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.
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)