and modified by everyone, but you still own the copywrite. Just like the GPL. Nowhere does it say that Apple gains ownership of your code.
The GPL was specifically constructed to preserve privacy. You don't have to disclose more widely than you distribute.
When it comes to Free Software, "Almost Free" is
worthless. And that is what Open Source (tm)
allows. Open Source(tm) is and always was a Bad
Idea. Get back to the Free Software roots that
have served us so well to this point. We don't
need to change for the corporate world. The
corporate worls is what needs changing.
Anon.
People have the right to talk about it.
It is called freedom of speech. Yes everyone
is free to write his/her licence but
also those who forsee problems with it
are free to tell the _others_.
If you don't like it then _don't_listen !
No one forces you to listen.
( I thought even kids new that. Hm... )
The Economic reality is in the middle ground. You dont have to work for MS to make money off of MS software, and you dont have to work for Apple to make money off of the Mac. Apple has the advantage now that people who work on their products have the ability to improve them rather than just swearing at them. These people will continue to make monbey in the current roles, but their power has been increased.
It is about politics. ESR and RMS have been sparring for a while now. And the goals of the open-source movement have suffered as a result.
/.'ers should learn as well.
Apple has already spent a great sum of money bringing the code this far. They have an economic interest that far outweighs that of a single programmer--a legal responsiblity to the stockholders of AAPL.
The changes requested are not realistic when considered from that light. Perhaps as the world grows it may be so. But the best way for Jobs to lose that interim title would be to release all their software free to the world shortly before a stockholder meeting.
As ESR stated in the linux world article, "capitalism and the hacker gift culture are learning how to complement and support each other."
They are learning.
Yeah, but Open Source Definitions are same as
Debian Free Software Guidelines. So, program
can't be Open Source(R) without also being
free software as we know it.
If the audience here is any indication of the Open Source community in general then Apple shouldn't have bothered releasing their code. I've never seen such an ungratefule, intolerant, ignorant and openly hostile bunch of people in my whole life.
Talk about casting pearls before pigs!
>Ummm. You should remember that fanaticism is NOT a good thing. It usually leads
/.er's to the notorious zealotry of the Amiga faction and dictator Mao Tse-tung was intended as a compliment? Clue up, chum.
>to closed mindedness.
That was the point of my post. Where would you get the idea my comparing
Darwin is free software. MacOS X Server is not. Both contain the same (BSD 4.4 on Mach) core, and as MacOS X Server gets updated, Apple will update Darwin. As the OSS community makes improvements to Darwin, Apple will roll these into MacOS X Server. I don't see how anyone loses. The OSS community gets an OS with the development resources of a large company behind it, Apple gets free code, and users of both MacOS X Server and Darwin get a better OS.
Well, there might be some losers... Certain monopolistic companies that refuse to accept change come to mind.
Let me get this all straight:
- Open Source is open source.
- open source is not necessarily Open Source.
- Free software is Open Source
- free software is not necessarily Open Source or open source.
- Open Source is not necessarily Free
- open source is free
- Open Source is free
- open source is not Free.
It's clear that the people up top are more concerned with posturing and politics than how foolish they all look bickering about something you'll never be able to explain to most people. We as a community need to take a step back and ask the hard questions. Do we want software to be Free or just free. Do we want source to be Open or just open. Do we really lose anything tangible by making that compromise?
Yes, Bruce is an egomaniac, but it's far more constructive to seperate the man from the message, imho. The real strength of the open source movement is not about linux, it's about ideas.
E.G
"When all is said and done, more is said than done"
-Ben Franklin
At the Mac OS X Server introduction,
Eric Raymond, president of the Open Source Initiative (and author of "The Cathedral and the Bazaar") spoke, and stated that Apple's license strictly conforms to the standards put forth by the open source community. To be blunt, he said that Apple "gets it." In fact, Eric stated that Apple's license is much better than Sun or IBM's licenses, which merely mimic open source.
Brain Behlevdorf, co-founder of the Apache web server project, took the stage and said he was very pleased with Apple's decision to bundle Apache with Mac OS X Server and Darwin. In fact, he said Apple has been participating in Apache development in good faith for the past year, not only for Apple-specific issues, but also those that affect the community as a whole.
Of course it's a PR stunt. Apple is a FOR PROFIT comapany that depends on many things to sell it's products not the least of which is image.
The problem is all of these fools trying to impose some kind of moral standard on Apple. They dont care. They'll just as quickly take all that source of their website if the FUD keeps flying. Apple has made a bold move and all anyone does is sit around and point out how it's inferior to Linux and GNU. Of course it is. Those are different products existing for different reasons. Linux and GNU are around as an example of a utopian OS. Apple is trying to sell computers.
Does anyone have a mirror of the site? The thing is toast.
thanks,
bd
You are right ! :)
Open souce is working for Apple for free.
Free software is about preserving the freedom
for yourself and the others.
Of cource you are free to do the first
and I am free to do the second,
Hey, freedom is good
Hey guys, dont sit flaming here. Download some code and work on it. By the way, what will programmers eat if they are not working in a company like Apple(or microsoft or any company) if they give every thing for free. At least buy a pepsi before you get something free. You Morons WAKE UP..Why would they want to free that they have developed..right thing there are freeeing all thet was free....sticking to your so-called open source..RIVER WATER BACK TO RIVER..come give me your job form me free.. can you do that..ahh#$*&.
A good one.
Now, imagine if the Open Source community came to rely on some almost-open-but-not-really code. If Apple felt like it, they could yank the rug out of under us:
They sure could. The part most everyone in this thread is missing is that Apple is providing this source as a service to their customers not to the open source community.
Apple customers benefit from a more robust kernel, from a netinfo port to other OS's, more eyes looking at the code. As long as that benefit exists, Apple wont take the source away.
This whole thing is very simple. Can you obtain the source legally at no cost? Then it's "Open". Are you forced to operate without source code due to rewstrictive licenses and prohibitive pricing? Then it's "Closed". Everything else is splitting philisophical hairs. You dont agree? Dont work on the projects.
/. sense. We care about being able to work better and in a more efficient manner. This means making money for the groceries and to pay for the kid's college... this means being pragmatical about these issues. Of course, if you're a student or sponging off someone else, so you don't need a paying job and can waste your time writing philosophically correct free/open software, you won't understand what I mean. Just wait 20 years or so...
Right!!! This is a huge step forward for Apple and the Mac community - especially the Mac developer community. Who cares what the Linux community thinks? MacOS X Server is not Linux. We don't care about philosophical hairsplitting what is "free" or "open" in the canonical
Both as a Mac Developer (since 84!) and as an Apple stockholder I applaud Apple's initiative and the APSL. If they hadn't put in the 9.1 clause a stockholder's suit would certainly be called for. The law requires them to protect their assets for their stockholders.
Yes, most of what they posted is available in other forms... so what? If you want those other forms, and the license that goes along with them, get them elsewhere by all means. But whining that this or that is not exactly to your liking is like going to a new Chinese restaurant that just opened and complaining they don't serve Mexican food.
Hopefully Apple will just ignore all these stupid discussions, and go ahead opening more stuff gradually.
Debian seems to feel that they cannot comply with the license terms, so it's better if they simply don't distribute KDE. I believe you can thank the Trolls for that situation.
After seeing the latest incarnation of GNOME, I don't really have any desire to use KDE anyhow.
An old saying:
"Don't kick a gift horse in the teeth." >
He, he, me kiking a horse, he heeee...
I'm not letting that hoofy dinosaur anywhere
near me. You take it, but dont complain if
you loose _your_ teeth.
By the time you read this, it'll be gone!
I would hope so, considering it's completely off topic and contributes nothing to the conversation.
Unfortunately, it wasn't gone quick enough...
--
Jason Eric Pierce
Okay folks, I feel the need to point out that everyone here (broad generalization) is saying, for all intents and purposes, "If it ain't what I'm using, it's crap!" Has anyone here actually used OS X yet? Have you actually had any chance to see what kind of support Apple is willing to throw behind this opensourcing? No, none of you have. Because it hasn't happened yet. You're all freakin' insane. Besides, if you're not using LinuxPPC on a POwerCenterPro 210 your comments don't matter at all...
Who cares if it's not the Open Source Definition or the Debian Free Software Guideline? It's just a piece of software. It's not a religion, it's not a political movement, it's one type of development model. All this stuff about how all software should match the Open Source Definition is crap. Our world will not crumble apart because of proprietary software. Too many people seem to be under the impression that non open source software is going to ruin our way of life. Get real, if you want open source software, go write it. Apple doesn't have to agree with the OSS development model, and if they don't, it's not the end of the world.
I think the term Open Source already is meaningless. The whole thing it suppossed to be about freedom, but everyone is making it out like if we don't all go with Open Source, then the world as we know it will end. Freedom - the ability to do whatever the hell you want. Open Source - do it our way or you are wrong.
It's just code people...
First the KDE-Gnome war, now this!
What do you want??? What has happend?
Apple makes a little step in the right direction and instead of saying "ahh nice to see, but I don't care about Apple anyway!" you start again to complain and complain and complain.
Your are not happy as long as there is nobody to flame!
You guys are starting to make me sick!
Marco
That makes no sense. Let's take the pepsi example. Having one macosx is not the equivalent of going to the store and having only pepsi, it is the equivalent of going to the store and having only Pepsi-Co pepsi versus having Pepsi-Co pepsi, and Jo Bob's Pepsi. I personally don't think that is a big deal, because Jo Bob is free to make his own soda. And hey, maybe Jo Bob can work on his version of Pepsi and then give it back to Pepsi-Co so when you go to buy Pepsi, it will be even better!!!
As for the dictator stuff, WTF? It's a piece of software... That's all... The only time I could see dictatorship is with one Operating system that controls everything, NOT one VERSION of an OS that competes with other os's.
I've been trying for 45 minutes to read
Bruce's response, but judging from the
traffic I will probably have to wait until
next week. I will be obliged if someone could
mirror it. (Rod?)
The suggested changes are minimal.
Just tightening up termination clauses.
I don't see any reason that Apple should not agree, unless they truly do have subversive plans.
I can't get through
Is there a lawyer in the house? I need someone I can get a credible analysis from in order to write an article for my website about this APSL. I posted a while back that there would be this problem with the open source caving in, when the Troll Tech's QPL (for QT) came about.
But I don't wanna write the article without some solid legal facts.
My website is at Linux Is For Everyone. Thanks
So who cares if apple is concerned about the community? Do you expect any company that decides to open up there source to be doing it because they care about the community? No. It's a business. Business decisions are made because they benefit the company, not because they benefit the consumer. A lot of times, benefiting the customer benefits the company and vice versa. Apple has done this because it helps them with development, and to make a better product. A better product in turn benefits the consumer, as well as the company. It also allows anyone to add something they want to the OS. If you don't want to do that because it's a commercial piece of software, then fine, dont'. It's your choice. I think it's great that developers can now have a clue what's going on inside, debug faster, add features, and enhance application development. So what if it benefits apple to?
I couldn't agree more. Apple doesn't HAVE to reveal any of their source to anyone. The fact that they've released it at all - even under a bit of a limited license - is good news.
I agree that Bruce's letter was well-written, and had some valid points. But shouldn't we be happy that we got anything at all? I mean, if you're starving and someone gives you a hamburger instead of steak, do you refuse it?
Just my two bits.
Some people seem to think we shouldn't care what licenses the various companies opened source is placed under. Some people think the opensource community should be grateful for what we get. But the licenses arent issues that can be ignored.
The traditional opensource licenses have several advantages that the various commercial licenses dont.
They are in general compatible with the idea of code sharing between codebases(well, at least in the -> GPL direction, altho not in reverse...). The quantities are well known, any experienced free software developer knows what is possible to combine and what is not. With these new licenses, who knows? Can we take mozilla code and integrate it in Jikes code and toss in some Apple source in there? Or do we get an undistributable (or even illegal) mess? Is it even worth trying to untangle the legalities?
If there is no possiblity of code sharing or version forking, the software is of little boon to the free software society as a whole. Apples release is of interest to the MacOS X community, since they're more likely to get bugfixes contributed, but the rest of the community? The rest of the community needs to be careful about even looking at the code, since looking is enough to be legally contaminated and unable to work on similar free software projects. So there is little or no boon to projects trying to ensure protocol compatibility with the released products.
Further, the free software licenses such as the GPL, BSD and MIT licenses are known, or at least much rehashed, legal quantities. No company using GPL code has to my knowledge failed to abide by the license terms in the end. Some have tried, but always ended up either buying out the code or releasing their improvements, which makes it likely their legal departments have gone over the GPL and found it difficult to challange in court. The new licenses are still largely unknown, except they are very biased in favour of the initial developer.
But they have the right to license their code anyway they want. They should however be aware that these licenses are not likely to 'harness the collective IQ of thousands of individuals'. I, for one, would not dedicate any significant development support to code licensed in bias of the originator. I'd contribute bugfixes for software I need everyday, but not any significant effort. When I do free software it's for the long term good of free software, not for the short term profits of a company that might be gone in a decade.
In the end, I hope the companies realize this. If they want a free lunch they'll be disappointed. If they're hoping for the adulation of the free software community they'll be disappinted.
But if all they're hoping for is to satisfy their customers through more bugfree software, then they're on the right track.
It allows tweaks to code for which we may have temporary need -- before (L)GPL versions are available.
I agree with most of this.
But there is a _good_ solid reason for going open source in this way. Right now, there is a memory bug patch for MacOS 8.5.1 going around on the net. A good number of people are experimenting and playing around with it.
Having 8.5.1 on the new APSL would be an awesome thing to get this bug nailed quickly and efficiently rather than lots of people just having to be unsupported patch guinea pigs.
MacOS users, despite paying for their OS, are still a user group community who have members who would gladly code to improve their own product.
It may not solve everyone's dreams of free software utopia, but the concept and the community of Linux can be copied, duplicated, and enjoyed by a profitable company and it's customers. After all, how much different is Linus+RedHat+VAResearch from Apple or any of the other big computer companies if Apple actually uses the model they've adopted?
Who actually cares about what Debian and GNU have to say...
I do not give a damn about if it's "genuine" "original" Open Source or whatever.. I don't need MRS to decide anythjing for me (same goes for ESR)... I am happy that there is an OS that is actually usable for everyone and that I can use drag and drop, Unicode and all the comfort of a tightly integrated GUI... Not to mention the Object Framework and WebObjects... If I got the source and can solve annoyances I'm ok with it...
It is not completely mach cause there is stuff added to it (I just looked) and there are a couple of nice things...
About the license:
I have no problem posting my modifications to Apple (unless they're just to use internally)... I understand why it is like that and I can see no honest reason to argue against that... I think people against that clause want something sneaky...
About the termination clause... Well... Ok I agree it is a major annoyance... I think if the termination was limited to the affected code it would make it acceptable...
Anyway...
It is a good thing and I understand Apple is just sending a trial balloon... They might change this stuff if all goes well...
I can't blame them for that... They had to cancel the clones licenses cause they were just bloodsuckers! And beleive me they were... They just don't want to be double crossed by anyone... you know... it is not like they are really back at full power...
It is still a good thing: Unix for everyone and with the code!!!!
NeXT was awesome for it's time. OSX server is based on a lot of NeXT technologies, but it's not the same thing. And if you'll read the apple page, you will see that Darwin and OSX are NOT the same thing. OSX is apples server os. Darwin is a DIFFERENT os based on the internals of OSX. It does NOT include a lot of things, like a GUI interface. And yes, check out www.macosrumors.com, people have already gotten darwin to boot, and are already looking into implementing an alternate interface.
Oh no, let's just pray other companies don't start letting us see their source code. That would be horrible. Just imagine being able to fix bugs on windows, man I hope it never comes to that.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy the polluting the idea of free software stuff. What is the idea? Freedom, isn't it? What kind of freedom do we have when they tell us that their way is the only right way to do it? The spirit of free software, as you put it, is just one way to develop software. It will never be polluted unless the people who support it let it. It's one way of doing it, why is it that all other ways are bad?
The 'Open Source community' isnt helped any by code licensed this way. You cant use it for any other projects which renders it pretty much of little value to the community as a whole. The same goes for most other non-standardly opensource licensed software. The real value of those OSS releases is measured by for how many users the code in a standalone sense is worth. For Mozilla, a large amount of users have use for the application in itself, and an interest in seeing it as good as possible, even though code sharing may be problematic. For MacOS X, most was available before, the rest isnt widely used anyway. So why wonder over the not overly enthusiatic reception?
The ones who stand to benefit are MacOS X customers and Apple, who will get better code with faster bugfixes. I dont see them complaining much.
No, it wont help groups like LinuxPPC open the platform. Anyone involved in projects related or similar to any incompatibly licensed code better keep their eyes away from that code or they'll be legally tainted and wont be able to work on the free project anymore. Looking at someone elses code to see how something is done binds you to their license just as much as cut'n'paste. If you're working with something under a different incompatible license it doesnt matter if the source is freely available or costs a fortune, you cant use it either way.
I think one of the main problems that happened with the "hippies" was that it became more of an expected thing, and many people weren't in it because they had strong believes, but rather they were just following the herd. Plus the expected was often a bit extreme for people to make it a long term lifestyle. Add the fact more and more got hooked on hard drugs which made the movement lose even more people.
I don't see Linux dying out, I just see a lot of people are here and spitting out information they read from their idles because it's sort of the hip fad now, for the computer "geeks." They pretend to be so anti-corporate in ways but are probably dialing into their major ISP which uses AT&T lines with email accounts at hotmail. Then when a few people start complaining how something isn't perfect, everyone else starts agreeing because everyone else does. "Bruce says it sucks. Apple sucks. Apple is evil. Hand me a cigarette."
People also seem to think they all know what the best business decisions are. "Why did big bad apple stop making the apple ii???" The only real reasons people can have for being upset for many of their "poor" business decisions is brand loyalty. How does the fact Apple canned the newton really effect you, even if you owned one. Can you not buy a Palm Pilot? Is the Newton you bought somehow not useful now? As far as all of the cancelled OS promises... as far as things work out for the better, I don't see what the problem is. What is being done with Mac OS X is probably better than where Rhapsody was going. Why did they not develop a Mac OS X version for PCs? There could be any number of reasons, but perhaps it's that they're mainly a hardware company and by doing that no one would buy their hardware. Bad? Yes in a way, but at the same time, it's good that there is a major platform competitor with PCs so that there is competition there for evolution.
I don't support the extreme viewpoint that Linux is good for every single thing and is the best OS in everyway, even if every software company ported their apps to it. I am all for as many OSs as possible.
Linux zealots do take the top prize for the most annoying. With the combination of software bigotry, there is the extra extreme ideology that no OS company can really satisfy. Even if they somehow did, people would be complaining the company is making money and they're a business.
I just think a lot of the people who post on slashdot now are rather young or stupid. Luckily these people probably don't make up the majority of Linux users, and in a few years, when hopefully they can think clearly, they'll be changing their tune.
But I don't know, for a while slashdot seemed to be allies with Apple, then I guess Microsoft bashing kind of got unpopular so now everyone wants to complain about Apple, even when they're doing good things, although it doesn't live up to seem people's perfect world fantasies. Scrutinize every flaw like it's a huge matter (anyone else see the posts where the people were going hysterical thinking apple trademarked the term "open source" and complaining how they're trying to ruin the open source movement.
Or how everything Apple says is pure lies. There is a thing called marketing a product, but none of the information they used was false. People seem t try to stretch some things to be the way they want to see them.
Why do I read this still? It's like entertainment in the same style as Jerry Springer (which i personally dislike). Idiots fighting with each other, totally missing the point of everything. Just looking to complain and fight with each other, except in the Apple topic news stories, it's extremely one sided.
It'd be really funny if they pulled their APSL deal. Would everyone be happy then? No! You can never be happy here if it isn't about Linux. Everyone's out to get you!
Anyway, I got caught up in that. The people with the biggest zealotness and paranoia are probably still living with their parents or in college.
The whole point of the article we're discussing was to point out *exactly* why it is NOT Open Source!
Seems to be a fundamental conflict here between those who see Open Source as a mechanism for gaining access to source code [and all the benefits flowing from that, including better apps/os's, faster dev cycles, etc.] and those who understand Open Source as a deeper philosophical position, with implications greater than just code performance, reliability, and maintainability. Many of the flamers here seem to fall into the first category ["Look, they're letting us see the code!"].
Before condemning Apple, it would be useful to have some idea of how the APSL looked at first, and how it changed over time.
It's quite likely that what we're seeing
isn't the first draft. It would be nice
to know how the license developed, and
what effect, if any, ESR and other
non-Apple people had on the wording.
There seems to be some sentiment that
ESR just rubber-stamped his approval
of an agreement that Apple came up
with. Is this actually the case? Or
did ESR actually work with Apple in
writing up the license?
Who's got the revision history?
I am reviled by these `free software' fanatics and their Utopian drivel.
Apple is opening up the source code to its OS, and that has convinced me to consider its hardware platform as a replacement for my current Intel systems. It was a good move by Apple, and I applaud the company.
The fact that Apple's licence doesn't please the mullah's of the `free software' religion is of no consequence, in my mind. They object to BSD as well, but because it's too free. Underlying it all is, I think, a childish dislike of anything that doesn't support their efforts to proselytise users to certain Linux distributions and GNU.
Imagine if all the programs handling the HTTP, IRC, FTP, etc. protocols, were licensed in a way which allowed the original company to revoke your right to use that software.
The GPL wouldn't allow for that. You're an idiot man. Such a scenario hasn't occurred because open source is a good deterrent.
APSL is a foot in the door for the corporate state to control who gets access and who does not. Get a clue!
RH employs some of the best talent out there today in their RHAD labs - they _pay_ people to make Linux better for everyone else in the world.
Know what else is right about RH? They give free CD copies to anyone who authors free software. They have the perfect balance of business and free software.
I admire them, personally.
BTW, Bruce worked for Pixar a while back (i think he is on the credits to Renderman). I was talking to an old Pixar friend of mine, she told me Perens left because he was mistreated by Jobs (talk about the guys big mouth).
Anyways Perens quit Pixar. And now this railing againts Jobs's announcement. I know this is entering the POMO(post modern)-psycho-analysis realm but there is more than meets the eye.
Apple is doing something good. They are testing the open source crowd.
If you keep on bashing Apple and their license they might remove it. Some of you might not care about that I guess. Apple has taken a step in the right direction.
If people want to help the Darwin project, help! If not - then don't.
If the problem is the license then mail them about it, tell them what's wrong! Maybe they'll change it, maybe they won't.
If they do get approved and get to use the Open Source mark - well then they can use the Open Source mark.
But, If you wan't to(some of you seems to lean in that direction), you could just scare them away from the whole thing with opening up their sourcecode.
Just stop bashing and whining about the Open Source and Apple. Tell Apple what is wrong! They might fix it.
That would be bad. But let's take the following two cases:
1) Apple doesn't open anything up and keeps on business as usual.
2) Apple opens up the source, but 5 years from now terminates it.
In case 1, things are no different than now. In case two, they have the help of the community to produce better software. It would suck to see it end, but if the goal is to produce better software, then it's better than nothing at all.
Let's face it, apple probably has a bunch of lawyers sitting around trying to figure out what it all means. The reason that clause is there is not so that they can rip off the community, it's because the lawyers are not familiar with the nature of open source software and thus feel a need to do what they learned in law school - protect the product. That clause is intended to prevent people from developing and selling a Mac OSX clone. They are a commercial company, this is how they thnk.
Actually from being on the various Linuxppc mailing lists I don't think MkLinux has been dropped. The only thing that seems to really have happened is that webpages for it don't get updated often. The same thing happens to Linuxppc webpages (other than lists.linuxppc.org). Just because a webpage doesn't change doesn't mean the project has been abandonned.
It relies on QT. You can find its license here.
It prohibits modifications. Absolutely not GPL.
As an aside, if Troll Tech were to be made bankrupt, the license will switch to a BSD license. So die Troll! (Last sentence is a JOKE people )
The "Linux Community". WTF's that? So many
people have migrated to Linux lately, it's
all become a big melting pot. There are too
many people too use such a broad-brush attack
like that. Don't judge Linux by what's said
on slashdot. Judge Linux on how well it performs
because that *is* Linux. Seems Mac users aren't
used to freedom, seeing how giddy they have
become over this underhanded offering Apple has
presented. It's sad too see how blind people become after having been oppressed. The angry responses from apple fans I have seen here proves that they have no concept of freedom or the obligations a company has when it proclaims itself to be "open source."
And what makes you think that everyone who is defending Apple is a Mac user? I don't use a Mac at all, and have no reason to. I wrote the comment that the guy responded to, that you responded to.
After rereading what I wrote I think I could have written what I wanted to say better. I really got off subject into cloudy areas.
After reading the posts here, I think this is probably the best Apple can do as far as being open, while protecting themselves from lawsuits. I think a lot of people are adding their own stretched out interpretations just so they can continue to hate Apple since everyone else seems to.
They could have done nothing at all. They didn't have to do what they did. In fact, if they read this website they'd probably wish they never did because it appears they've somehow made more enemies by making a positive move, than friends. If their lisence is sooo against your ideal ideology, then don't program for it or use it. Pretty simple eh? Does their move hurt anyone? Does it help in anyway? Things could always be more perfect. I could complain about Linux based lisences and how they aren't open enough. And even if they got more open, there'd still be complaining.
I am amazed at the number of Pro-Apple posts in the last couple of Apple articles. It seems a couple of people are working overtime responding to everyone (including themselves), judging from their language. Count the "ya"'s, and wierd quotations. Looks like we have two companies at work on /.
Some of MacOSX is Open Source. To do anything much useful with it you will need stuff that isn't. The lovely GUI (I want, I want) isn't. Apple maintains Microsoft-like control of its overall system.
Apple's Open Source is a marketing ploy. Its very sad to see this kind of exploitation of consumers.
Stupid people will buy it and give all their cash to Apple's "Open Source Revolution", which is really a sort of protracted hard-sell brainwashing.
Flame this! Give it some publicity you Crab-apple flunkies!
ROFLMAO
You are getting better.
even more sideways
Fellow AC
and the opinion of the board will not necessarily have any effect on Eric Raymond's behavior. Well, that's just great. No wonder you left this loser behind.
They'll burn anyone foolish enough to contribute to their software. Just say no.
Too right... :-(
I almost never bother with the reader's comments
to SlashDot articles because the level of maturity
is so low.
Maybe with the new features of SlashDot, we might sometime be able to set up filters to cut down
responses to those with something worthwhile to
say.
The upside would be that you wouldn't even
be reading this article, since it's from an
`Anonymous Coward'.
The downside would be that the childish venom and
cheerleading would still be there, I'd just have
the option to shut it out.
Wrong.
Darwin is more like Linux without XWindows installed.
Which is still pretty useful. It will become
more useful once XWindows is running on it.
Or Sun-like control. Or DEC-like control. Or. Or. I know you want a beautiful GUI for free. If it was so easy, people wouldn't argue over gnome vs. KDE vs. good ol' command line, dagnabit!
They pay a lot of engineers a lot of dollars so they can sell computers that Grandma can use. Along the way, people who just wanted to USE the machines found they liked them, too. The others used DOS. Everything else sucked. Bill Gates was god. Now Linux/OSS is god. Everything else sux. Whine whine whine. People use different computers without asking you first, or worse, not giving them to you for free becAuSe YoU'rE sO kEwL.
They were LEACHING when using products of OSS without giving their modifications back. They've now given back. You want a GUI for free, so you bitch. Write your own damned GUI, genius-boy. Oh, can't? Then pay someone who can, or shut up.
If you think Microsoft is going to suddenly give away all its software for free and adopt a Red Hat model (or better yet, simply become a nonprofit and not charge for even distros so they're part of the NuSocialist Way) overnight, you're insane.
Apple, the most proprietary company on Earth, just opened up. Not totally, but they did it. That kEwL DOS-maker that you liked five years ago hasn't. Neither is perfect. So, are you going to bash the one that is closer to your ideal or actually see if you've got the programming balls to do something?
By the way, lots of people need a cheap, powerful UNIX in the NT pricerange that the suits will accept. There's lots of stuff you can do with it, since there's a nice, standard base to start from with a commercially supported feature-enhanced distro, but customizable when needed. Lots of specialty firms that have been dropping UNIX for NT would gladly drop lame-o NT for this kind of system.
In sum, quit yer bitchin' and either code or get a job and buy what you can't.
Part of freedom is the freedom to specify the license under which your software is distributed.
And by the way, if it weren't for those
bastard corporations, there'd be no money
to fund the likes of Stallman. Even his
genius grant probably came from funds invested in the stock market. No corporations -> no stock market -> no genius grants. No companies -> no jobs -> nobody who can afford to donate to FSF. Etc.
Don't forget it's in their best interest to make money (yes, they still make money doing this... darwin and the commercial mac os x server are two seperated things). Pulling a stunt like all of these paranoid lunatics think they plan on doing would but like pointing a bazooka to their head and firing.Taking the efforts of hundreds or even thousands of programmers right from their hands and then sticking them in the back is much worse than killing off a product line is just discontinuing something they worked on and created. Everyone would be mad at them and the press would milk that issue dry. Apple would then be able to kiss it's ass goodbye. Apple is trying to lure customers (at least they really seem to this time) not scare the little bit they have away.
Think about what you're being paranoid about, and see if it makes sense. In most cases the extreme paranoia people have who post on here just doesn't make sense.
Reading these comments about the fine points of GPL and other "similar" licenses, I keep sensing that all of this is missing the point.
Certainly laws and licenses like GPL can help free software and are tools to use to keep it free, but ultimately human laws aren't binding and are quite adaptable to economic forces. The free software community is far too hung up on American law and a society of lawyers we have here in America which is not typical of most of the world.
Copyrights and patents are not respected in the rest of the world as they are here regardless of international agreements. That's a fact. The price and availability of products depends more on supply and demand than on legalistic tricks. Laws are always subject to change as societies change and therefore are very limited in scope.
The free software movement can use the law, but must depend on something else for its continued growth and survival. That "something else" is the intrinsic desire for freedom ( and good products as well ) which is part of human mature just like the less charitable aspects of human nature. As people discover through experience that free software is good software and that the free software model is a good economic model, they will embrace it. Laws will change to insure that it survives because markets and customers want free software. If markets and consumers don't really want free software then laws and interpretation of laws by courts will change to thwart free software.
Please step back and look at the big picture. I certainly don't place my faith in laws and lawyers but in something greater. Petty bickering over the fine points of legalism are a waste of time and of talent.
Before everyone goes on a massive conflagration spree:
Q. How did you come up with the Apple Public Source License (APSL)?
First, we studied several of the open and community source models that currently exist, including the Free Software Foundation's General Public License (GPL), BSD license, Apache license, Netscape and Mozilla Public Licenses, and Sun's Community Source License. Drawing from those examples, we drafted the APSL in an effort to promote open source development of our software while at the same time allowing Apple to reasonably protect our intellectual property and meet our business goals. It's our first attempt at open source licensing and we expect that it will evolve over time.
They acknowledge that they are inexperienced and are open to change. Damn, why flame? Try supporting it and encouraging them to become part of your noble priesthood instead of claiming "heresy!!!" and running around with your head planted firmly in your posteriors.
We have a toy to play with brother. :)
Did you forget that. We don't want
no old toys with apple bombs inside
Sorry, should have made it clear--your letter isn't unreasonable, though I hope you sent copies to 1 Infinite Loop.
It's the other flamers above that are acting as if Apple is about to take away their computers via stormtroopers or something that PO me. They should follow your example and write in saying, "Nice job, but I have one issue that concerns me..."
The things that bug me about the APSL and the IBM Jikes licenses is that they allow the industry to cherry-pick from and then take the toys WE'VE made for them and leave. Please, somebody point out where in any of these licenses it prohibits them from just terminating our license to use the software WE will have worked on the minute political/mangerial climes change or stockholders start getting cranky.
Corporations are corporations and I can't help but shake the feeling that they see us as anything BUT a free labor pool to use and discard like any other resource.
Bruce is right to be paranoid and so should we be as well...
Exactly! I agree with what you wrote, but some of these people are paranoid and are somehow skewing what you said to help justify their paranoia. It's really sad and annoying.
A lot of people with mild paranoia, or little idea of what's going on then read the majority of these posters and end up agreeing with them.
I think since the amount of Microsoft flame news has really died down due to the DOJ case, they're looking for a new company to hate with a passion. Add in the usual Apple haters (some with respectable reasons, others with stupid or no real reasons at all), and you have a lot of people flaming and a few defenders and level headed people people speaking out.
Apple seems to be sincere. Pulling dirty tricks like some of these people seem to think they want to do would be suicide to their company.
Let's hope this whole fiasco gets explained or fixed. Even if the outcome is exactly how you want meant (which is good), some (most?) of these people probably still won't be satisfied.
Oppressed???? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! Oooh, I can't stop laughing!! Did you mean to say that Apple has been oppressing people? Ha Ha Ha he he he! I used to use Macs in college. Learned C on a Mac. Learned to hack on a Mac. I really didn't feel oppressed. I since went to Solaris and then to Linux, but never felt oppressed by my OS or its authors. Have you ever lived in China? Or post WWII Russia. Do you know WFT oppression is? Get a clue.
There is a section in there that explicilty says that if the licence changes you can keep using the old one on old code.
If you make changes that puts you in patent infringment land than all apple has the right to do is to make you change, or destroy the code that is involved in the infringment. If you have an earlier version, or can work around the infringment apple can not do jack shit to you. Besides that, if you're infringing on someone's patent anyway, it doesn't fucking matter about the apple licence anyways -- the patent owner can take you to court and make your remove the offending shit anyways. And before you say that "at least they would have to take me to court first", I could just as well say to Apple "fuck you" I'll keep my patent infringing code as it is until you take me to court, co*ksuckers.
Well, actually now that you put it that way I think Apple is trying to do a good thing! There! A hard core Linux guy, and I said it! They are definitely moving in the right direction, but don't expect them to stop being a business! I'm really sick and tired of all of the anti-business socialist Linux fanatics. Look, Linux is just an operating system. An extremely cool operating system with an excellent development strategy. It is not an anti-make-money from technology movement! Okay? Your leader, the One called Linus - he has a job, makes $$ because of his affiliation with Linux, and may quite possibly become filthy rich because of this. So, you gotta problem with that? He goes to work to make $$, hacks a little, plays with the kid, and then gets a beer. Linux is great because it gives you freedom - freedom to make $$, freedom to contribute to and extend your tools. So please, no more Red Hat bashing. No more Apple bashing. They are businesses. Businesses are a good thing. But if you don't like the product, just don't buy it.
Yah!
If you like the license, download and go to work, what are you doing here. We are flaming precisely because we don't like the license. And we won't do anything about it unless we like the license.
Get a clue.
Well you won't get that GUI for free. Apple is running a business, they are looking for returns not kudos. And their entire approach is business-like, or very Microsoft-like so don't be sad and go and look elsewhere. Free GUIs exist so use them and convert other folk to them, then these will get better. You just have to use them to make them better.
Apple has business ideas and its OS license is not very credible. It conflicts with free software so deal with it. If you don't want to spend the money, there are alternatives. Some people are impressed by expensive products so let those idiots waste their money on brandnames and buzzwords and find cheap or free programs which do the same. The users rule.
It depends on how you intend to "use" your desktop. If you mean "do anything more useful than spend hours and hours getting things working just so you can make some screenshots for your friends", then GNOME is probably not for you.
Yah no shit Apple doesn't care. And they aren't trying to sell computers, they're trying to move boxes. And it IS inferior to Linux. At least you got the PR stunt part right... is Apple astro-turf supposed to be undetectable or something? That figures, knowing how they operate in other areas.
Could there be a more trustworthy synergy? Already my silly critical-thought circuits are overloading in orgasms of joy! Surely neither of these whores would ever slant or bias, much less lie -- and together? Step aside, Mohammed and Jesus!
Releasing source is a good move on Apple's part. They deserve some congrats for that, particularly considering their history as one of the more proprietary vendors. We can hope that this marks the start of a move away from proprietary systems by Apple. And even though we're not "starving" for open-source software, Apple certainly does deserve some praise for making the decision to release the source.
It's also a good move on the part of the community to help Apple see where it could improve, whether it be on the license or on the code. That's the spirit of the free software movement. If Apple listens and modifies the license to make it more acceptable, this is a good thing, don't you think? If there's no discussion on what needs improvement, there will never BE any improvement. That is why constructive criticism, such as the letter from Perens et al. is something to be applauded, just as Apple's decision to release source code should be.
-- just my $.02
Linux is a fad, like baggy pants... "Apple II Forever" was a mercy killing... Newton is better dead, OS7/Rhap/Cop/OS 10 keeps getting better year after year... Linux zealots irritating, Slashdot posters young and stupid... Apple's end justifies means... complaining is for those Jerry Springer fellows... oh, and a Mommy/college slam.
Aren't you supposed to be thinking different or something? Oh shit, it's after midnight! Your computer is now an also-ran to the only company that makes or services it!
The people who post here are so anti-linux its not even funy. Linux is the belief that by COOPERATION, a group of people can creat greatness. The PROGRAMMERs have done that. But you guys just WHINE AND WHINE.
Apple has release the most modern, high performance OS in the world, and has just done it as Open Source. This is a GREAT VICTORY. All supporters of Open Source are rejoicing....b ut you guys, no suprise, are WHINING.
Good thing you guys aren't the ones developing Linux.
A claim of infringement is enough to let Apple yank the affected code. If they pay me to sue them, and I claim that they stole all of the code from me, they can yank the code away from anyone else. The fact that I then drop my suit wouldn't matter, everyone but Apple would have lost the right to do anything with the code.
This is only helps while Apple wants to keep it open. If they want to take it back and hoard it again, they can.
I'm sorry, you are ignorant. The key elements which have made open UNIX-derived and UNIX-clone systems successful use BSD-style licensing. Unlike the GPL, this licence allows anyone to use, modify and sell (or give away) the code as they see fit (i.e. anyone can make private changes and sell the resulting software in source and/or binary format).
The most important tools on the server side are the Berkeley networking tools and Apache, all of which use BSD-style licensing (though there are GPL'd GNU clones of many of the BSD tools, and GPL'd alternatives to Apache).
The most important on the client side are XFree86 and Mosaic/Netscape. XFree86 uses BSD-style licensing, and Netscape was developed by a commercial organisation (and obviously isn't GPL'd). GPL'd clones aren't even an option here.
More generally, the Linux kernel and the userland tools distributed with it can easily be replaced by non-GPL'd BSD or other UNIX operating systems, though the free BSDs have come to depend on gcc/g++. It is, however, a virtual certainty they would have written their own compilers if the GNU tools had not been available (in contrast to FSF, the BSD people tend not to reinvent the wheel for political reasons; only when there is no alternative).
The reality is that the non-GPL'd world could get by much more easily without any GPL'd tools than the other way round, even ignoring the fact that most significant GPL'd tools are basically clones of non-GPL'd equivalents.
Yes, that is true. Remember also that UNIX (the original of which Linux and GNU are simply clones) was developed by a corporation (AT&T). Furthermore, the hardware platforms which made both UNIX and Linux possible were developed by corporations (DEC and IBM/Intel/Microsoft, respectively).
Without Linux and GNU, there is a small chance we users might not have the option of free software (assuming the BSDs had stagnated without GNU development tools, which is very unlikely). Without corporations (AT&T, DEC, et. al.) there would be no UNIX, and hence no Linux or GNU, at all. It is obvious, therefore, which is the most important: the corporations.
>Some of it will be GPL
...
Not much, most will me ASPL which has some relly nasty demands, they can force you to destroy your work and all copies if they want. Thats not free and not good in any way.
>they are quite creative
They have just taken BSD and Mach and changed very little but still put their own lisense on it!!!. thats not creative. The creative things in OS X are not OpenSource
>Come on guys - there are two gnats in the >Apple license - termination and returning the >code to Apple. THAT'S IT. On the scale of 1 to >10, it means Apple's action in opening the OS >code is a 9.98 out of 10.
No. It means apple is a 5.8 out of 10 (if 60% is a passing grade.) Apple is this close to having an Open Source(TM) licence, and if they're willing to go the extra 2 inches, this whole bloody argument can go away. But we're going to see a whole lot of these almost-free licenses in the near future, and we need to establish a cutoff point.
Apple is not doing us a favor by releasing their source. For everything they're planning to release, we already have access to a free counterpart. They are doing this because it's good marketing, and because they're hoping for lots of free bug fixes. That's fine. But unless they meet the standards of the Open Source(TM) developers, they've got no right to expect us to take time away from TRUE free projects to help them with their code. Yes, they are to be lauded for what they've done here. Only a few of the most rabid anti-mac people are going to say otherwise. But the fact is, this software is not, currently, free; and someone who spends time working on it could potentially be simply donating that time to Apple.
>Returning code to Apple is a non-issue >because Apple can't go after you if there is no >URL to return the code to.
Here, the problem is that major corps don't just disppear. Someone will end up with Apple's IP. If that someone pulls the site, and you modify the code, you are technically violating the license and they can tie you up with lawsuits for the next 10 years. They may well lose, but they'll have probably ended development on the code.
Or does apple have a "this license reverts to BSD" suicide clause in there? I'm not sure about that. I think that would probably clear up the issue.
>The other issue is termination, which is >important, and needs to be reworked. Apple >DOES need protection from patent >infringement, we have talked about that >enough here. It's not just the Free Software >guys that suffer from software patents - >corporations can get stung too.
>What IS needed is a solution that gives Apple >(and other companies, i.e. IBM) protection from >infringement lawsuits and at the same time >keeps the source open. This is something that >the Open Source/Free Software movement >needs to address.
>It is NOT a case of Apple being a villan. It is >simply a case of Apple trying to protect it's ass >from crippling infringement laibility judgements, >and the fact that software patent infringement >issues are a problem with Open Source.
No arguments there. Everyone agrees that companies need to protect themselves from lawsuits. If you actually read the essay, you'll see that Bruce is simply asking for clarification that Apple can legally only pull the affected code.
What it comes down to is this. If the license is not changed we have two options:
1) Give Apple the unpaid help with the code they're looking for. This encourages other companies who are considering releasing their source to do so under other almost-free licenses. Eventually, the management at one of these companies WILL change, and they WILL decide to use one of the loopholes to take back their code. And we're right back to where we were a year ago, except for all the hours lost helping the corporations.
2) A significant chunk of the developers decide not to touch their code. Apple doesn't get the bugfixes and other development ESR promises, and they say, "Open Source(TM) doesn't work." They release no more code, no other company releases code, and we're right back to where we are now.
Both of these options suck. We HAVE to make enough noise (POLITELY!!!) that they're willing to make their licenses free.
Stop repeating that crap. M$ ONLY invested in apple as part of a LEGAL SETTLEMENT to get them to drop a lawsuit that looked like it was probably going to be successful.
Hey Bruce,
Did you see the burb on the bottom of Apple's press release " "Open Source" is a trademark of Apple Computer" ?
What's up with that?
DG
Normally, when two people are arguing, it works like this:
PersonA: I'm right, here's why:
PersonB: You're wrong, here's why:
personA: No, I'm right, here's why:
and so on.
Here is how it goes when MushMouth is personB.
PersonA: I'm right, here's why:
PersonB: You're wrong! Why do you think you're right?
PersonA: No, I'm right! again.
PersonB: Why are you right? ANSWER MY FUCKING QUESTION
PersonA: Ummm... ?
PersonB: No one here has yet answered by question.
Normally, when two people are arguing, it works like this:
PersonA: I'm right, here's why: (stuffA)
PersonB: You're wrong, here's why: (stuffB, attempts to refute stuffA)
personA: No, I'm right, here's why: (stuffC, attempts to refute stuffB)
and so on.
Here is how it goes when MushMouth is personB.
PersonA: I'm right, here's why: (stuffA)
PersonB: You're wrong! Why do you think you're right?
PersonA: No, I'm right! (stuffA) again.
PersonB: Why are you right? ANSWER MY FUCKING QUESTION
PersonA: Ummm... (stuffA)?
PersonB: No one here has yet answered by question.
The only way MkLinux will survive is through OS X and voluntary developers, since apple doesn't care a bit. The great problem with apples darwin project is the license, linux can't use a port of the code in any other way than a module since its a conflicting license. And the mach used in OS X and MkLinux is also not useful to the HURD, since they want GNU mach and not BSD/APSL MACH... What I meen is that MkLINUX is not at all as important and live as you may say. It's only useful for people with old PowerMacs and Apples comming OS X (not server, the real OS X). I see nothing good with it at all, its slow and as if that was not enough its outdated and work best on slow machines = ultra slow :) /long live the GNU MACH
"responses from the fans I have seen here"
Read it again.
i remember reading ESR's web page aobut how
'hackers have a long memory, so dont screw up'
or something like that. i guess that doesnt
apply in this case ?!?!!
Oh stevie stevie, ram that big blue gumdrop up my portal.. oh baby oh baby
i can see the $ coming oh baby!
*Waaaaaaaaaah* MY MOMMA NEVER LOVED ME *WAAAAAAAAHHHHHH*
Bruce,
I read your remarks on the APSL. You said it well and you were definitely not flaming anyone. Thank you for saying it.
I dunno, did you have a choice? Apple has
managed to make *many* schools closed,
proprietary mac shops.
Deny this, clue-boy.
I almost formatted my MkLinux partition from my Macintosh today. I continue to read the post posted on slashdot and how people love to bash anything about Apple for kicks. I didn't want to be a Linux user. Why? Because I didn't want to be associated with the immature babblings that plague this site. Moreover, I didn't want to be associated with the source of all of the nonsense that flies around this place. Luckily, I checked my e-mail and I found the announcement that MkLinux.org website is up. I had planned on contrinuting to it, but didn't get the chance. Today, I sent in my password so I could become part of the team building the website. I want to help other people who are interested in Linux in general and MkLinux in particular why I like the OS and what it means.
So, if anybody is out there reading these slashdot posts, please don't be discouraged at what you see. Only a poseur would say that the slashdot community represents linux(at least a this time). There are reasonable people out there that like Linux and so they work on it to make it better. Sadly, too many people who post here like Linux and flame to make the image worse.
FWIW, I'm going to buy another drive and put OS X Server on it.
Good day,
Remy
Apple will probably wind up stabbing LinuxPPC/mkLinux in the back. I can allready see it coming. They're greedy and evil. No better then Microsoft. Its the business world, and you have to crush the tiny people... but linux is more like a midsized one now.... with a baseball bat.
Either way, I didn't hate apple up to this whole thing, I was even going to get a Blue mac too. Well apple lost my sale, i can get a fucking SPARC AXi system that costs less and is faster.
I'm a Mac user and I agree very much with what you're saying. (I also still love my Amiga 2000).
However, the article written in response to Apple's new license does point out some very serious inadequacies in their concept of "open source", etc. I am glad that the community reacted as it did and as quickly as it did.
My main concern is that Apple's PARTIAL acceptance of open source will begin an ugly trend in other arenas, like say Red Hat. This could very well destroy the ethic on which Linux was founded. On the other hand, we may see some dramatic improvents (if we're lucky) to PowerPC Linux development... if only they'd release their specs, etc.
I guess I have mixed feelings about all this.
-ad
I (the AC you responded to) agree entirely, with the qualified exception of the `most important' bit. The American Department of Defence and monopolies regulations, in conjunction with universities (largely state-run) and corporations, made UNIX (both System V and BSD) possible. By extension, they also made Linux and GNU possible.
The fact that Richard Stallman apparently depends on the American state for his livelihood further extends GNU's debt in that direction, just as the contribution made by Linus Torvalds adds a small debt to the Finnish state.
All things considered, the role of the state, in terms of regulation and military and academic expenditures, was vital in the creation of UNIX, especially BSD, clones like GNU and Linux and the Internet. But so were the relevant corporations. Without either of them, there would be no UNIX (free, clone or otherwise).
Given that the state and the corporations were both vital to UNIX/BSD/clones, arguing over which was more important is largely pointless. It seems to me that leaves the fanatics as the one superfluous group (yet they seem to be a group who want to claim all the credit).
As a UNIX and Mac user of old who much prefers open source code, I must say my impression of the Linux/GNU/FSF community is not good (reminds me of the DOS nutters back in the `80s).
:-)
That's all right cos the NetBSD and FreeBSD people are absolutely brilliant. So is Steve Jobs for opening up Mac OS X.
Using Mac OS for a defense against having a monopoly would be very weak since the Mac OS doesn't comepete on the same platform. If they were going to use that strategy, they'd also have invested in Amiga, Be (well, now it runs on the same hardware as Windows) and any other niche platform/os.
The only real cases they could use would be Linux, BSD, and the other OSs that run on PCs.
Stop with the paranoia, you're probably shortnening your life span.
Use, Apple has used Office as leverage because Apple really needs it. I believe they used it as leverage to get Apple to promote IE over Netscape.
What? Give me some examples and proof the people running the computer purchases and networks did not have a choice to run other types of computers and OSs, if the school has nothing but Macs. Would you be complaining if the majority of the schools were running PCs with Linux? If they were, does that mean they were practically forced to?
Lets face it, on one hand we would have all *loved* to be the messiah of the digital age. Bottom line is that "Bill" has the marketing purchase..
So, what do we do, we waste our bandwidth winging about i ?
...so, why would a company NOT tweak RedHat to their own liking for mass-installs on their netwinder-like devices?
Hmm...so *that* is what Red Herring smells like...
Does this make sense to you? "MkLinux will survive only through OS X...apple doesn't care a bit." OK. We'll take OS X back now. Thanks fer playin'. Buh bye.
Gee, how interesting. Haven't we seen this before? I mean, back when the PC industry was in its infancy (before DOS, before Apple and all that) didn't people BUILD the damn things themselves? Now I admit that this is kinda a crude metaphor, but from those early beginnings you could get, relatively cheaply, parts and directions.
Well, wake up. The same thing is happening now, except that the Open Source community is now becoming the playground of the rich and powerful corporations. Why else would IBM etc. invest cash in Red Hat? Why else would Apple want to join in the fun?
Check the bottom line. That's where the answer is. And guess what? There won't be anything you'll be able to do about. Those companies will muscle in here and throw their weight around without so much as giving a flying ____. It's the way of capitalism. Open Source, gone the way of the internet and all other socialist utopias - sold to the highest bidder.
http://macweek.zdnet.com/1999/03/14/opensource.htm l
Developers can alter the kernel in any way they wish -- including making it Windows-compatible -- as long as they make their changes public.
The open-source movement refers to software such as Linux, which allows developers to freely add their own features on top of underlying technology. Open-source is a threat to companies including Microsoft, who consider their software code the company's life's blood, to be protected at all cost. Jobs was joined onstage by open-source advocates including Eric Raymond, who wrote "The Cathedral and the Bazaar," the white paper that prompted Netscape Communications Corp. to make its browser code public.
"We see that Apple really gets it," Raymond said, adding that he hopes the move will encourage other operating-system makers to join the open-source movement, "so eventually it will all be free." The company is also considering open-source plans for other products, possibly including the newest Macintosh operating system, Mac OS X, due later this year. But Jobs would not disclose those plans.
Chew on that, ya cynical bastards.
I agree that the ends are admirable. And certainly all software being semi-free would probably be better than all software being fully closed. But if we let Apple blur the distinction at this still early point in the Open Source / Free software movement (note: I don't give a shit what you call it, nor if you're a coding hacker hippie or a neo-technocapitalist), then we may defeat the idea of free software before it really catches on in the mainstream. The point is that while Apple has made a big step in the right direction, why not prod them a bit more, and explain to them that their licensing terms need to be tweaked. Then they will serve as a better model for other companies who will look to follow their lead.
Fnkmaster
gabriel@fas.harvard.edu
The clearest threat to Free Software is disolving the term to such an extent that it is meaningless. This will result in no one working on the "open source" and companies deciding it was a bad approach. The chance we would have had to change the way in which we all work would have been lost forever. Better stick with a strong radical position like RMS's which at least is clear than to have a politically swayed realpolitik position which is more business friendly, but will only result in failure
Uhh, this is not just Bruce who wrote this. Lots of other people feel the same way. This is exactly the reason Bruce left OSI in the first place.
Pay attentoon fool! The problem is apple is calling their license "Open Source" which it is clearly not, no one is bitching about the acual code. If they want to call their license "Nearly-open source" then they can go right ahead.
Eric Raymond is doing so much damage to the community by endorsing this kind of crap it is not even funny, he doesnt care about "open source" at all, he just wants to boost his own ego.
Btw, its Free Software, Open Source is just a sham.
Yeah, sure they can write whatever license they want. but they can NOT call it Open Source when it is not. That's the whole fucking problem. If this trend of less-than-free licenses continue eventually they will not be free at all.
People like you make me sick! This is *NOT* a step in the right direction! It is bad, they are setting an example for other companies to follow. They are polluting the spirit of free software and they need to be stopped. Simply changing two clauses in the license would be fine.
IBM is not a hero, their license is *nearly* just as bad. Netscape's is better but apple's is the worst. All these companies are trying to do leech off the open source community, they dont give a shit about freedom at all.
That is assuming there will be a (L)GPL version at all. Which would be really unlikely.
Did you even try reading the letter? it clearly defines why it is not opensource
The reason it is bad is because apple is allowed to leech off the community without. Say hundreds of people start wroking on Darwin.. then apple says "Your license is terminated". You must immediately destroy all copies of the software and stop distributing it, but.. apple is allowed to keep developing and distributing it. Wow wouldn't that be nice.
Are you blind? sections 2.2c and 9.1 are clearly in violation.
Please, spare the bullshit. Perens was asked to write up this letter, it has nothing to do with his personal agenda. If it did then Debian and SPI wouldn't have endorsed it.
Apple can do whatever the hell they please. but they can NOT call it Open Source if it is not. Thats the whole damn point, why are you people so closed minded and ignorant?
It violates the part about free redistribution you idiot!
Section 7 of the GPL terminates your right to distribute a program with contested code. Section 9.1 of the APSL terminates your right to use a program with contested code. There's a very big difference between the two.
Just think, if anyone makes a claim against Apple, they have the option to, on a whim, invalidate all of their userbase. If they feel they tire of being Open Source, they can release a new version under a solidly closed license, and convince someone to make a claim against the open version. Bingo, everyone goes from having a nice almost open-source system, to having to pay for a proprietary upgrade just to use their machine legally. All derivative works would likewise be killed.
This is not nitpicking, this is a clause that keeps the software from being Free. While I like Apple, they are a corporation. That means that their first responsibility is to their shareholders. That means if they are not contractually bound to do the right thing, there is always a risk that they may later decide to do the wrong thing. I don't trust them not to take advantage of the loophole they left for themselves here.
If they want to call themselves Open Source, they need to follow the rules.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Section 7 does not supercede the termination clause in Section 9.1. All it says is you get to pick which version of the APSL you use and distribute under.
On your other point, if you have a GPL'ed program that gets into a patent lawsuit, you lose the right to redistribute under the GPL. You don't lose the right to use it under the GPL, which means that you can wait for the patent to expire, or you can negotiate use of the patent directly with the patent holder.
If an APSL program gets into a patent lawsuit, Apple can pull your rights to use the software regardless of whether the patent later expires or if you negotiate your own patent license.
As for the APSL only terminating Affected Code, the license does not clearly define "Affected Original Code", basically the effect of this is it can mean whatever their lawyers say it means, and if you think it means otherwise, be prepared to pay for your own lawyers. If there is a lawsuit on a couple of lines in a library, they can easily say the "Affected Original Code" is the entire library, and anything which uses it. This is why Bruce asked that the APSL at minimum clarify terms like this.
As for you update and everything is hunky dory, that assumes that 1) Apple releases an update, and 2) Apple releases the update under the APSL. If Apple invokes this clause, third parties will not be legally allowed to fix the problem. Such terms are against both the spirit of Free Software and the legal definition of Open Source. We don't have to stand for it, and we shouldn't.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
MushMouth wrote:
if you continue to use GPL'd code that infringes on a patent, you are still not using the code legally
Whether or not you are using the code legally, you are not violating the GPL. If you make an agreement with the patenter, or if you use it in a country where the patent is invalid, you are using it legally.
If you continue to use APSL code where Apple invoked their right to terminate the license because of a patent conflict, you are violating the APSL. If you make an agreement with the patenter, or if you use it in a country where the patent is invalid, you are still using illegally, because the APSL was terminated.
although I would like the code to stick around for patents to expire, just not in use, that actually sounds somewhat dangerous, one of those things where we have
#ifdef BREAK_UNISYS_PATENT
/* do some shit fast*/
#else
/*slow work around*/
#endif
I'm not sure if #ifdef'ing out patented code is sufficient. I think you need to physically remove it in order to distribute. Of course, there are many countries where the Unisys and RSA patents are invalid, and they can distribute the BreakUnisysPatent patch file.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
And the horse they rode in on! Just be glad they aren't in the industry position that Microsoft is.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Even if Apple doesn't care about what Bruce has to say and would rather keep the license as it is now, they may not call themselves "Open Source" because their license does not fit the Open Source Definition. Bruce wrote the Open Source Definition, he should know what it says.
Eric Raymond says the Apple license is Open Source, but then it doesn't meet the Open Source Definition---is this a problem? I think so. And I think Eric is the problem.
It is also true then that if ESR is not managing the mark properly that he can be replaced. He is not managing the mark properly if he's saying things are Open Source when they fail the Open Source Definition. I hope SPI takes swift action on this matter.
Should we be criticizing Apple? Not in the least. Should we point out that their license isn't Open Source and offer to help them correct that problem? Sure we should!
Then there's that termination clause....
all rights revert to Apple. Perens is right that the software would not survive Apple's demise - or until the patents expire.
I applaud Apple in it's attempt to galvanize the Open Source community behind OS-X. OS-X is likely a very nice product and one that Apple has needed for years. HOWEVER, the new Apple license, in it's current incarnation, is nothing more than an invitation to developers to become unpaid Apple codeslaves. All work and code becomes the IP of Apple and would do nothing to enrich the world with reusable code.
I understand that the GPL is probably incompatible with Apple's IP and the BSD license may be too free but DO NOT call the OS-X code Free Software. You could call it Source Available but it would be truly a stretch to even call it Open Source.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
/. article pitting ESR against BP, I am dropping BOTH and going with RMS. It's getting so that he is the only NON-crazy one.
1) ESR said the APSL is Open Source (tm).
2) Bruce said it isn't.
3) Who owns the trademark?
4) What has RMS said about the Freeness of the APSL?
5) If I see one more
Posted by PUGfounder:
I can see how many do not agree with Apple's Public Source License (APSL). This is a huge leap for Apple. The company has for so long been considered totally proprietary. I agree this is not perfect open source, but I feel this is a huge step in the right direction for Apple.
Posted by mkultra:
As an outsider, it seems to me that the Linux community is losing itself among letter of the law definitions, instead of the ideals.
Now I am not clear about all of this, but if the problem is that certain files in the package distributed by Apple are also filed under GPL, then why not use Apple's files when you need them and the GPL files in other cases, and just avoid the whole mess of Open Source.
An old saying:
"Don't kick a gift horse in the teeth."
mkultra
"The answers you seek are the ones you destroy."
-Collective Soul (or Heisenberg)
Fine, so the Apple liscence isn't 100% pure Open-source-free-as-in-free-speech, but should we be criticizing a company that is opening its code up?
Yes! This dilutes what OSS and Free Software are defined as, and other companies are going to be quick to follow.
Sure ideally it would be nice to have it all GPL'd, but isn't this better than what we had?
NO! I would rather have Apple release no code than to release it, to have tons of programmers work hard on it to have their work squandered by a compnay that's possibly looking to essentially "hire programmers for free".
Note: I'm not accusing them of this (yet), but when stuff like this appears, I tend to be rather cautious.
What does it serve to condemn apple for taking a step in the right direction. And I know that this will certainly help groups like LinuxPPC open up the Mac platform to other OSes.
Apple is taking a step in the right direction, but they are doing it wrong. No one is denying that Apple is trying to do the right thing, but they are venturing into unknown territory, and we need people like Bruce and RMS and ESR to keep these guys on their toes.
If Apple changes their licence they can at least be guaranteed that I'll be purchasing a PPC in the future, if not MacOS X also. (and I have never been the biggest mac fan, but I'm interested)
I'm imagining i'm not the only one who feels this way, and I believe that Apple is counting on that, so, hopefully they'll change their license.
-Erik-
you don't want to give back to the mac community. you're just an opportunist. Having one macos isn't just good for Apple but also mac developers and consumers.
Having one of anything, as history dictates, is bad.
A dictator is bad - one ruler. Fidel Castro, Adolf Hitler, anyone?
How would you liek it if you went to the store to get a pop and all there was, was pepsi, and you didn't like pepsi? Now, that would suck too, wouldn't it?
Gee, I can go on, and on, and on..... The same applies in any situation. If there is only one of anything, there is nothing to compare it to, and therefore creates a lock of trust based around ignorance, not knowledge or advancement.
After all, how would you like it if you only had the choice of Windows?
I think I made my point...
-Erik-
I am not arguing that APSL is good or bad. I am arguing that the self-proclaimed leaders of our community need to get their shit together.
No kidding. It would be really nice to see them all get along, but that's not going to happen and in some cases it's still a good thing.
But, it would be nice if ESR, RMS, BP & friends decided on ONE definition of source code, that is at least able to be maintained by independent developers, and have those developers be able to independently distribute the code that they contributed. This would be a good "minimal requirement" for any definition pertaining to source code that is opened to the public.
This would be something simple that all of these guys could agree on, even though their ideological views don't fit, the programmer is protected, instead of the code.
IANAL, so I wouldn't know the logistics behind it, but I just don't see how this couldn't be achievable, and have it ON PAPER, so it doesn't depend on one guy to "endorse" it to be legitimate to the licence, which is the current case with ESR and RMS. (ESR in particular)
-Erik-
those who never win and never quit are idiots.
(I got this message from a rather wonderful "demotivational calendar" I saw online and then forgot...)
--
Xenu loves you!
Bruce links to the SPI Website, but it hasn't been updated since the "Consultation about the Open Source trademark" document went up on 24 Nov 1998. The consultation documents haven't appered as promised, and nothing new has arrived. What gives?
--
Xenu loves you!
I almost posted a colossal flame of Apple's pseudOpen-Source license yesterday. I almost questioned my Debian installation today -- why shouldn't I just be like everyone else and use RedHat? Why try and give back to the community, even if at present it's only by beta testing (at least as far as Debian goes)?
This would be why.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
But the pace of development in that world is a bit too fast for me to keep up with, let alone keep secure. I am interested enough in security and correctness to run Debian, but am not "elite" enough that I really have much to offer the OpenBSD people. Nor am I as comfortable with BSD internals... not that I'm that great with Linux's.
Anyways, my point was simply that Debian (not unlike RedHat, but in a more visible fashion) reminds people that an utterly-free distribution can be worthwhile. I am doing some work on Apache sub-projects and other free projects. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not a GPL fanatic. But I think that what Apple allows themselves to do, via their license, to developers is wrong.
They supported MkLinux so long as it benefitted their efforts towards OS X/Rhapsody. I haven't seen any development on it since, and I don't believe they're terribly interested in the continued survival of MkLinux. Granted, LinuxPPC offers higher performance, and is a more popular distribution, but MkLinux works fine for many people. Red Hat does not (IMHO) abandon projects the way Apple abandoned MkLinux, and Debian sure as hell doesn't (yeah yeah, but still).
If it works for you, fine, but Apple's license is repugnant and that's all I have left to say.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
>A third law might be, termination clauses "aren't". Nothing makes me have to check the site before I use it to see if it was terminated. Nothing in the code self destructs at agiven order from the central command.
>--
So, Mr. Big-Ass Pimp, what happens when you infringe on the license of a company with billions in assets and they decide not to take your happy-go-lucky approach to licensing?
I suppose you could move to Mexico.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
So much panic.
~ ~^~
So much deliberation.
In these two de-facto rules of the community lies the essence of the movement and the expression of its freedom.
1) The Coder (Apple) has the right to liscence how it wishes.
2) If we don't like it we don't have to use it, we just have to code something else.
A third law might be, termination clauses "aren't". Nothing makes me have to check the site before I use it to see if it was terminated. Nothing in the code self destructs at agiven order from the central command.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^
The nature of comments reflect a concern that semi-"free" source puts "free" software in jeapordy. I'm mearly refuting that. Be at peace, not everything is a flame.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
Um unfortunately this was one of the problems that was forseen in having a central body decide what was open source and what wasn't. Unfortunately since there is an OSI and there is a ESR who do get to put that label on things, you do not. They (who get to decide) have called it open source. Apple only calls it Public Source.
You have the right to use it or don't use it. You even have the power to add to it or take away from it. Lets not get childish.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
Alright,
What do you do when you find out the Open Source product you have just produced and is used by a company has been permeated with patent violating code. That company sues you as maintainer of the code, the watchdog to make sure it is truely open source.
Decisions are easy when you don't have to pay the consequences aren't they.
read the sig
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Give.
Me.
A.
Break.
The very first company to throw open the underpinnings of its OS to public scrutiny, and you guys go beserk with condemnation. Great way to encourage companies to open up. I have long since lost my patience with the Open/Free/Slashdot crowd. The end result that will be embraced by developers is -not- software you don't have to pay for...but they will show you how it works if you are willing to show them how to make it better. This is a trade-off...the only other option is for Apple to clamp down and give -NOTHING- back to the development community.
Regarding the first point: the license under which Mach and other components integrated into MacOS X Server specifically permit anyone to use the code for any purpose and slap whatever license on it they see fit. Not apple's fault...blame the original project leads. Kind of like how Sun appropriated BSD code for its own proprietary OS.
Regarding the second point: IBM and Apple needed to do this in order to avoid humoungous lawsuits. Like with Netscape and IBM, MacOS X developers do -not- own their code, and the only reasons to code for it is to add features to MacOS X the developer wants/needs.
Like it or not, Apple published its source code. This makes it open source regardless of whether or not you lie the license, whether or not you like the Mac, or whether or not you like Apple. It is a step in the right direction, and should be encouraged. The alternative is -not- totally free software from a major coporate developer, but -NO- source code made available at all, to anyone, for any reason.
Apple doesn't -have- to do shit. They can leech off open licenses as much as they like, and not give anything at all back. They -chose- to make available, for free, detailed source code of the changes they made to Mach, BSD, etc. Thet should be applauded for making this choice, and encouraged to do more.
Encouragement != nasty bitching and infighting between open source advocates of minutae of the description of "open source". Encouragement is downloading a copy, hacking around with it, and showing Apple that opening up the source code even more would be benefiial for you -and- them.
Timne for all of you college kids to grow the %&$# up
SoupIsGood Food.
Silly rabbit. Apple doesn't -need- to agitate on public forums,because us rabid, wild-eyed, sway-toothed mac-marine evangelistas are all too ready and willing to do it for them. We were doing the platform fanatacist thang long before you Linux lovers showed up. B)
What you are noticing is that the Mac user tends to be very interested in computers and computing beyond our beloved Macintosh. We put be on the map. A year ago, according to the linux journal the second most popular Linux distro (after Red Hat) was Apple's MKLinux.
Mac users like diversity. We like Amigans. We like Atari fans (what few of them are left). We like Unix gurus, yes, Linux gurus included. It tends to ROYALLY piss us off when the respect isn't returned...and we're better at arguing than you are. Bp
Apple isn't going open source in order to provide leech^H^H^H^H^H non-customers a free ride, they are posting it in order to 1) return to the open source community the work they have done with open source tools like Mach and BSD 2) provide a means of modify ing and fixing the underlying OS in order to adapt new technologies beyond aple's R&D scope or to squish bugs that made it through QA. This is the model IBM and the other mainframe companies used back before everything went top-secret proprietary in the mid-eighties. It is a return to openess and a community approach to the installed base of high-end hardware. (coming soon...look for a possible sneak preview at NAB. Watch yer ass, SGI...)
If you want more from sugar daddy Apple, you gotta give some sweetness yourself. Get coding, and whine loudly about all the bugs you could be fixing if you had the yellow box code. B)
SoupIsGood Food
I'm my own damn shill.
Were the clones "bloodsuckers" or "more competitive in the market"? I honestly don't know, but suspect the latter given what I saw as an apple user in the past. For instance, when I had an Apple ][, all the best peripherals were made by third parties. Applied Engineering comes to mind.. When apple's RAM cards maxed out at 4mb of RAM, AE's could do 8mb, etc.
In any case, the infringement section, as I interpret it, would allow Apple to kill off any real competitors using their code relatively easily.. All they would have to do is: a) get/wait for someone to claim an infringement by Apple, b) at their sole discretion and option, choose that forcing everyone to stop using their code is only option to remedy the situation. Given what they did with Apple clone hardware, and with their suit against microsoft over GUI look and feel, I wouldn't be too surprised at all if that happened.
Of course, the target audience of Apple products may be such that they wouldn't be too interested in all of this anyway (After all, they've been using the stuff before Apple released any source)... But, confusing that type of license with real free licenses *is* an issue if it starts to spill over into areas where we *are* interested.
Sound paranoid? Section 9.1 does to me. To continue the MacOS vs Linux kernel comparision, if part of the kernel is found to infringe on a license, Linus is told to change what he distributes. If Joe Linux Distro maintainer uses a copy that's in violation, doesn't Joe Linux Distro maintainer become the one responsible for infringement at that point (and not Linus?) Maybe there's something here that I'm missing. If so, I'd appreciate someone point it out.
There's nothing wrong with RedHat. But lot's of people use other distros and the world is *definitely* better off for this diversity.
Don't switch from Debian! As a fellow Debian user, I think that it's *very* possible that Debian could be the most popular distro in the not too distant future. It has greater international reach and it's more suitable for specially tailored applications. It provides a better foundation for network appliance-style computing, which may be the wave of the future.
I can envision a future where the most common computers are cheap, little, netwinder-esque things in homes and businesses. A company wishing to sell boxes like these wants a highly configurable distro like Debian to work with - and would probably then add lots of customizations. RedHat's easy install will buy their engineers nothing. RedHat is only easiest on random PCs, not carefully preconfigured and engineered systems.
Mike Greaves
-- Mike Greaves
This message by the top people at Debian and Bruce is entirely correct and consistant. It makes the points clearly.
The point at which companies try to move into free software/open source with their own license is a very critical one. If the community does not do exactly what has been done here we will be destroyed.
Bruce, is definately a flitter and not a sticker. However, Wichert and Ian are (with lots of others) doing a great job on Debian. It was sensible of Bruce to get their backing.
The sad thing is some of the AC comments here.I respect the need for AC's to allow people to take part in a way that does not threaten their careers, but how come so many of them have nothing between their ears?
Dave
IMHO Bruce has a better balance here. But if you are not going to be balanced then I prefer RMS to ESR - it's safer.
Dave
Sorry Mr AC but you have contradicted yourself.
I was applauding a message that was constructively helping Apple evolve towards a fully Open Source license.
1. I do not care much about OSI as an organisation, it is closed and I have no influence over it. I prefer SPI which I can contribute to by becoming a Debian developer (if I understand it correctly) SPI is democratic OSI is not.
2. It is too soon to see damage by IBM's license but a) it's most common use is for Jikes which is a Java compiler, if it fails there are other alternatives, it is not as critical as an OS. b) IBM's license did not have all the same clauses (eg about the Apple URL for modifications.
I certainly believe that if the community does not examine attempts to join it and point out any problems it will be destroyed (or at least very fragmented) - why is that zealotry?
Dave
PS I would prefer to respond to a person not an AC.
Erm... IBM has made money from services for decades, certainly prior to RMS.
And who decides if it is or isn't open source?
Bruce, if your concern for free software exceeded your impetuosity, you wouldn't have quit OSI. If your concern for the "free software" name (which you claimed as a reason to quit OSI) exceeded your desire for recognition as important, you wouldn't keep attaching the OSI name to yours.
One thing that can be said for ESR and RMS is that they're loyal to what they believe in.
Has slashdot become nothing but essays?
Arg.........
Doesn't the OSI own the trademark for "Open Source". Isn't Eric Raymond the president of the OSI? Didn't Eric Raymond validate the APSL as Open Source? If so, then what more is there? As far as I'm concerned, if the OSI says it's Open Source (TM), then it's Open Source (TM)!!!!
--
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
SPI agrees that Eric Raymond is managing the mark, and Eric Raymond has agreed to be bound by decisions made by OSI. Therefore, it's a truthful statement to say that OSI manages the Open Source trademark.
-russ
Sheesh, you're as bad as Perens when it comes to overreacting. The APSL termination terms are *not* identical to the objectionable Jikes terms.
-russ
OSI is not the registrant of the Open Source certification mark, so OSI's position on Apple's use of the Open Source mark is merely an opinion.
In the end, the decision on whether to allow the use of the Open Source mark will be made by the registrant, Software in the Public Interest.
Doesn't the OSI own the trademark for "Open Source".
No.
Isn't Eric Raymond the president of the OSI?
Yes.
Didn't Eric Raymond validate the APSL as Open Source?
Yes.
If so, then what more is there?
OSI is not the registrant of the Open Source certification mark, so OSI's position on Apple's use of the Open Source mark is merely an opinion. In the end, the decision on whether to allow the use of the Open Source mark will be made by the registrant, Software in the Public Interest.
As far as I'm concerned, if the OSI says it's Open Source (TM), then it's Open Source(TM)!!!
Entirely not true. OSI can not grant others the right to use the Open Source mark because this is something only the registrant can do. The Open Source mark is registered to Software in the Public Interest, not OSI.
Like it or not, Apple published its source code. This makes it open source regardless of whether or not you lie the license, whether or not you like the Mac, or whether or not you like Apple.
Availability of source code alone does not make a program Open Source. In order to be able to use the Open Source mark, Apple must make its license compatible with certain guidelines. See the Debian Free Software Guidelines or the Open Source Definition for details.
The Open Source mark is registered to Software in the Public Interest, and ultimately the SPI board will decide whether or not Apple is permitted to use it.
we sure as hell should criticize apple
the only thing worse than overtly closed software is software that is almost open
it is not better than what we had
I still can't fix it if it breaks
if I do I can't share my changes with my friends forever, that right is in jeapordy
so why fix it?
why not just tell apple to fix it instead?
that kinda kills the whole dang thing
If Netscape got it right, why should we accept that Apple is screwing it up?
BE VERY CAREFUL
Apple may just want 10,000 developers for free but still be able to take the code and close it in a few years.
are you sure their license wouldn't allow that?
it will be free when I can manufacture and sell a macosx clone
I don't see that I can do that
somebody correct me
please
One: You have to notify Apple of any changes you make. What the hell is the matter with that? Last I checked, certain other licenses which have been classified as Open-Source make you contact the maintainers when you do make changes to the code.
Two: The termination clause. Not the greatest, but if you're trying to use the code in an illegal manner (which this basically covers) then why doesn't the maintainer of a project have a right to correct the problem?
what's your problem?
I'm glad that he has taken the time to do a careful analysis and prepare a well thought out response. By doing this, he is helping all of us. He's also quite in the right to point out that Eric was wrong when he said the thing was OSD-compliant.
thx Bruce!
Rob Malda would not accept a similar essay from anyone. The fact that Bruce has some name recognition, and thus gets his essay published here, does not mean that this is something only Bruce is concerned about.
He said what a lot of OS developers think of as the central issue: Free Software needs to stay free, and not be gradually restricted through seemingly innocent steps such as certain requirements in the APSL. While 90% of Linux users are less concerned about these issues than they ought to be, 90% of Linux users are also recent Windows graduates, that in the long run would allow deterioration of the dynamics that has caused OSS to be a success.
-tor
When I read some of the flames here against RMS and Bruce Perens and other advocates of a purer model of Open Source, I am amazed at the vitriol, anger, even hatred that's expressed. I'm also amazed at the total cluelessness about the political and economic issues involved.
First the Politics
Critics love to brand RMS as a flaming socialist, along with Jon Katz and now Perens. Hmmm...I thought this type of political smear went out with McCarthy, but apparently there remains a certain segment of the American public still stuck in the 50s.
Of course, RMS et al represent the true spirit of American democracy as laid out by the founding fathers, not only in their words, but in their deeds. May I remind you all, that it was no less then Ben Franklin who came up with this beautiful idea that knowledge should be freely available by all, and created the first Public Library. If anyone is the spiritual father of the free software movement, it is this great scientist, philosopher.
No doubt, those who oppose RMS must also view libraries as the epitome of socialism - after all it is taxpayer dollars, for godsakes, buying books and distributing them freely! What an affront to the American way of life, I can hear these critics ranting.
The fundamental flaw in these critics thinking, is their total lack of understanding of American democracy. The American democratic ideal is not the Greek one, which is mere majority rule, even where the majority is an elite. American democracy is founded on the idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...for all citizens. Minority rights and the needs of the less fortunate must also be taken into consideration to ensure they too, share in the public weal. Absolute liberty, and the tyranny of the majority are not part of the American democratic ideal. Too brand the politics behind free software as socialism, shows a total lack of political sophistication.
Economics
Free software as espoused by RMS is also attacked as economically unrealistic and a detriment to financial success. I have news for those folks who still believe they can make money creating proprietary packaged software: you're doomed to failure.
There are two reasons for this:
1. Technology is a commodity
2. The Web has changed the model
What point 1 means is that if you come up with any technology idea today, tomorrow there will be 12 implementations of the same thing cheaper, better, faster than yours. And besides, Microsoft will end up doing the same thing and giving it away for free, until you are crushed and disappear.
What point 2 means is the move away from a computer-centric model to a computing-centric model. The fact is, that except for hobbyists, nerds and geeks, most people don't want PCs. Who wants to be a computer operator, installing software packages, tweaking this and diddling with that. People want COMPUTING not computers. Before the advent of the Web, people didn't have a choice - they needed computers to get computing. But the WEB HAS CHANGED THE MODEL. Now I can get my computing off the web - all I need is a browser client device, and I have access to all the computing I need!
These two trends together mean one thing: the packaged software model is dead, capute, extinct.
So if you can't make money selling packaged software, how do you make money? By selling services! Companies and individuals will still need programmers to create these web based services for them.
IBM gets this. IBM failed miserably competing with Microsoft selling packaged software. Fortunately for them, Gerstner is a smart guy. He understood the trends. So IBM doesn't concentrate anymore on selling software. Their whole ebusiness image campaign is all about selling services. Because IBM gets it, and becaused they understand they will not be making money selling packaged software, they have more whole heartedly embraced the open source model (of course, they still have vestiges of their old corporate mentality, hence the Jikes license).
What does this mean for the individual programmer? Well if its good enough for IBM (who certainly can't be labeled socialists), it should be good enough for you. But how can you compete with all those giants? All that free software out there provides you with this huge R&D department that puts you on an equal competitive basis with these huge corporations! So, exactly contrary to the critics, free software enhances the individual programmers competitive edge, not detracts from it. It is in your economic interest, not just your moral interest, to extend the base of free software (in the RMS sense) and NOT keep your code proprietary.
What is truly amazing is that RMS envisioned this nearly 15 years ago!
Why pick on Red Hat? I just don't understand.
Thanks for clarifying, I understand what you're saying.
Well said.
I remeber when Mac users were considered a fanatical bunch of flakes. After reading these Linux zealots posts over the past few days I can really say that they have to be some of the most rabid, venomous, emotionally driven and illogical statements I've ever read. They've truly earned the title of the most annoying and wacky of the OS bigots.
ESR has basicly made the term worthless. Apple is just doing this for PR. "looky here! we are open source just like Linux/*BSD", they also may get some free R/D out of it. Apple dosnt realy want to give anything back to the community. THINK ABOUT IT. You write tons of code for the APSL you get to pay $500 (or what ever) of a OS you helped make. Apple gets rich off of you for nothing. This goes the same for Netscape and IBM. Don't get me wrong... what they did wasn't 100% a Bad Thing(TM). It makes bug fixs and in house changes real easy and cheap.
You write tons of code for a GPLed OS/program you get an OS/program that you helped make for FREE, for you and the rest of the community. You can also use your/others code for other things.
It's all up to you. You want to help Apple/IBM/Netscape/Whoever get richer...only to get screwed out of alot of time/work, thats your choice.
You wan't to realy make software better and give something back to the community, fine, use the GLP...your choice. You may not get tons of $$ this way...but at least your not making someone else rich off of your work, and your time/work isnt going to waste. And NOONE can ever take the code way from you. It will always be open and GPLed.
PS: i think the Debian people are RIGHT on this. They realy do care about the community and the software. ESR just cares about his EGO. He likes being Apple's/netscape's/IBM's/any_big_corp's piss boy. I have lost all respect for him. And i wish all media would just stop caring what he says. They think he is the leader of the "community".
---
my $0.02,flame on!
I have to return some videotapes...
Has anyone even looked at the code? I did. Isnt much there. It's missing parts and there is 0 documentation. How does this = MacOS X? It looks more like a OS Apple/next scraped a wile ago. Everyone is saying APPLE rules over something that as far as /I/ can see isnt even real. Anyone think otherwise? If so did you even get the code to compile/boot?
I have to return some videotapes...
>>Apple is opening up the source code to its OS, >>and that has convinced me to...
Do some more reading befor you buy that Mac. Apple is opening the source to Darwin. MacOS X looks to be based OFF of this. They kinda had me fooled too at 1st..Apple opening the source to Darwin is about as usefull as MS opening the source to Windows 3.0. But it sure does make good PR
I have to return some videotapes...
Software in the Public Interest, Inc.. See the US Patent and Trademark Office entry for "Open Source" (http://trademarks.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/ifetch4?ENG+A LL+3+921980+0+1+141168+F+2+2+1+MS%2f Open+AND+MS%2fSource (sorry, trying to make a out of it failed).
4) What has RMS said about the Freeness of the APSL?
Not much so far. RMS primarily communicates through email. In Aachen he told about getting RSI from coding; presumably he still suffers from this.
He's being included in a thread on spi-general, so we'll learn of his opinion soon, I hope.
5) If I see one more /. article pitting ESR against BP, I am dropping BOTH and going with RMS. It's getting so that he is the only NON-crazy one.
Bruce isn't the only signatory. It's signed by the Debian project leader (the Open Source definition is essentially the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) with Debian-specific references removed), and the president of SPI.
And while I have a lot of respect for RMS, he isn't without faults either (GPL v LGPL, not admitting to the reality that FSF gcc development is dead and succeeded by EGCS, attempts to micro-manage Debian when it was still an FSF project). Free software shouldn't be about egos, but about principles.
RMS is now responding on the freeness of the APSL. His extensive comments have not hit the spi-general webarchive yet, but should appear soon in the Apple and Open Source thread.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
The Apple Public Source License - Our Concerns Bruce Perens , Primary Author: The Open Source Definition. Co-Founder: The Open Source Initiative.
Wichert Akkerman: Debian Project Leader.
Ian Jackson: President, Software in the Public Interest. Author, Debian package installation tool `dpkg'.
We welcome Apple Computer, Inc. as a participant in the Free Software Community. We feel that a few problems in the present version of the Apple Public Source License (the APSL) disqualify it as "Open Source(TM)" or "Free Software". We hope that Apple can address these issues to everyone's satisfaction.
The participation of companies like Apple and IBM should be considered in the same way as the participation of any free software developer. Everyone is welcome to make a contribution. Individually, we each decide whether or not to accept a particular developer's contribution, for reasons that range from technical to legal and licensing concerns. We openly discuss these issues before our community, often quite harshly, as a means of developing consensus and charting our course. One consensus that we've reached is the Open Source Definition, a generally accepted definition of Free Software licensing, written by Bruce Perens and the Debian GNU/Linux developers in 1997.
We note that much of the material that Apple has just released under the APSL originated at The University of California, Berkeley and at Carnegie-Mellon University. That work was sponsored by the U.S. Government, paid for with our taxes, and was already available as Free Software under the BSD license and other well-accepted Open Source licenses. Many of these files do not significantly differ from the pre-Apple versions except that they bear the addition of a new copyright and license. Other files are entirely authored by Apple or bear significant modifications that should indeed be considered Apple's property. Where Apple has not significantly modified individual files from their pre-Apple versions, their original licenses should be preserved without the addition of the APSL.
Section 2.2(c) of the APSL requires that the producer of modifications to APSL-licensed code use a particular URL in the Apple.com domain to notify Apple. While the demise of Apple Computer, Inc. is unlikely in the near future, that sad event would leave us unable to comply with this section of the APSL. This would constitute a restriction on all rights granted by the license, including those rights necessary to qualify under the Open Source Definition. The Free Software community plans a very long lifetime for its software, and we hope that Apple will cooperate by changing this provision so that APSL-licensed software could survive without Apple. We suggest that the simple publication of modifications, such as posting on a personal web site accessible to the global internet and pointed out in any binary distributions, be all that is required. This is consistent with other licenses in our community.
Section 9.1 of the APSL allows Apple to terminate our rights to use any or all APSL-covered code, at its sole discretion, in the event of an unproven claim of infringement, no matter how specious. This is derived from a similar objectionable portion of IBM's Jikes license, which disqualified that license from being referred to as "Open Source". We hope that Apple will consider the investment that members of the Free Software community will put into APSL-licensed code when they write modifications for it. An arbitrary termination could cause us to suddenly lose that investment at some future date, with no chance for appeal. The licenses accepted by our community do not provide the possibility of termination in this manner. If termination due to an infringement claim is to be allowed at all, it should be explicitly limited to the particular source-code lines that are considered to infringe upon an existing patent. This would make it possible for the free software community to "write around the problem" and create a non-infringing version. The authors of the APSL apparently did not consider that patents expire. It should be possible for us to store infringing code for restoral to use upon the expiration of the patent in question. Apple might also consider if it's possible to allow third-parties to defend the disputed code from an infringement claim that would cause us all to lose our rights under the APSL.
We also regret to note that that Eric Raymond, with the best of intentions, jumped a little too fast to embrace the APSL in his enthusiasm to welcome Apple to our community. He placed the Open Source designation on a license that wasn't quite ready for that. We invite Eric and other members of the Free Software community to join us in requesting the few simple changes to the APSL that we have outlined in this letter.
Contact: Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> 510-526-1165 (USA) Links to Relevant Information
Bruce Perens.
I worked there 12 years and left to form another company. 12 years is a long time to be at one company.
Bruce Perens.
Why did I get perens.com? So nobody else would get it and use it to my detriment. That's all.
Bruce Perens.
What a headache, though. I was on musical hold for hours.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
What would Perens.org be? My own organization for myself? :-) I just can't convince myself that people's domain suffixes mean much any more.
Rather than withdraw the "Bruce is totally nuts" outburst, please think twice next time. I wrote a really even-toned letter and I wish the slashdot argument that followed it had been as even-toned.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
No, Linux is an operating system (or an operating system kenel, for the GNU/Linux crowd).
Linux could disappear tomorrow, and it would only slightly hurt the free software movement. A new kernel would be written. It would be harder to replace the thousands of talented people who wrote it, but they aren't going away. There's no linux movement. There's a freedom movement.
It's exactly the freedom element that you're overlooking. Like Ed Muth, you just don't "get it".
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
I don't know why I bother. If you didn't get it when you read the article, you probably don't get it when you read it here.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
I'm ashamed of my comment at the end of my reply to your post. It was inflammatory and demeaning and I wish I hadn't made it.
If I hadn't, then you wouldn't have done the same to me. I started this, and I apologise.
To clarify, I did read and comprehend your request for the specific clause in the OSD which the APSL violates. It is not because I didn't understand you that I replied with quotes from Bruce's article, but because I felt that Bruce had made it clear in those section why the APSL didn't qualify under the OSD.
Given that "Section 9.1 of the APSL allows Apple to terminate our rights to use any or all APSL-covered code", it is obvious that the APSL does not fit the OSD. It doesn't take careful reading of the OSD to see that; a general knowledge of its nature is sufficient. It is this obvious conclusion that I thought you were missing.
Whether the above quoted statement is true, and a valid premise on which to draw conclusions, is another matter. I haven't made up my mind about that yet.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
Yawn. A bunch of ad-hominim attacks, but I notice you refuse to argue against any of the points of the free software supporters.
For what it's worth, I've become _more_ idealistic and convinced I was "right all along" the more time I spend in the so-called "real", business world.
...you people will drown in your own negative confusion. /. was interesting when I got here a year ago but all this negativity is just too much. Here's an idea. How's about any one who's registered here boycotts the comments section til and just looks at the news page for a few weeks/months til this nonsense dies down. I can't decide if I'm in the middle of 'elitest central' or a zerg swarm. sheesh.
I don't understand. I didn't see any reference to enemies in Bruce's article. He merely pointed out some technical flaws and encouraged Apple to correct them.
If I submit code to go into the Linux kernel, and it has technical flaws, I would be surprised if the reviewers were this gentle. I don't see why a legal liscense should be any different.
Citizens Against Plate Tectonics
I don't see where Bruce is going berserk with condemnation. There are small problems with the liscense. He pointed them out and politely asked them to be fixed. It all seemed extrodinarily civil and polite.
If Apple want's Debian's seal of approval, they'll have to change the liscense. If they don't care, they don't have to. No one's saying Apple sucks if they don't, just that it might be a good idea if they did.
I don't think changing the liscense in the way Bruce describes would invite lawsuits. All he's suggesting is they leave the Mach liscense alone and leave a clause for "what if Apple goes under".
Citizens Against Plate Tectonics
The GUI code isn't free or published. You could make something that has the MacOSX internals, but it wouldn't look like MacOSX and probably won't run MacOSX applications (I have to assume the toolkit is part of the non-free stuff. Imagine trying to run Gnome applications on Linux without GTK).
Citizens Against Plate Tectonics
Talk about casting pearls before pigs!
You summed up the whole situation with that one line.
Well, I'm close.
:>
MacOS on a PowerTower Pro 225 (although I have both BeOS R4 and LinuxPPC R4 partitions).
...So close, so close...
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
My take - not that anyone will, or even needs to, care:
1. Bruce Perens has some valid issues with the license. These should be addressed. But blaming/flaming Apple for intentionally trying to destroy this so-called 'movement' is ludicrous. Apple doesn't give a damn about your movement. Unlike 90% of the Linux community, they're being pragmatic about the deal. They're a company that has found a perfect "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" arrangement. They receive bug fixes, developer input, new features, and a greater installed base. In return, the world gets one of the world's most impressive underlying operating systems for free, with the ability to make all sorts of changes as needed. More choice is a good thing, people.
2. Those of you whining about them not releasing some of their core intellectual property, namely the (in)famous Apple GUI and higher level stuff: Shut the hell up. Apple wants to help the community and themselves as best possible, not go out of business. Apple made enough retarded decisions pre-1997, they don't need armchair-CEOs telling them how to do it now. As far as I'm concerned, Jobs' track record has been pretty good lately.
3. Thanks for both Bruce Perens AND Apple. Obviously, both want this to succeed.
4. Given Apple's history as a somewhat closed vendor, this is indeed a historic occasion. Even moreso than Netscape (whose background was already in the free software realm).
5. Before anyone says anything about Apple's position on cloning: I own a PowerTower Pro 225, and as such was very disappointed to see cloning 'taken out'. I was pissed for months. As I look back, however, I see Apple with a 12/share stock price, an inept board, an impotent gasbag of a CEO, and a mediocre product line. Now I see blue and white G3s, iMacs EVERYWHERE, actual marketing, and now their opening up of source code.
I love my PTP, but the proof is in the results (although I think a return to cloning is essential for the long term growth of the platform).
6. This is Yet Another Reason why Be has no excuse for slowly dropping BeOS support for the PowerPC. MkLinux, LinuxPPC, and now this. Be - give us a break. Provide support for the G3/G4 or kill it altogether and save me the wasted time. Please stop feeding us these lines...
7. I will be a very happy person once we can all start caring about 'open source' more than 'Open Source'. Frankly, these politics are getting tiresome. What can I say - I'm not a fan of religion.
That's all for now.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
you don't want to give back to the mac community. you're just an opportunist. Having one macos isn't just good for Apple but also mac developers and consumers.
---
You have a good point because Apple has a record of doing one thing one day and changing their mind a few months later. They sold the Newton, they bought it back and killed it. They talked chrp and dropped it. They promised Copland and the mac still doesn't have an OS that does pre-emptive multitasking (finally macOSX based on unix hehe)
---
Come on think before you speak. How much money and Man months has Apple and Next put into this stuff? Have you even read the source?
In fact you couldn't legally copy RedHat 4 as it came on disk as it had MetroX on it. Darwin is not MacOSX, Apple has given us something great. which we can make much better. They think that the OS is a better Value with their (Proprietary) UI, you don't like it, then don't buy it. But what they gave us is free.
there is a similer clause in the GPL. Apple will only terminate the Affected code. Thus if your code is not infringing then the license for your code will not be terminated.
What portions of the Open Source Definition does it break?
Spell out what portions of the Open Source Definition it breaks. I have looked at both and found NO such clear violation.
Read the fucking license. Apple simply whats to be notified of changes. You can modify the code and redistribute it all you want. Just don't put in infringeable code or you loose the license on the infringeable code. You don't break a patent, you have NO problem.
Actually they can't change the license. You should read the license before making such moronic statements
7. Versions of the License. Apple may publish revised and/or new versions of this License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number. Once Original Code has been published under a particular version of this License, You may continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such Original Code under the terms of any subsequent version of this License published by Apple. No one other than Apple has the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered Code created under this License.
If you have a problem reading, let me paraphrase. If Apple changes the License, any code that had been published under and earlier license is still covered under that earier license. That includes all modifications made by the community because of
2.1 You may use, copy, modify and distribute Original Code, with or without Modifications, solely for Your internal research and development, provided that You must in each instance: (a) retain and reproduce in all copies of Original Code the copyright and other proprietary notices and disclaimers of Apple as they appear in the Original Code, and keep intact all notices in the Original Code that refer to this License; (b) include a copy of this License with every copy of Source Code of Covered Code and documentation You distribute, and You may not offer or impose any terms on such Source Code that alter or restrict this License or the recipients' rights hereunder, except as permitted under Section 6; and (c) completely and accurately document all Modifications that you have made and the date of each such Modification, designate the version of the Original Code you used, prominently include a file carrying such information with the Modifications, and duplicate the notice in Exhibit A in each file of the Source Code of all such Modifications.
You can't use the GPL'd code either, it would be breaking a patent.
if anyone makes a claim against Apple, they have the option to, on a whim, invalidate all of their userbase
only for the Affected code. You update and everything is hunky dory.
Only if your code infringes on a patent
you did not answer the question that I posed, in fact no one has. What portions of the Open Source Definition has Apple broken?
No it doesn't say what portions of the Definitions it breaks. Have you read the definitions of Open Source?
Darwin is about as usefull as MS opening the source to Windows 3.0
this is so wrong! It is like more MS opening all the source of NT except explorer.exe and backoffice they day they first released it.
We note that much of the material that Apple has just released under the APSL originated at The University of California, Berkeley and at Carnegie-Mellon University. That work was sponsored by the U.S. Government, paid for with our taxes, and was already available as Free Software under the BSD license and other well-accepted Open Source licenses. Many of these files do not significantly differ from the pre-Apple versions except that they bear the addition of a new copyright and license. Other files are entirely authored by Apple or bear significant modifications that should indeed be considered Apple's property. Where Apple has not significantly modified individual files from their pre-Apple versions, their original licenses should be preserved without the addition of the APSL. We could distribute the source of said files without the APSL by simply replacing the unaltered (BSD, Mach group) files with the ones not downloaded from Apple. There is no reason for them, Apple, to remove the license from these files as we are free to ourselves. It is just a matter of OUR as opposed to Apples time to do the work.
But you seem to be an expert about what it says
They can only terminate the license of Affected infringeable code. Anything that the community adds is protected by the APSL UNLESS it is infringeable, and a suit is filed.
If they change the APSL any code published or written under a former varient of the APSL is at YOUR choice protected by either version of the APSL.
actually you could sell a clone of MacOSX, just take darwin, and give it a MacOSXish UI. That is legal in the license. They are protecting themselves from someone putting gif encoding into the Darwin source and thus a lawsuit from UniSys, Or them inadvertantly releasing code with Patented portions.
Violation of what part of the Open Source Definition? READ MY FUCKING QUESTION
didn't think so. What portion of the Open Source Definition does Apple break?
Obviously you are a moron and your opinion means nothing as you are unable to comprehend a simple question
Again people have pointed out section of the APSL, I want sections of the Open Source Definition. NOBODY can give what clause of the Open Source Definition Apple has broken.
How does it violate that, and how does the GPL by clause 7.0 not violate that.
Actually I asked a very simple question. What part of the Open Source Definition did Apple violate? However all anhone can give me is 2.2, and 9.1(a) of the APSL, last time I checked the APSL was not the Open Source Definition.
Nobody has read the Open Source Definition, yet they seem to be experts at what it says. I have read Both OSD, and the DFSG, and found NOTHING in Apple's License that conflicts with anything in either Guideline.
Have poised the question nearly 10 times with the same obviously wrong answer "2.2, 9.1", I got frustrated.
Clause 7 of the GPL states that a claim of infringement could take away your right to distribution. All Microsoft needs to do is file a claim against some part of the Linux code base, and blamo, Linux CAN NOT be distributed until the claim is settled. That hasn't happened, if Microsoft hasn't done it why would anyone else.
Ahhh no they can't. All the code that has been published under the current APSL is forever protected by the APSL. Apple owns the copywrite, but they can NEVER Take the code back
there seems to be a lot of ignorance here about what power Apple has. It would be great if the entire APSL was annotated by someone with legal experience.
Once Original Code has been published under a particular version of this License, You may continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such Original Code under the terms of any subsequent version of this License published by Apple
This says that if Apple changes the license, you can choose to honor the old version of the license. You obviously didn't read it that carefully.
Again the GPL has a clause (7) which prevents distribution in case of infringement, and a clause requiring you to post all changes, or whatever else the author wants you to do.
Apple will allow you to redistribute the code, all you want, for whatever reason you want. Bruce NEVER said that contacting Apple made the code not freely redistibutional, he wanted clarification of what to do if Apple were gone, so that the License is not meaningless at that time. On the termination clause he wanted Affected Source to be defined, and that to mean Lines of Code.
I have read the OSD several times, and it is unclear to me exactly what clauses in the OSD Apple violates with the Termination Clause (I am assuming that the Terminating Apple Clause will be corrected). Having read your open letter it seems you want clarification of Affected Source, how does that make the termination clause fit better with the OSD?
I agree that Affected Code needs a definition however the context that it is used in (talking about work arounds), I take it to actually mean Lines of Code, but I certaintly want a better definition than the one I infer
/* do some shit fast*/
/*slow work around*/
if you continue to use GPL'd code that infringes on a patent, you are still not using the code legally, although I would like the code to stick around for patents to expire, just not in use, that actually sounds somewhat dangerous, one of those things where we have
#ifdef BREAK_UNISYS_PATENT
#else
#endif
Just because Apple stopped spending money on MKLinux doesn't mean that they took it away, they just stopped developing it. Nothing requires them, nor should there be an expectation that they continue, WE can support it if we want to. If you aren't personally working on MKLinux then you have no right to say that anyone at Apple should work on it. If you are personally working on it, I think you are on pretty thin ice whining about Apple removing support.
The code is not free, and it was very appropriate of Bruce to point this out.
That is utter bullshit!
The code is free and Apple is free to protect themselves, their employees and shareholders from liability. Bruces problem with 2.2 was very nit picky, he simply wants clarification should Apple have an unhealthy demise, and his problem with 9.1 seems to be a non issue, since removing the Affected code is the last resort for an infringemnt claim according to Apple's license
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.
It seems that the spirt of the license is that workarounds, and deals would be the first wave of correction. Also he seems to have missed the term Affected which implies Lines of code
Verse 7 of the GPL
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. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances. It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice. This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.
According to the GPL all that is needed for termination distrubution is an allegation of infringement or any other reason
8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
I put forth this last bit to show everyone that even in the GPL there IS an owner of the code, the original copyright holder, whoever that may be.
I may be wrong, but as far as I've read, Linus yays or nays code to go into the kernel. Is he a dictator? mozilla.org approves or disapproves code which remains in their source.
Having a central authority is required unless you are eager to write code without direction, with bugs introduced with every patch, and a million incompatable trees of every file in the OS. Of course, this central authority never said that they are not allowing you to make ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER you like for internal/personal usage. You don't have to submit your change if you just want to use it for yourself. You don't even need to document it. Spaghetti code is tasty code, huh?
If I only had the choice of Windows -- which is not even close to being the case, and ignoring anti-trust implications -- and I didn't like it, I would endeavor to write or help write an OS that I did like. The fact of the matter is that the OS I would write would be bad, but that which another would write would be good. If the market is dissatisfied, the market will move to create competition.
If you don't like Apple, don't buy or use Mac OS X Server. If you don't like Mac OS X Server, use another OS. You have choice. No one is forcing you to only buy Pepsi; you have the whole soda aisle to browse.
Russell Ahrens
I'm not a lawyer, and I no longer even play one on TV anymore, but if they pay you to sue them, even if you drop the suit, isn't that illegal? Gotta be some sort of conspiracy or strongarm behaviour. I dunno. At the very least, Apple would lose all support the have for doing so.
Then stop whining. As was said before, put up or shut up. I'm sure there are enough people out there who can stop whining long enough to provide something useful.
Oh please, I certainly hope Apple doesn't slide down the slippery slope of the not-truely-free GPL. Besides, what's wrong with putting the license you want on your code?
...that was a very inspiring speech you just gave, but I don't see how it is relevant to the very specific critique of the license that Bruce made.
This isn't about politics (BP was only one of THREE people to sign the document); it is about protecting the investment that programmers who spend their "free" time (time is never free) on these projects are not left high and dry when a company like I.B.M. or Apple decides that there is some remote possiblity for an IP suit -- so they must destroy all copies of the code they have worked on and relinquish their hard work to Apple/I.B.M. so they can continue to use it in their commercial products.
Pretty simple to me. It is the same reason that Golgotha Forever switched to the more-restrictive GPL after Crack.com released their code under the restriction-free GPL. I don't want some game company (maybe a competitor to the company that I work for in my day job) taking my freely-contributed code and using it against me -- AND keeping it secret/proprietary!
shane
Ok, so the licence sux... we all have an opion on that... But hey, it would be fun to develop an OS especialy one that might be used by lots of people. This could be chance for poeple who are interested in Linux Kernel/OS development but can't get involoved. I personally thought it might be cool to have a new OS to play with.
On to the problem. Apple has provided no documentation. No readmes come with their Kernel no how to setup a Darwin system. No list of suported hardware. No information or tools for a file system. Well I for one am not interested in an OS with no docs what so ever.
Some may say, hey cut them some slack this is just the start. However I can site multiple counters to this. The first linux kernel I booted was v 0.95b and it was clearly defined what you needed to do to make it work. Linus and company had a minimal ammount of documentation but it covered the functional level of the task of installing the kernel and what you needed around it to make it work. Apple has a history of not providing for there developers. (Yes, I am a apple registered developer (for my old job), I'm also a Microsoft Developer and Microsoft treates their developers much better then Apple!) Apple has promised technologies that it doesn't develiver and impliments technology as it sees fit. A good example of this is there JDK port. I needed to fix a java applet that was broken only on the mac. I tried their JDK. It made references to a forth comming update that added suport for the newest JDK from SUN. That was in Jully that I looked at that page the page promised the new JDK in the previose April. They didn't deliver and didn't update the page to that fact. As to selective technologies, again with the JDK they implimented a select part of the JDK. Large Applets developed on SUNs JDK on a Sol. 2.4 box wouldn't run on a mac due to networking apis that apple didn't include in their JDK.
So I for one an not expecting miricles from apple. They promise many things and never deliver. Copland comes to mind. As of yet MacOS still has no protected memory scheeme. They are just screeming ME too and hoping to profit from free work. If they really want to go open source give the code to the GUI out! Give the code to the diffrent (COLOR)BOX Virtual Machines... What they are giving is a joke......
I'm not laughing....
Under stand this is not the OS X. This is apples hack of 4.4BSD. This is not much different the MkLinux which apple has abandoned. Darwin has no gui. It consists of a Kernel, a shell, and some free tools written by the free software movement.
Oh wait... this is 4.4BSD that too was written by the Free Software Movement. Apple has add a few drivers and a free microkernel.
As for being hungry: The current generation of free OSs are stake, Linux, FreeBSD, etc... These are the systems that count. Now if apple reliese the book APIs or the GUI or other HIGH level OS tools then maybe that would be a start. Free software doesn't need a new kernel. We have linux, Hurd, *BSD, MkLinux (HP and Apple variant), etc.
An interesting thing would be apple releasing the GUI/apis and src. People could then integrate those in to other OSes and allow for apple software to run on other platforms. That would rock!
Log in, set threshold, read till your eyes bleed.
If B. Perenes is such big shot open source advocate why register a commerical domain? This guy is total nuts.. I like the current Debigan project
--
"So nobody else would get it and use it to my detriment"
.org was put on .com :)
;) Goddamit.. lets release potato already.. (need kernel 2.2, Xfree87 3.3.3.x, glibc2.1 (oh yeah we have it already), and so on)
That sounds fair enough. It would still be more pleasing to our eyes if a big fat link to
I just read your statement and would like to withdraw my "Bruce is totally nuts" outburst. Ahem.
Also, my initial posting got cut off, I was actually thanking the debian project and saying hi to Wichert Akkerman
--
"Rather than withdraw the "Bruce is totally nuts" outburst, please think twice next time. I wrote a
:)
:))
:)
really even-toned letter and I wish the slashdot argument that followed it had been as even-toned. "
Seesh, Come on bruce, What did you expect when you posted your comment here ? Slashdot just like the net is full of people trying to find someone to flame. Usually it doesnt mean that we hate you or anything. Most of us admire you (seriously) - I for one think you did a good job at Debian. If you find a comment that is abusive and totally against you, just dont reply to it. People love flame wars
And just dont go away into nothingness just cause someone ticked you off in slashdot. It wouldnt be wrong to say that most of the people here appericate the work you have done and enjoy having you as a fellow slashdotter (I guess they just like to have fun
Actually "Bruce is totally nuts" was not for the letter, it was for the domain
Have a good one..
--
If Bruce was still at the OSI, maybe he could have vetoed Open Source (TM) certification of the APSL.
Right. I've just read Bruce's essay in parallel with the Open Source definition, and the Debain free software guidelines (which are essentially the same). Whilst he raises a number (2) of legitimate points, none of the them clearly places this license outside the domain of free/open source software, by the rules as we've come to accept them.
Bruce makes 2 points. Firstly that the license is invalid if Apples goes under because you cannot submit changes back to Apple. IANAL, and therefore cannot comment on whether this would invalidate the whole license, but its definitely just a nit. The intent in such a situation is pretty clear, and anyway its much more likely Apple (or at least their IP rights) would be brought long before going bust.
Secondly, I do not accept that there is anything wrong with termination clauses. They simply give the company a way out of nasty lawsuits, by allowing it to do unilaterally what the courts would do anyway. All those 'reasonablies' and so forth can safely be ignored.
He also peeves about some of the code being BSDL'd. Well, you're allowed to add conditions when distributing BSD code, so IDC, and he shouldn't either.
First, noone forces you to code under ASPL, it's totally up to you to choose wether to accept the terms or not, if the latter means you wount hack on MacOS X code, then fine.
Second, you're quite right, the creative things in OS X is not OpenSource, only the dull parts you know already. So what?
I appreciate Bruce Peren's criticism of Apple's license, since I care about what Open Source means. I don't want to accept something possibly tainted, only to be stuck at a later date when things go sour. If there are problems with the APSL, I want to hear what they are, and hope that Apple will fix them.
As an ex-MacOS user, I'm real familiar with getting screwed by Apple. In the past, they've been a monopoly in a little niche: A single company sells you the hardware and the OS that works with it. Expensive. Flighty. Closed.
Remember when Apple, hoping to increase the Mac marketshare, opened up to letting other companies make clone Mac hardware? When the cloners ate into the low end of the market at Apple's expense, Apple stopped licensing the OS to them and put them all out of business.
Doesn't that sound familiar: "If your actions displease us, we'll put you out of business by refusing to sell you our OS..." ?
Now, imagine if the Open Source community came to rely on some almost-open-but-not-really code. If Apple felt like it, they could yank the rug out of under us:
"If your success threatens our business, we'll throw your development efforts into chaos by pulling your license."
Bruce is right to raise issues of freedom...
We're not that intolerant. We've been offered a nice hot slice of, um, apple pie. And we're checking it for fishhooks.
Hmmm?
Oh, because so many previous slices of pie have had something unpleasant inside them, that's why...
I do remember when Apple was about to go under. I remember the endless "Apple Dead?" headlines. I agree that Steve Jobs is a focused and determined CEO, not shy about making drastic and sometimes unpopular decisions for the sake of his company.
I am glad that the company is doing better, that they seem to selling a lot of iMacs. I bought my parents a G3 last year, figuring that it'd be easiest for my brother to support since he desktop publishes on macs.
But there was a certain seige mentality in the Mac community: When the cloners got killed off, I recall the pundits in MacWorld saying that it was harsh but necessary, that if Apple went under, the Mac ecosystem would too. I parrotted that line, too. Repeated it to my friends. Told them *years* ago, that the hardball moves were unfortunate, but Apple would recover, and had great things waiting to show us.
I got tired, though. Too many crashes. Too many Apple boxes purchased at a premium. Too long waiting for a decent OS. Too much money spent getting basic software utilities. Too little freedom.
That's why I walked. I got tired of the "Mac Ecosystem". It was like being a loyal citizen of a run down country run by a dictator. Jobs just seems the most successful.
Oh, it works quite OK and is at the moment the only Linux available for older PMacs, which are excellent for Linux. MkLinux is a bit weird since it's based on the Mach microkernel, thus per definition isn't really Linux, just almost. MkLinux is hardly going anywhere with Apple, since they've got both MaxOS X and the APSL-OS now, but supposedly something is going on at Al Guerra Enterprises, Inc.
I agree. While the creativity that comes from the open source model is great, the narrowmindedness that seems to come with is anything but open or great. Mac users tend to be more creative and not just flaming companies for their strategies or other users for their choice of software.
So, in it least some cases, Apple took CMU code, and added their own copyright and licensing terms? A copyright is a statement of ownership; by implication, it asserts a claim of intellectual property on the copyrighted material. In other words, Apple is claiming the CMU work as their own! If this happened with students and term papers, it would be called plagiarism, and would incur a stiff penalty. Not only do I agree with Bruce that the original license should be restored to these slightly-modified files, but I would also like to see Apple given a great big F for this project. And since ESR has endorsed the project, he gets an F too. Come on guys, you can both do better than this.
--jt
Personally, I'm much more comfortable knowing that there are people out there who don't take anyone's word as straight gospel about this stuff. The Open Source movement is way too important to screw up. I'd rather have a couple of watchdogs keeping an eye on what's going on than have a bunch of "if He says it then it is Right" vacant-eyed marshmallows humming along to the Wizard of Oz tune and ignoring that man behind the curtain.
Er. Awright...the analogy got a little extended, but you get my point
Question Everything. Trust No One. Geez...don't you kids learn -anything- from TeeVee these days?
- dria
There is a standard for defining what Open Source Software is. The APSL does not abide by this definition, and therefore OSI calling it OSS is wrong.
/. flames happened on this subject because it educated people to the fact that the APSL is not OSS, and there is a danger to developers coding under it. If we just went by OSI's stance, we could get a kick in the teeth later on.
The flames and arguments are not against Apple. Apple is free to do what that want. The OSI is being irresponsible here by calling the APSL OSS. By doing this, they create confusion, and dilute the power and meaning of OSS.
A polite thank you for the effort, but we will not endorse your license as OSS until you fix these things is more than appropriate. Personally, I am loathe to trust what OSI deems as OSS at this point because they seem to want to get as many on board as possible even if it means compromising more than they already have. This leads them to making decisions such as this one, and that is bad for the rest of the community.
However, I'm glad all the
damon
I dunno...you could be right or wrong. I have no clue why Apple is releasing source. I was talking about the license being OSI approved when it shouldn't have been.
damon
Debian is a Linux distro. Why would one OS care about another OS's license? I mean geez, it's not like Debian would be distributing it anyway.
Besides, a lot of Bruce's points are specious: the APSL applies to stuff that APPLE (or NeXT, as they bought them) wrote. NOT to other stuff that already had its own license.
_Deirdre
It's not free. So?
Open Source software needn't be. This is the primary philosophical difference between the FSF and the open source (but not necessarily free) advocates.
I personally care more about open source than no-cost software.
_Deirdre
don't worry. I won't.
-- we turn sound into light...
From http://www.macintouch.com/mxs.html:
Eric Raymond, president of The Open Source Initiative, said, "We see that Apple really gets it." He had reviewed the Apple Public Source License, producing some changes in the original draft, and said that it now is "strictly conformant" with open source principles.
If there's a problem with Apple's "almost-free" software license, Raymond don't seem to notice, and may have even contributed to the problem...
After hashing it out in the earlier Apple/Darwin thread, I'd prefer that Apple use the GPL -- as I said, I want Apple to do the right thing -- but if someone can prove infringement, and it can't be worked around, then no one can use the software, under the GPL.
Who "wins" in that case?
Jay (=
> but should we be criticizing a company ...
/.ers? They criticize EVERYTHING (after all, you're criticizing people for being to critical). Bruce et al? Their article wasn't too critical. Friendly tone, calmly worded, detailed, and made specific, well thought, constructive criticisms with suggested improvements.
We who?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
. . . much less the "free software community". I'm not about to accept his word as law, which is what you seem to be suggesting. Why should I?
Eric Raymond . . . stated that Apple's license strictly conforms to the standards put forth by the open source community.
Raymond often seems to get his own opinions mixed up with the "standards of the community". If his OSD doesn't take termination clauses into account, then many members of the "community" might suggest that it's time to rewrite the OSD. Hopefully Raymond will give that some thought and act accordingly, or at the very least explain why termination clauses don't bother him (or else why they do bother him, but aren't worth fighting against).
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Wasn't there some back-and-forth'ing on all of those? There is precedent for this.
Perens isn't declaring war here, he's saying that there are some issues which concern him -- and which also concern some others, as well. He's taken a very non-confrontational, "let's sit down and talk" tone with this, and rightly so.
Look, it's not in Apple's interest to release code under a license that people don't trust. They want people to work with them on this; why else bother? If they've got any sense at all (which with Apple is at times debatable
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Oh, but it is open source. It isn't Open Source...
_________________________________ he who laughs last is at 300 baud
Software doesn't have to be GPL'ed in order to be free.
And KDE IS free.
I'm just too disappointed from working OS/2 to ever do anything with proprietary, closed software again. Some recent examples that come to mind are Win32-OS/2 and almost anything from Netl@bs (thank God they have to keep Gimp/2 free)).
In any case, it doesn't matter, because I'm slowly becoming unglued from my OS/2 systems and migrating to GNU. I've already got OS/2 on my X desktop so I don't even need to sit at my OS/2 box anymore.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
No, OSI does not own trademark 'Open source'. So you whole argument falls through. OS trademark is owned by Software in Public Interest.
mklinux development is definetly on going. in fact, i just ported darwin's serial driver to mach. took me 9 hours; note that during that time i was watching tv, playing with my dog, listening to the radio and on irc (not *all* at the same time, though). the point is, the darwin code is already being put to use. and it's not just useful to mklinux, there's a lot of code in there that linuxppc and linux in general could use (ie, hfs and hfs+).
on the topic of mklinux webpages, www.mklinux.apple.com is definetly out of date. there's a new site that's still in developement. it's up now, but i don't want to post the url here, cuz it could get slashdoted pretty easy (it's not on a t1) and as i said, it's not finished yet.
there's nothing wrong with criticism, but to say the code isn't free, isn't true. it's certainly not public domain, but it's not exactly trade secret, either. apple isn't as open as netscape, but it's still no microsoft.
It is that "baggage" that will sustain Linux.
Interesting that this same "baggage" failed to sustain socialism in most of the world. In the end it all came down to money. Why should I expect it is going to be different with linux?
(Didn't all the hippies in the 60s/70s think they were changing the world too? Right up until they decided to sell out and join the materialistic 80s at any rate.)
maybe we should ID our posts with a little plus sign -->> + to show that you will refuse to flame. Rather than fighting fire with fire, which clearly doesn't work here, a gentle, non-violent response may prove more effective. Sure, it seems a little corny, but what if every one who feels as we do starts doing it? Maybe /. will resume being an interesting, fun place.
The music is not in the piano -Clement Mok
---
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will deserve neither and lose both."
"It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees." - Albert Camus
---
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will deserve neither and lose both."
"It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees." - Albert Camus
Last time I checked, there was a difference between opening your source and declaring your product to be Free Software. Apple is not making any claims to Free Software, because it's planning on charging for the OS in the future (as well it should), with any modifications included. It is merely saying that it is opening its source, which it most certainly has done. The source is there. I can see it. You can see it.
So to all the commenters I see claiming that Apple hasn't embraced the principles of Free Software, you're right! But if you claim that it hasn't opened its source, then it's not hard to prove you wrong...
-Snibor Eoj
it's free actually .... Apple has already given up most of the OS X components to open source, though most of those things were actually open sourced long time ago. Apple is only keeping the user interface to themselves. What do u want them to do ?? .. U want them on one hand selling their OS for $500, and on the other hand giving it out ??
.... ~_~"
if you like you can write a user interface for it, i really think it's a good (not great) opportunity of those interesting windowmanagers for X-win to try to incorporate to darwin. (especially windowmaker, it'll be just like a reborn of Nextstep), apple will be very unhappy to see that
I still think darwin is darwin, linux is linux.... just if later I got the interest of running darwin on my computer , I think I'll still install linux on the other partition.
I think the possibility of darwin being able to boot up is quite high, because as you see BSD is actually included in it.
I think you are the one whose no getting it. Apple is open sourcing partially of it's OS, and if you as me for an interpretation of this action is .... .. I am not sure) .. :P .. they are Darwin .... ...
Apple want developers to port the base of MacOS X modify it, so eventually you'll see x86 port of darwin, Sparc's port Alpha's port of Darwin, and they all share some very basic components (eg maybe yellow box or carbon
But in some sense they are not Mac
So eventually there might be darwin clones , but no mac clones
Correct me if you think I am wrong.
Funny; after all of those people who claim that working on open source stuff is a labor of love and pride, here's an honest person. It's about money. No one seems to have a problem with Linus getting all of the accolades from Linux (well, except RMS). Seems to me that's a benefit for one person rather than the whole community. Heck, people say that Linus deserves it. But when Apple might make (bog-forbid) MONEY off of open source, the wolves start to circle.
Hypocrites, one and all.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
It's the whole "inch, mile" thing. People who might get burned if this possibility happens will be less likely to help free software. Therefore, people such as Broce Perens want to see this fixed.
Can Apple make a new version of the APSL, then pull the rug out from under everyone by using the APSL v1.0 section 9 under the previous license clause of the APSL? Or would that just invalidate using the code under APSL v1.0.
Yeah. I just read the APSL part 7. From what I saw it would just invalidate using the code under APSL 1.0. This would mean that after APSL 1.1 or 2.0 are created, that Apple could at anytime destroy the right to use "original" code licensed under APSL 1.0. Something that should be watched for.
But some of these people are saying, "Hey apple, we would love to touch your code, but not unless you make some modifications to this license."
Yes, but honoring the past license (1.0) would mean honoring every bit, including the patent violation clause, which apple would have used to stopped use of the original source under license 1.0, which means you cannot use the original source under the 1.0 license.... Read my comment more carefully.
Another one bites the dust. The /. is in full effect. You should warn these people, Rob. :)
--
"In Cyberspace, no one can hear you be sarcastic"
I agree. RedHat's distro has problems, but their hearts are in the right place, and their name brings money to them (which brings more free goodies to us), and press to Linux (which brings more money to them and more free goodies to us). I think RedHat's the mack of the free software world right now, though I generally tend to run other free OSes.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
What it proves is that all of you are full of BS.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
ESR is a corporate lapdog. RMS is a socialist nut. BP is RMS with a bigger ego and fewer letters in his handle. To a hacker who has a lot of disk space, an eye to see 'proper' implementations of hardware-level programming, and the capacity to take what he's learned and use that knowledge, in a general sense, to his favorite OS, any source code he gets his hands on is Open Source. I can get the source code for Solaris and, while Sun won't let me redistribute my own version of SunOS/Solaris, that doesn't stop me from using examples from their code to further my knowledge of the inner workings of their hardware, and from learning new tricks from their programmers on such things as memory management, device control, etc.
Open Source is a Red Herring, and a bunch of Bull Shit. Soon, if all this rubbish persists, it will be more of an encumbrance to open your source than to just keep it proprietary.
That's my two cents,
--CDB (three more meaningless letters)
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
And do you remember who added a third to their stock price in one day single-handedly? It was Bill Gates who announced that M$ are investing $150 Mln in Apple, there was to be new version of M$ Office (98), and Apple claims were negotiated out of the court.
Didn't it strike you back then that the fanaticism of the Mac users wasn't enough to keep Apple afloat? Isn't it evident that Apple continued to exist only on the mercy of M$ who needed a proof that there's a competition but don't need the competition itself. True, DOJ weren't on the stage yet, but you needn't be the greatest visionary to see what could come.
M$ are still holding Apple with two fingers above the water. They won't let them drawn but they won't let them out of the water either.
And I don't feel sorry for Apple because they are in no way better than M$. They only have smaller market share but they treat their users even worse than M$ do.
What else do you think M$ need Apple for? They only need them as an *evidence* (and a controlled one) that there's no monopoly.
M$ want TOTAL domination. They wouldn't settle for selling only an office suit no matter to how many users (in their case - the more, the worse) without the OS to be able to cut the oxygen off whomever they like.
Come on, they couldn't even tolerate an independent web browser, for heaven's sake!
Lack of motivation in the individual brought down the socialism, and that's why it bankrupted. Lack of money was only the end result. And there was no motivation because there was no freedom - and I think that with Linux I have as much as I need.
Many people are motivated more by a noble cause than other by money. That's why the future is so bright for Linux.
Let's face it - M$ still have better working and more consistent GUI. But I'm not going back there, thank you very much.
I also think that the hippies DID change the world. Pity you fail to see that.
How does it matter whether or not Bruce doesn't get along with Steve Jobs, or if Rob put the essay up just because Bruce is a well known person. Would we have listened to someone who none of us had heard of before? And would we have seen it if it wasn't on Slashdot? Let's not condemn the only tools we have as a community to voice our concerns and come to consensus.
Perhaps there was a better way Bruce could have made the message more clear. However, lets not forget the ultimate implication here. Had Bruce not brought this issue up, this decision may have been made and accepted with no thought on our part.
Now, it is time to stop bickering and time to let Apple and the rest know how we really feel. So we support it or not?
Lisa
GNUstep is an effort to do the UI part as Free Software. GNUstep on Darwin should be very, very close to the original NeXT experience...for $0.00. Plus, the combination should be available on Alpha, Intel and other interesting platforms...not just PowerPC.
Go to the GNUstep Web Site and give us a hand! :-)
Java rocks! Check out gcj at www.cygnus.com...
Come on guys - there are two gnats in the Apple license - termination and returning the code to Apple. THAT'S IT. On the scale of 1 to 10, it means Apple's action in opening the OS code is a 9.98 out of 10.
Returning code to Apple is a non-issue because Apple can't go after you if there is no URL to return the code to.
The other issue is termination, which is important, and needs to be reworked. Apple DOES need protection from patent infringement, we have talked about that enough here. It's not just the Free Software guys that suffer from software patents - corporations can get stung too.
What IS needed is a solution that gives Apple (and other companies, i.e. IBM) protection from infringement lawsuits and at the same time keeps the source open. This is something that the Open Source/Free Software movement needs to address.
It is NOT a case of Apple being a villan. It is simply a case of Apple trying to protect it's ass from crippling infringement laibility judgements, and the fact that software patent infringement issues are a problem with Open Source.
The issue regarding cloners was much more serious than 'eating into the low end of the market' for Apple.
Apple was in serious danger of going out of business. They were hemorraging billions of dollars per year. Jobs has said publically that this issue was simply a matter of the survival of Apple Computer as a company. If this is right, there wouldn't be any clones, either.
Remember the $12 stock price? The Apple logo framed in black on the cover of Business Week?
I certainly didn't want to see the clones wiped out. But if it really was a life and death issue.... well I don't think I can really criticize Apple on this.
Where does it say you can't use it for other projects?????
Fine, so the Apple liscence isn't 100% pure Open-source-free-as-in-free-speech, but should we be criticizing a company that is opening its code up? Sure ideally it would be nice to have it all GPL'd, but isn't this better than what we had? What does it serve to condemn apple for taking a step in the right direction. And I know that this will certainly help groups like LinuxPPC open up the Mac platform to other OSes.
Who am I? Subscribe and find out
No If you would like to change your threshold down to -1 you will see the comment you wrote, along with other comments deemed unnessesary, as in they added nothing to the conversation
Amen.
/.'ers on its side. It wants people to create a GUI for darwin, and it wants people to port all the existing Linux stuff to Darwin. Apple will listen...Steve is no moron...he knows that it's all of you (linux developers) that are going to make Darwin happen...
Look. Apple is new to this. They, being a corporation, have certain hurdles to jump to make this Open Source thing work for them. The lower OS X Server pricing and the (somewhat) Open Source move prove that the "new" Apple listens to its customers and developers. Give them feedbak in a reasonable manner on what's fuxored about the APSL, and they'll fix it. I'm confident in that.
Apple is doing this for one reason: to give the linux developers a new toy to play with. Apple wants all the
Jeff Croft
http://industrystandard.org
jcroft@industrystandard.org
----------
Jeff Croft
http://jeffcroft.com
That termination clause is mostly straight forward, but if you read section 12.2, it makes a comment about 'sublicenses'. What exactly are these, and how do they apply in this case. I'm new to the OSS community, so I'm not clear, but on reading the earlier definitions, it makes it sound like what this means is: Anything that qualifies as a 'sublicense' is totally immune from being Terminated. So all we need to do is figure out how to get everything sublicensed.
/workable/ license. Let's help Apple along here, so that they're encouraged to continue in this direction. I'm an eternal optimist, and I want to see Apple move forward with this. Let's help them.
If someone could offer a definition of exactly what a sublicense is, it would be appreciated. In the meantime, I think this is a
--
Matthew Walker
My DNA is Y2K compliant
Matthew Walker
http://www.tweeterdiet.com/ - My Diet Tracking Tool
It seems RedHat is going to include KDE... Check
out the RedHat5.9 FTP site. Yes, this is not a
final distribution, but it seems that after Qt
was put under the QPL (open source but not free
software - Eric likes it, Richard doesn't)
RedHat agreed to use it...
Frankly, I'm amused by the way many people will go on and on about the need to set software free, yet will turn around and try to tell companies like Apple exactly how to go about doing that. How can you try to force Apple to do things how you want them done in the name of freedom? Does anyone see the irony here?
- StrangeDaze
Ummm. You should remember that fanaticism is NOT a good thing. It usually leads to closed mindedness. I enjoy my 3 yr old mac, I consider windows perfectly OK, and linux gives me shivers and makes me feel good.
You should remember that Apple is the first(nonlinux, of course) retail OS to even pretend to be Open Source. The liscence as it stands is a good test run for Apple to try Open Source, while allowing it to run back out of the surf if the water gets too cold.
Open Source cannot just simply be a religon ... ...
.... ..... and not Open Source ..... ...great .... .....
.... the guys from Red Hat
... ...
and the guards of the different licence models of the Open Source should not become administrators
Linux is a great platform
Some great programms for Linux are actually quite
expensive
Mac OS X (Server ) is a great platform
Some of it will be under the GPL
some of it will cost
Actually i have great admiration for
Linus, Raynolds, Jobs
for one thing they are not narrow minded
and they are quite creative
Under that license, the code is yours, but they have the right to revoke the license that protects you, making the code theirs. That's the fundamental problem. They need to do that to protect themselves from patent laws, but how they word it is questionable. It's almost a mirror image of the problems with the IBM license.
--- A Jesus Fish eating a Darwin Fish only proves Darwin's point.
Hear Hear.
Last time I checked Apple was not (intentionally) the business of giving stuff away for free and losing money. All of you whiny snapperheads should be glad that it's open source for all the right reasons, like security and flexibility. I know alot of stuff in there is not thiers, but they arent claiming it is. $500 is a drop in the bucket for an unlimited liscence (most of you get paid more than that for installing free systems), so cough it up.
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
How can you berate someone for grouping Linux users into one "community" in the same post that you group all Mac users together?
That being said, how "underhanded" is the APSL? The main point of concern seems to be that Apple will pull the license entirely if some code is the subject of a suit, while if you actually _read_ the license it only states that "Affected" code could be pulled - nothing about anulling the license. I certainly grant that provisions need to made to allow for a post-Apple world, and it needs to distinguish between use and distribution of code in the event of an infringement case, but I don't see anything in the license that indicates that Apple's trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. They haven't hidden any of the terms of the license in fine print, or obfuscated it in any way. The worst thing they're guilty of appears to be not approaching the "Open Source"-style release of their code in a style fitting some people's rather rigid ideals.
Certainly the more negative comments about Apple don't reflect the original criticism by Bruce Perens, which seems to have been more of an attempt at good criticism than a condemnation (of Apple, anyway). While I don't agree with the whole thing (I do think the "infringement" clause was read a little loosely, for instance), it would certainly be nice if comments on both sides of the argument would stick to the issues and avoid attacks on groups that are based more on what platform they use than their personal morals.
Naked.
I did.
"Seems Mac users aren't used to freedom, seeing how giddy they have become..."
Mind you, it's good to know that you didn't intend to judge all Mac users - it just hadn't been clear, since the only qualification was in the final sentence. I do apologize for misjudging you.
Naked.
And without Big Government giving research grants to Bell Labs, and it's requirement that output be available to the public because of AT&T's regulated monopoly status, there would be no Unix.
Therefore, you are here because of Big Government, and Big Government is the most important factor in Linux's success.
:P
>"Make the bastards chase you. They will follow." -hst-
Some quotes cannot exist in a vacuum. I'll quote(as close as possible) the movie, as it is fresher in my mind than the book and is almost the same.
"Few people understand the psychology of a highway cop. Your normal speeder will panic and pull over. This is wrong. It incites contempt in the cop heart. Make the bastard chase you. He will follow...But he won't know what to make of your right-hand blinker, signaling that you're turning off for an appropriate place to talk. He'll have a few seconds to realize that he's about to make a 180 degree turn at high-speed.
I know I massacared it, but I couldn't just let it sit there out of context.
But KDE IS GPL software.......
I'm not sure but it's released under General Public Licence. -> hence Free Software in the mean RMS says... (well it truly become true only when Troll changed Qt licence)