Slashdot Mirror
OSI APSL Response
Rubinstien writes "Eric Raymond has issued a brief response in which he claims that Bruce Perens and others are mistaken in criticizing the Apple Public Source License and OSI's endorsement of it. " I knew this was going to be hairy.
I've read the APSL (1.0), the OSD (1.0), Perens Termination letter, Perens APSL Open Letter, and Raymond's response. IANAL, but I think I've got a pretty good handle on things here. I don't think that Perens fully understands the APSL. Perens contentions are:
1) Apple's death causes license invalidation.
2) Termination clause not allowable under OSD
3) Termination clause is overbroad
He is wrong.
1) The Severability clause (13.6, ESR's argument) kicks in. If Apple dies, the entire license is unenforceable.
2) OSD (1.0) says nothing about termination clauses.
3) APSL's Termination clause is not overbroad. Section 9.1 (Infrigment) clearly defines "Affected Original Code" as that which is "subject of a claim of infrigment." Termination is one of three options; Obtain rights; code around infrigment; or termination.
The question then becomes, what do to about termination clauses? In the case of patent infrigment, a company needs to have a compliance mechanism, in this case, terminating the open license on the "Affected Code." To not try to prevent further infrigment on a patent could be interpreted as contempt of court. Without such clauses, companies (as well as individuals) open themselves to further legal problems. Regarding the possibility of a company asking another company to file an infrigement claim, such a claim would not have standing in American courts, due to the advisarial nature of our court system (ie there must be a real, identifible confict in order for the plaintiff to have standing.) What if a company manufactures "real" conflict? That's what amicus briefs (and I would suppose, OSI) is for!
Should the OSD ban termination clauses? In general, I would lean towards "No." Companies, and individuals have to protect themselves from patent suits. Regardless of ideology, we still have software patents, and we can't pretend that they don't exist. IBM's license, however, appears suspect due to the "appears likely to be made" phrase. The APSL seems reasonable.
But then again, I could be wrong.
The basic opinion is: Apple's testing the waters here; its further actions will be governed by the response of the open-source community. If people treat Apple as slime and "just as bad as Microsoft", as some people on Slashdot have been doing, then it's assured that Apple's open-source efforts will never go beyond what they are now. But if they see positive results coming out of their experiment -- like good outside enhancements or bugfixes, or market-viable porting opportunities -- then they may very well more fully embrace the idea of open source.
Please, people. Be rational about this. Good can come from it if we avoid extremism and ideological jihads.
Bruce is not the only one bitching about it. Crawl out from under that rock and you may notice that. Bruce was simply chosen to be the one to write the letter up, just cause everyone doenst have their story posted to slashdot doesnt mean they arent happy with it.
For what it's worth, here's my take on the issue. It looks to me like the 2.2(c) reporting requirement issue is annoying, but it won't lead to the license disappearing. They've got that one satisfactorily covered.
The 9.1 point is still a problem. I don't care what Apple intended Affected Original Code to mean. It is not clearly defined in the license, and I can see all sorts of abuse that can come from a loose definition of the term.
I don't care whether it is technically Open Source or not, I don't want a license which can end my legal use of a program on a company's whim. I think there is a clear need for a "No Termination of Use" clause to be inserted into the Open Source guidelines. While there is not one, the Open Source definition becomes pretty useless to me.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Anonymous Coward wrote:
So basically you want the freedom to ignore other developers' intellectual property rights? Yet you demand that developers honor your pet license?
No, I want the definition of Open Source to include a carefully worded statement regarding Termination of Use. I think termination of use clauses are contrary to the spirit of Free Software, and I think the Open Source definition should reflect that.
I never asked for the freedom to ignore other's rights, that's not freedom at all. I asked that the license we call free be what I consider free, and the licenses that can terminate your use on a corporate whim not be called free. Currently, the Open Source definition is the yardstick we use, and I think it needs a mark for these clauses.
Somebody steals some code, adds it to Linux without permission of the author. You have no problems continuing to use that code?
Of course I have a problem with that. Unless the author assigns copyright to someone else, only the author has the right to copy or license their IP. What sideways reading of what I wrote made you think I was advocating plagarism?!?
Face it: If you expect people to honor the various free software licenses, you'd better be prepared to honor other licenses. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.
I do honour other licenses, and you implying that my views are hypocritical without taking the time to understand them is very short sighted. If a program has a license that I find too objectionable, I honour it by not using the program. This is why I haven't purchased any proprietary software in three years.
Apple is probably not losing a customer by me disliking their license, I had no plans to get MacOS X. On the other hand the Open Source Initiative is potentially losing a supporter if they continue to encourage licenses like this.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
I guess as long as it's making Apple money, Open Source is great.
At least Microsoft has the decency to just shun us outright.
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I know one thing for sure: it definatly isn't free software!
find freedom @ http://www.fsf.org
Posted by Art Pepper:
Looks like this is where the lawyers usually come in.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
We give BP a waffle iron and let ESR use Jedi mind tricks. Lock them in a room. The first person to leave the room gets to call it "Open Source", the second person has to call it "Open Sores".
Posted by Hackin Bey:
obviously you live in a less cultured region than northern california...harumph!
While there are the standard irate messages on Slashdot, in general the tone seems pretty calm to me. Bruce has asked for relatively minor changes and clarifications, and has in no way impugned Apple. From Bruce's page, it looks like Apple is willing to work with the license to bring it to everyone's satisfaction. Bruce and Eric could perhaps have been marginally more polite to each other, but I think they'd both admit they're not diplomats.
I think this move by Apple is big. There's a real possibility of a lot of sharing between LinuxPPC and OS X, such as drivers. Apple will be selling basically their GUI and their high-quality machines.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Clause 2.1 of the Apple license states that
"You may use, copy, modify and distribute Original Code, with or without Modifications, solely for Your internal research and development,..."
which is pretty clearly in conflict with the Open Source definition's clause 6, "no discrimination
against fields of endeavor". (see www.opensource.org).
ESR?
http://www.red-bean.com/kfogel
That's a good quote... thanks.
On the other hand, the Apple license says 'discontinue use', while the GPL says you must not 'distribute' it. So if I write code on top of some GPL code and there's a conflict, I might have to stop publishing it, but I can keep using it myself.
The Apple license requires me to destroy even my copies. Am I reading that right?
--Chouser
--Chouser
"To stay young requires unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." -LL
Or perhaps even (shock) *before* the announcement, since these are issues that he raised with apple? and which apple no doubt bounced off counsel? Who in turn would have explained matters?
But then, that's just a wild from my profesional experience as an attorney . . .
Funnily enough after the hype about MacOS X look what Apple program was surfing the web:
/quicktime/quickti
a17-202-32-93.apple.com - - [17/Mar/1999:19:15:15 -0500] "GET
melinux HTTP/1.1" 301 357 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows NT)"
Besides opening source code & ensuring it will always _be_ open, what more is free software about?
Eric has made it clear that the APSL *will* keep all contributed code in the open if the author didn't infringe on patents.
Unless of course, you want to overhaul the whole patent system (which wouldn't be a bad idea), but freedom should be fought for _one step at a time_, imho.
-Stu
Then don't use their stuff. If they create something, they have every right to keep it closed.
Free redistribution of intellectual property is a _CHOICE_ (today, and probably tomorrow).
The battle should not be "everything must be free", rather, "everything can be free, if we choose to". Attempting to restrict one freedom in order to increase another can be viewed as hypocritical.
-Stu
Even if the GPL doesn't explicitly state it, what happens if it violates a (past/present/future) law or is proven unenforcable? Does it supercede the law? I think not.
Stop spreading FUD.
-Stu
I'm not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be one, But I get the notion that today's law is so microspecific that writing a nice license that doesn't give the company away is a hard chore.
I wouldn't assume a bad intent on the part of apple that is connecting to us. They know they came from here. We always have loyalists on the inside, BTW, anyway.
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
The "fields of endeavour" clause is about things like saying you can use, copy, etc. for writing shopping cart software, but not for genetic engineering. You can use it for R&D in any field of endeavour you choose.
-cfw
--
The Future: Some assembly required; batteries not included.
It's a trademark, not a copyright. Bruce filed as an SPI officer for the trademark on behalf of SPI, who is listed as the official trademark holder. Some paperwork needs to be submitted in Bruce's name, which he has refused to do unless SPI makes him an officer (at least temporarily), and SPI refuses to do that.
Even better, the OpenSource domain name is registered in the name of SPI at Bruce's home address.
Yes, it's a big fat hairy mess. But to answer your question, the trademark rights probably reside in either Bruce or Eric or some combination of the two, even though the registration is in SPI's name. So yes, Bruce might be able to make a case for owning the trademark.
This is all totally aside from the question whose answer you're assuming -- whether OSI is doing a good job of managing the mark or not.
-russ
Sounds like Eric's got a point. I am looking forward to BP's response to this.
--
The real Paul Vallee is slashdot userid 2192, and, what do you mean it's not cool to point out your low userid?
we need annotated versions of all of these licenses in a centralized place, managed by a real lawyer
otherwise people like myself are going to keep falling into the trap of believeing the first RMS or ESR who tries to explain it to us.
help
Bickering and animosity aside, we're encountering a fundamental issue here in "open source" licensing... severability clauses. The real distaste for both the Jikes and APSL licenses lies in the fact that the companies can revoke the licenses, and the work of independent developers will be lost. This is a valid concern for developers, who are spending their precious time (how many of us can and often do sell our time for over $100/hour?), and priceless emotional effort on open source projects.
The distinction i see here is between revokable (APSL, Jikes) licenses and irrevokable (GPL, Artistic) licenses. Developers will be much more willing to work on projects when the license guarantees their work will remain free. For terminology's sake, i call the two types "Open" and "Free" (as in free speech!).
I think the concerns about licenses which are merely "open" are valid and important. On the other hand, i don't want to see companies like Apple and IBM bashed for trying to do the right thing, within their limitations. Moreover, i do NOT want to see a split within the open source developer community over this issue - a split which will surely come if things are not changed.
I strongly suggest to the OSI that they consider making a distinction in the Open Source Definition between revokable and irrevokable licenses (open versus free), so developers know clearly where these corporate licenses are. If OSI does NOT do this, they risk losing credibility with developers (who have valid concerns, especially with self-appointed spokespersons), and also with the media and corporations (who will readily point to any infighting). At worst, we risk having a second "Open Source" certification team, one alienated and radicalized.
Think about it, OSI.
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
My point about revokability is that it CAN happen... regardless of circumstances or restrictions. Think of it this way - a revokable license is one where the original license holder can revoke your rights to any or all of the code, even if YOU have not in any way violated the license. An irrevokable license is one where the license holder may only revoke your rights if YOU PERSONALLY violate the agreement.
I agree that revokation clauses are pretty much necessary to protect corporate legal interests, and that they are unlikely to ever actually be used within the near future. Nonetheless, they exist, and as such limit my will, and the will of other developers, to work on the code.
I'm not some Stallmanesque radical insisting that corporations are bad, or that licenses such as the APSL are inadequate. I'm just saying that there is a real, significant distinction over revokability here, one that affects developers' will to work on a project as well as our personal political stances. And i am very, very afraid that if OSI does not explicitly address this, that it will become a wedge issue which forks the "code base" of OSI (the Open Source Definition). This will make the movement look bad in public, cause unnecessary friction, and force us all to choose sides.
Again, i really think the best thing to do would be to have multiple levels of "Open Source"... one for source which is open, but bound by the legal practicalities of corporations; and one for truly "free" software such as the GPL. Will OSI consider this? I hope so.
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
MS has closed software, can't stand competition, is overpriced, and likes to bump off rivals.
Agreed. It's been documented more times than most believe.
Apple has closed hardware AND software, can't stand competition, is grossly overpriced, and likes to bump off rivals.
Wrong and wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Let's dissect your arguments one-by-one...
Closed hardware - give me a break. I can gets the specs on absolutely anything I want, with the exception of the Mac ROM, which is itself being phased out (which you would know if you'd bothered to actually LEARN anything about Apple, but your hatred apparently blinds you to such possibilities).
Apple can't stand competition - No company can stand competition, that's the way of business. Some are more, shall we say, demonstrative of this hatred than others (MS being a prefect example). But Apple? Nope. Tell me the last time they bumped off anyone.
Apple is grossly overpriced - Al, we have a PC lemming who's still clinging to the idea that superior hardware should cost the same as inferior. Apple's prices are perhaps a bit high, but quite fair when you consider what you get. You get a machine which'll outperform a PC at the same price, in a more reliable configuration, and to top it all off it looks better too. That's the hardware I'm talking about, by the way. If you talk about software, I remind you that every single piece of software Apple makes is at most half the price of its Microsoft counterpart, so why is it that Apple is "grossly overpriced" while Microsoft is just "overpriced"?
Now, the bit about bumping off rivals, I'm seeing some very contradictory evidence here. To start with "QTW" (which I can only assume means QuickTime), you're likely referring to the Sorenson thing, never mind that a beta of the Java port of QuickTime was just released, and the fact that Apple has been planning a Linux port of QuickTime for some time.
As for the killing of the clone market, you forget that this had to be done (while the idea of Mac cloning was a Good Thing, it was done at a Bad Time; the mistake had to be rectified one way or another). Plusyou have the fact that, as I mentioned before, the Mac ROM's are fast disappearing plus the fact that two of the three most important parts of the OS (the kernel and drivers, the third being the interface) were recently Open-Sourced; it seems to me as though Apple will soon be back in the cloning business (they're certainly making it a hell of a lot easier to clone, and I doubt they'd do that with no reason).
Now, as for Apple's refusal to cooperate with BeOS: I see little if any refusal at all. Everything Be needs to get their OS ported to the recent Macs is right there; all they have to do is use the stuff and stop whining about how Apple won't hand it to them on a silver plate, wrapped up with pretty six-colored ribbons and Bondi Blue paper.
You're full of it. :) After the quoted section 2.1 of the APSL, you will find section 2.2, which describes what you must do if you are to deploy the code. Section 2.1 grants you rights to tinker with the code, but not find a web space, notify Apple, and put out your modifications so long as you do not deploy it. Deploy is defined near the top of the license, and includes internal use for purposes other than R&D as well as distrubution.
The Apple Public Source License.
- Mali
Beer has been open-source for millennia.
Grow grain
Malt grain
Ferment malted grain.
Beer takes a bit longer to compile than most software, but well worth it!
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Well gee.
MS has closed software, can't stand competition, is overpriced, and likes to bump off rivals.
Apple has closed hardware AND software, can't stand competition, is grossly overpriced, and likes to bump off rivals.
(Here I'm thinking specifically of QTW, the killing of the Mac clone market, and Apple's refusal to cooperate with the BeOS people)
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Mm-hm. Advocating freedom limits your choice to not be free?
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
It's the newest flavor of the iMac...haven't you heard?
Too bad people like Elliotte Rusty Harold is everywhere:
"One wonders what Eric Raymond was doing up on the stage with Steve Jobs at the announcement. Did he actually read the license before endorsing it?"
I can't see how a trend towards free software is going to be encouraged by the assaults launched against anyone releasing source under anything less than the GPL. If the QT war hasn't been enough to convince people not to bother, this might be. (For some reason, Netscape largely got a free ride on this issue.)
Honestly, Apple is possibly the company with the least inclination towards openness. Anything that encourages them is good in my book. Personally, I suspect this Darwin thing is going to be a fiasco - but I'd hate to see that happen because of religious issues.
(My theory - they want to have an OS for Intel but don't want to have to support it. The plan is to keep the Mac hardware and relevant information locked up while giving the hackers control on the PC side.)
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
How is a "Free until we take it back" license different, then?
Termination implicitly violates the OSD because a terminated license means "All Rights Reserved", and thus fails all 9 tests of the OSD.
If we're going to accept a license with termination at all, it makes sense to be very careful about the conditions in which termination is allowed. Apple seems to feel there is room for tightening this up and making it unambiguous, I look forward to their next license version.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The GPL allows you to stop distributing the code if you are bound by court order, etc., it does not say anywhere that you can compel third parties to destroy their copies or stop distributing them.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
My letter was non-confrontational, and it was taken that way by the people it was addressed to. We had a little laugh together about the inevitability of us all being chopped to giblets on Slashdot.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I guess these things are relative. I am glad we do not behave in person as we do on slashdot, or I would have to bring a trauma kit to Linux conferences. :-)
Bruce Perens.
I really wish you'd all stuck with the tone I established. Fortunately, the people who count in this matter seem to understand how to ignore the flames.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
So, I guess you could say I'm fighting creeping complex-ification of licenses.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
They acknowledge that they have not defined Affected Original Code well, and they should do so. That would help with the termination issue. We also discussed the notification issue, and they seemed receptive about that.
One point I try to make with every company is that these licenses are executed by hackers, not lawyers, not even people who have easy access to lawyers. Those hackers have to be able to read the license, and it should be unambiguous to them. The folks at Apple accept that point.
So, at least Apple isn't telling me that I'm blowing smoke. It wouldn't hurt Eric to help ask for these simple changes.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
...only Eric Raymond could go to Apple.
...I was going to email this but for all the others who didn't get my little joke: in one of the Star Trek movies, I think it was VI, Spock says there is an old Vulcan saying; "Only Nixon could go to China". Now, if you don't get that, you shouldn't have skipped so many history classes :-)
...I watch it occasionally.
I prefered Bab5.
Whatever happened to that anyway?
Hmmmm. Will this is at first pass a siff idea, some serious mileage needs to happen first....
1. GPL/APSL cross contamination. Until the two licences are compatible, it can't/won't happen.
Read the section on linking in the GPL. Thou shalt not link to non-free code.
2. Different driver model. Linuk has funky monolithic protected mode kernel modules. OSX has DriverKit with funky hardware-server userspace modules. It may be possible to make them talk to each other - and once 1. ceases to be a problem, crib code from each other; after all won't Hurd be using Linux driver modules?
Of course the major benefit of this is yep - an Open Source 1394 layer - Yeeha!
Open source debates take place in public, not in closed board rooms. I like it.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
The error in ignoring a problem is that it never goes away. It locks itself into a cycle of getting larger and larger untill it's almost to hard to deal with later when the problem effects you MUCH more then it did earlier. Therefore we have to speak up.
"We want to take over the world, but we don't want to do it tomorrow, it's OK if it's next week"-- Linus Torvalds
SPI owns the Open Source trademark.
Therefore, Bruce is ipso facto correct and Eric Raymond is ipso facto wrong.
However, I will disregard the trademark issue for a moment and say that, through my own careful reading of the APSL and subsequent perusal of the areas OSI outlined in their response to Bruce, I agree with Bruce's view. Plus, it's better to be safe than sorry.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
[ home ]
I still see a lot of light and heat being released, but no code being produced. Funny, that. =)
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
[ home ]
Apple is no better than MS. If Steve Jobs could, he'd become the new Bill Gates with his plump-and-juicy Apple army replacing Gates' drones. The effect is the same for us: no freedom.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
[ home ]
I was actually picking on ESR, not you, but I guess I didn't make that clear enough.
There are lots of people that have earned my respect through their actions and maturity, and their understanding of the issues of the free software community. Your move away from the OSI and back to the core of free software community made a lot of people like me very happy. IMO, Eric doesn't "get it," or rather, he "gets" a different view than I do.
Free software is about ultimately freedom, not being able to see source code. Opening the source is but one component.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
[ home ]
To me, it seems like this is just a way for Apple to get free beta testers who are smarter than the average mac user.
Remember when we were all were stoked (or at least I was) when companies started releasing beta software for us to try out. Now Apple does this, and EVEN with the source code, and people get pissed?
I get the arguments about those people who want to possibly write their own code and don't want their license revoked, but for me (a hardware guy, and Apple USER), I'm just hoping people will help Apple make their OS better. I'm not really hoping for YET ANOTHER OS OS. We have Linux, which is probably a lot less spaghetti-ish than any Apple code. In fact, there are TWO flavors of Linux on the PPC.
I think the code will be useful even if just to help me figure out what went wrong when my mac crashed for the 10th timt of the day.
>Why does anyone who isn't an Apple employee have
>any interest in whether apple contines along these
>lines or not... it's not like anyone who doesn't
>run Apple hardware is going to get any benefit
>from Open Source advancements to the MacOS.
1. It can be ported elsewhere.
2. There are many of us out here who do run Apple hardware, or a clone thereof.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
>This whole issue seems small to me compared with
>the closed source media formats... Apple is
>apparently a fair-weather friend.
'gimee gimee gimee'.
What have you offered Apple lately? Do you care to pay for the time their engineers spent on the code you want. Do you have any idea how a company runs?
Apple is moving in the right direction. But expecting them to do something that doesn't add value to their own business is downright stupid. Of course they are hoping to get something out of this - that's how businesses work. They don't hire experts to figure out how to best lose money, after all...
(well, there was a time when I would have thought Apple hired experts to help them lose money, but that was during the Amelio administration - things have changed)
Right now, if I were an Apple executive, I'd be highly tempted to take my code, close it back up, and say 'screw it'. Given the amount of whining going around, I don't see how they can justify this release for a bunch of ingrates.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
>The free software community gave them the BSD that
>they're using as the core of MaxOS X.
Huh? I tend to think that the kernal is the 'true' core of an OS. My understanding is that they are using MACH with some of theith own NuKernal stuff thrown in for good measure.
Tevanian, who works for Apple now, was the head honcho behind Mach (correct me if I'm wrong).
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
Paraphrased from the late, great PowerComputing itself.
Right?
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
Bruce wanted clarification, and OSI gave it to them. It would be nice to see if Apple can officially clarify these points in version 1.1 of the APSL, something I think they planned on releasing.
It doesn't really mater what the license says if the code is found to be infringing it is then illegal to use, because you are breaking the patent.
All the GPL require is an allegation of infringement to make the code undistibutable. By requiring Apple to loose the case is puting them at a very high liability, and prevents settlements.
No, he has a lot of stock, and a salary from Pixar, he makes no money from Apple. Also since he is worth billions, I am sure he has some funds in sound investments that should pay him millions a year
Well, I haven't looked at any of the code yet, and do not intend to until there is a definitive answer to due skepticism. However, I'd like to point out that Darwin is *not* 'MacOS'. Darwin is an 'improved' Mach + the BSD layers, + NetInfo and SoundKit, and the Objective C runtime. Tevanian is the guy who designed Mach in the first place, and apparently he has learned a few things over the years since, and incorporated some good ideas from abandoned Copland kernels. I'd like to see an improved Mach. I'd like to see it on Intel (and other) hardware. Also interesting is the Objective C runtime. Past posts on gnu.gnustep.discuss indicate that the Apple/NeXT ObjC runtime is much faster than the GNU implementation. The GNUStep Kits however actually seem to be faster, given the same runtime, than the Apple/NeXT ones. If it is safe to use their runtime improvements for the betterment of Gnu ObjC, I'd like to see that done. Those are my interests. Also, I hope the old Motorola '030 and '040 code is still around, 'cause I'd like to see if Darwin could run on my old NeXT cube(s). --Rubinstien
Like, Hockey Night in Canada, Eh.
Beauty.
This is a usefull debate with questions being asked and answered. This is how it should be.
Help fight continental drift.
Tangerine Dream's defunct as a band, IIRC. I don't know about the other members, but Chris Franke keeps himself very busy with his Sonic Images label.
Things like this do indeed need to be discussed, but it would be better to discuss them with less acrimony and more emphasis on out common goals. The various Bruce, Eric and Richard shouting matches are destructive and they shouldn't be encouraged (even if all the rest of their work is excellent). Apple, IBM and all the rest are trying (from our point of view) to do the right thing. They should be encouraged and bickering about what is and is not and OS license to try to take the 'good words' away from them is not going to help at all. Bruce did the right thing in contacting Apple when he felt there was an issue, but the wrong thing in trying to deny that the APSL is an open source license when it clearly meets the guidelines.
Well all this Open Source (tm) is great... except it's not free! And on top of that I'm still stuck on the QT codec...
Sure just use us when you want and ignore us the rest of the time...
This whole issue seems small to me compared with the closed source media formats... Apple is apparently a fair-weather friend.
What argument? GM (Chevy/GMC/Pontiac/blah) 0wnz. Ford isn't worth a fraction of what I spent purchasing food to generate the energy I wasted typing this sentence.
Profiles? I thought (guessed) that a cookie based mechanism was used.
BTW, I browse slashdot with KFM (from KDE 1.1), the login is automatic.
I'm none too happy that all these developments come out of thin air actually. A bunch of back room handshaking goes on and *boom* we have another big investment.. or another new license. 'Open' Source companies aren't very open. IMHO.
:-)
Having freesoftware in business is a good thing, but having business in free software is perhaps not.
It would be nice to have these companies blatantly violate the traditional closed business models, just like they violate closed source models..
Well, I'll dream..
>Forcing logins to use user preferences is useless
>and a big liability. Get rid of it.
How else would it be done? Simply a cookie on the local machine? That would not be multi-user friendly. What if two people want to use the same machine, but with different prefs? This could happen often with computers which multiple people use (either at home, work, or school). It would also not support transporting prefs to different computers.
Logging in to use prefs is the only thing that makes sense to me.
'scuse me, but what about the point Bruce made regarding Apple's use of their "APSL" on code that was originally licensed under the Berkley license by other writers?
This whole license thing is turning into a maze, and I expected it to happen as soon as Raymond et. al. came up with the Netscape "public" license. Let's see how "public" *that* stays now that AOL has put all its money and clout behind Netscape.
Oh, and BTW, why are we ingrates? Which company was it that made things impossible for cloners of Apple products for so long. If I have anyone to thank for anything, it's Xerox. And God knows what Xerox would have done had they realized what their engineers were trying to show them...
--------------Rev. C.C.Chips---------------- For the real truth, visit
The difference, to this non-lawyer's eyes, is that the GPL terminates your right to distribute patent-covered code after you become bound by a court order or an agreement with a patent-holder.
Section 7 of the GPL uses the words "consequence of a court judgement or allegation of infringment [emphasis mine]". I'm not a lawyer either, but to me that says a court decision is not "required" for the copyright-holder of the code to decide to yank the code.
The only differences between the APSL and the GPL that I can see is that the APSL says that Apple still has the rights to do whatever they want with the code, whereas the GPL says that you can't do anything with the code (except probably using it yourself).
Jay (=
Nope, read the next paragraph. It says you are still bound by the license in those cases.
The GPL allows you to stop distributing the code if you are bound by court order, etc., it does not say anywhere that you can compel third parties to destroy their copies or stop distributing them.
I re-read the section, and I agree. Thanks for setting me straight.
Jay (=
The real distaste for both the Jikes and APSL licenses lies in the fact that the companies can revoke the licenses, and the work of independent developers will be lost.
As far as I can tell from reading the license carefully, Apple cannot revoke your right to do what you want with "Your Modifications" unless you explicitly break the license yourself. Clauses of concern and my take on them are as follows:
The worst that Apple can do here is (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code. "Affected Original Code" is "Original Code" (from Apple) that becomes the subject of a claim of infringement. So all of your modifications are still yours, under this scenario. You'd just have to code a replacement for the missing part, or use whatever replacement Apple winds up producing (which corresponds to Apple taking option (b) modify the Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing).
The relevant clause here is a referral to other clauses: (b) immediately in the event of the circumstances described in Sections 9.1 and/or 13.6(b). 9.1 we've already covered (though it could perhaps be stated more clearly that clause 12.1(b) applies only to the extent described in the clauses indicated). 13.6(b) is discussed below.
The relevant clause here is: (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if applicable law prohibits or restricts You from fully and/or specifically complying with Sections 2 and/or 3 or prevents the enforceability of either of those Sections, this License will immediately terminate (...). Section 3 basically states that you let any interested third parties use your code under this license, and let Apple incorporate it back into its development tree. As long as Apple exists, that's not a problem (I'll get back to the case where it doesn't exist). Section 2 places conditions on the use of code internally and externally. Internally, you have to document your code well and include the license and other relevant information. For code or binaries released externally, you also have to make sure that people obtain the source, and make sure that Apple can obtain the source. This is another clause that raises potential concerns.
So, the only real concern seems to be that Apple could disappear, making it impossible for you to grant them a license to your code and making it impossible to fill out the information required on their web page. IMO, these can be reasonably addressed as follows:
If Apple dies and is bought by someone, I would argue that their buyer takes the place of Apple in the clauses mentioned, because Apple is now a part of the buyer. This means that the buyer must be able to obtain, use, and further modify the modifications that you made - just like everyone else. I don't see this as a problem.
If Apple dies and drops off the face of the earth, then I would make two arguments. Firstly, as Apple no longer exists and nobody picks up their IP claims, then I doubt that anybody is going to bother enforcing termination of the license. If somebody picks up the IP and complains, then I would argue that they are now Apple, and there is no violation. I'm a bit hazy on what happens to IP that isn't picked up by anyone. I suspect that it would devolve to the public domain (anybody care to check this?). This would IMO make the public domain "Apple" for the purposes of sections 2 and 3, and again there is no violation (as you are most certainly making your modifications available to the public).
The exact clause, 2.2 (c), reads: You
Note that this doesn't say that you must submit the information through the web page - just that you must fill out a version of the form presented there and get it to Apple and "other third parties". If you're worried about the site going down or about Apple removing the site to void the license, fear not - just print out a version of the page and fax the completed form to whoever winds up with Apple's IP rights when the dust settles.
Or, these are the arguments that I would use in court if somebody tried to pull the license out from under me under the above scenarios. I think that they'd stand up reasonably well.
By that definition, the APSL is not revokable, then. It only is terminated (for your code, at least) if you violate the license. Apple's code is only revoked if _Apple_ violated the law when it wrote it. Where is the problem (with the APSL)?
I put a disclaimer at the top of my message, but perhaps I should have stated it more clearly - I am not touching the issue of revokability in general - only the specific comment made that said that Apple could revoke developers' rights to their modified code at whim.
So, I'm having trouble seeing what specifically in my message you are responding to. The revokability-in-general issue is interesting, but not what I was writing about.
I'm not trying to be impolite, I'm just trying to clarify what I was and was not saying in my previous post, and to figure out what in that post you are addressing here.
Whoops. You're right. I ascribe it to bit rot caused by sitting too close to my monitor
Well, this is the whole point of the licensing debate. Some licenses, such as the BSD (if I recall correctly) allow the use in proprietary products. Others, such as the GPL, expressly forbid this. In other words, once something is GPL, it can never be anything but.
Well, it sounds like Perens' concerns have been addressed. I'm glad to see that, just as glad as I was to see Perens address them. Still, I could do without Raymond's apparent desire to make the whole thing look like a confrontation:
". . . alleging that the Open Source Initiative acted incorrectly . .
"It is OSI's position that the claims in this open letter are entirely mistaken"
Jeez, Perens' letter was laid back and non-confrontational. This pompous, pseudo-legalistic attitude-copping is ridiculous. It's hostile and defensive. Why? I'm curious.
The OSI Board requested -- and got -- substantial changes from Apple before the APSL was made public.
Am I the only with left with a bad taste in my mouth by this part? Quick, what does the 'O' in "OSI" stand for? "Oblong"? "Orthogonal"? "Ophidian"? If it's "Open", as rumor has it, I'm depressed by the fact that they offer their endorsements on behalf of the "community", without consulting or even informing the community until after the decision's been made -- and then turn hostile if anybody dares to question them.
Do we need that?
We should all chip in to buy Raymond a nameplate for his desk:
"Eric Raymond: Head Nerd in Charge."
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
So did you talk to Eric before you made the public statement?
Is the APSL a private agreement between Apple and Bruce, or Eric? Realistically, no. It's more of an agreement between Apple and the community. Where is the harm in public debate? Bruce clearly bent over backwards in his letter in an effort to start a public discussion, not a flamewar. My opinion of Perens went up several notches on that. Unfortunately (unless I badly misread the tone of Raymond's third-person statement) Raymond seems to perceive it as a challenge to his "authority" -- which doesn't exist anyway, as he himself has never (to my knowledge) denied. If people want to throw around the word "open", they should be willing to do it in public, with public input.
Hey, if Raymond speaks for the community, then I can't imagine why he wouldn't be willing to listen to input from the community. What kind of sense would that make?
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
(Score:-1)? Why?
Why do I feel better all of a sudden? (Score:-1)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 18, @03:34PM EST
I think they're trying to find out what the next lowest form of life is after lawyers and estate agents...
Open Source gurus...
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
You think Apple is doing this out of generosity?
Nonsense. They have shareholders. They're doing this because they think they'll make a buck out of it -- that being their legal and moral responsibility to their shareholders. The free software community gave them the BSD that they're using as the core of MaxOS X. Now they're asking for some more help, and they're offering some quid pro quo for it in the form of showing us their source. It's not a gift. They're asking for help, and they're offering us something in return. It's a trade. We've got a perfect right to negotiate, just as they do.
This community, in the aggregate, produced the Linux kernel, GCC, Apache, perl, etc. "Take, take, take", my ass. What has Apple contributed yet? I'd like to find out, but I won't be kissing any asses without due cause.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
As long as the community is represented by the typical
Well, you've got a point, but there are fora with better signal/noise ratios than Slashdot. There are also a lot of rational people running around loose in this "community" -- some of whom do post on Slashdot, I'm sure -- whose input would be worth hearing.
What bothers me is the implied attitude from Raymond. To overstate it a bit: "Butt out, I'm in charge here. Who asked you?" If Raymond had accepted Perens' dissent a bit more gracefully, I wouldn't be bothered by that.
Realistically, if Apple wants to work with the community, they'll address all valid concerns, not just those that Raymond agrees with. They don't stand to gain by pissing people off unnecessarily.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Y'know?
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
If we're going to accept a license with termination at all, it makes sense to be very careful about the conditions in which termination is allowed. Apple seems to feel there is room for tightening this up and making it unambiguous, I look forward to their next license version.
This is in line with your other statements about this issue: Careful, reasonable, open to discussion, etc.
But that's all beside the point. The depressing truth is that all the yelling here is about Perens vs. Raymond, which is (or I sincerely hope it is) total crap. Of course, maybe it's just Slashdot, and the "conflict" is just a lot of smoke around an imaginary fire.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
I strongly suggest to the OSI that they consider making a distinction in the Open Source Definition between revokable and irrevocable licenses (open versus free), so developers know clearly where these corporate licenses are.
This sounds like it would be a win for everybody. It respects the valid interests of free software developers and the valid interests of companies like Apple and IBM. Everybody knows where s/he stands and there's very little to fight over. I dig it.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
drop the f*cking acronyms.
Yeah!
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
the real secrets in Cupertino are along the lines of "Which SUV-driving, yuppie-wanna-be, middle-manager w/ two kids & a husband did seven lines of coke off her boss's backside then nailed two -boys- in the bathroom at comdex back in '89?"
A. You keep returning to this. I'm not gonna ask.
B. Um . . . Is Apple hiring?
:)
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Isn't the point to have a board of clueful people who are trusted by the community to make rational decisions, thereby saving a lot of time and bureaucracy?
Um, do you trust people who don't care to hear your input, even though they claim to represent you?
If everything has to go to the Community, then why have OSI at all?
. . .
Do people *really* want to have OpenSource policy guided by
There is ample middle ground between a star chamber and a Slashdot poll.
And, as I said, I wouldn't be complaining if Raymond had been willing to accept debate more gracefully. Apple is Apple. I doubt that they would have been willing to negotiate with Raymond in public anyway. Being who they are, they want secrecy followed by . . . an ANNOUNCEMENT! Drama! PR! Humor, pathos, tragedy! Etc. Okay, that's the game they're in. But if that's the case, it's especially important for there to be open debate after the cat is out of the bag.
If you don't like the decisions, lobby for a change in the membership of the OSI board.
In other words: "If you're pissed off, bitch and moan!" This is good advice
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
My letter was non-confrontational, and it was taken that way by the people it was addressed to.
I don't think I'm the only one who's very relieved to hear that.
Thanks.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
But there are still a lot of people watching.
TANSTAAFL, I guess. We get free parallel debugging, but we also get this crap
I thought Bruce . . . tried as hard as he could
not to start a flamewar. I think Eric was pretty reasonable too.
I agree about Perens. Raymond's response got on my nerves a bit, but Raymond always does that to me. Oh, well.
And look! It still started one around here.
Can you name anything that wouldn't?
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
it might be argued that from a dedicated free/open software perspective, one would be hypocritical to accept/respect/etc a licence that contradicts the ethics and spirits of the open software movement.
"Ethics and spirit" indeed! I couldn't agree more. Now find a minyan to back us up. "This, too, shall pass".
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Can't posts like that be close-captioned for the Trek-impaired? Some of us are totally perplexed by that stuff.
:)
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Use a real browser, Netscape has profiles
we need annotated versions of all of these licenses in a centralized place, managed by a real lawyer Hear! Hear!
I would suggest that evil breeds bureaucracy; if everyone were trustworthy, there'd be no need for lawyers (the creators of bureaucracy)- or gov't, for that matter. Consider this..
What an interestingly narrow minded view of government you have.
Last time I checked stuff like disaster relief, coast guard rescue operations, and humanitarian aid didn't have much to do with trustworthiness. Isn't there a quote about how only criminals think the world is made up of laws?
No, no, you don't understand. What you want is the PepsiCo distribution (v1.0) of the Open Recipe version of Mountain Dew. Everyone would be able to compile their own version of Mountain Dew, if they wish. One could disable caffeine, enable NutraSweet(TM), or whatever desired for your own platform needs!
Seriously, the parallels of the food industry and the software industry are suspiciously close...
I swear by MacOS X. Although I use to swear *at* MacOS 9...
The APSL's termination clause applies if Apple Inc. decides that it would rather yank the patent-covered code than resolve the patent dispute or write a patent-free version.
Perhaps Apple's lawyers were afraid that using a GPL-style termination clause would expose them, in the event of a patent suit, to additional damages, or would make it harder for them to settle such a suit.
A legal question: Suppose I use code covered by the APSL, some company (call it "Unisys") sues Apple for patent infringement, and Apple withdraws the code I'm using from circulation rather than fighting the suit. If I felt that Unisys's patent claim was bogus, would I have grounds to take Unisys to court?
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
The question of what happens if the stated URL goes away can go either way. Eric's reading would be the reasonable one, Bruce's reading would be the paranoid one any corporate attorney would recommend you use on the assumption that that's the one the other guy's lawyer would use.
As for the section 9.1 termination, I think Bruce has it right here. The license says they can terminated at their sole discretion if they become the subject of a claim of infringement. It doesn't say that the claim has to be proven, so we can't assume that. I'm extremely uncomfortable with any license that doesn't require actual, proven infringement to terminate.
Doesn't require Apple to lose the suit, just requires the person alleging infringement to prove infringement before Apple can terminate the license on part of the code for infringement. As written, I could write Apple a letter saying that routine X in their code infringed on one a patent and, even if I never substantiate the claim or file suit, Apple could legally terminate the license on that code because they have been subjected to a claim. At the least the license should require actual, not just claimed, infringement (whether determined by a court or by agreement between Apple and the complaining party) before jerking code out from under the rest of us.
You make reasonable points. However, regarding #'s 1 and 3, if Apple truly doesn't intend to terminate the license at the first hint of an unsubstantiated complaint then they should have no problem in saying so outright in the license. If they don't, one has to wonder why they're leaving that option open. No, pulling that sort of stunt doesn't make sense from our point of view, but corporations have been known to do stupid things before and corporate legal departments are even more prone to such blunders. Yes, we could deal with the blunders as they happen. I'd rather avoid the headache in the first place.
Sorry to say this, but you can have my can of Mountain Dew when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers ;)
nick
Having a job title doesn't automatically mean you're good at your job. In this case, it seems that Bruce spoke too soon.
The MacOS people are annoyed with the linux/open source people (being stereotyped as "slashdotters") because the open source people are fighting over whether or not APSL is open source or not. We aren't mutially exclusive camps. A lot of us Mac users are an idealistic community who believe that computers should be usable by everbody, even without technical training. This fits pretty well with the free software (not as in beer) mentality.
From what I understand, this is good news. It seems that it's just a communications/wording problem. All of Perens's complaints seem to be things that just weren't made very clear in the license. He asked that these things be looked into, and now they have. What's the problem? The thing about the website is in there, just not very clear. All Apple has to do to make everyone happy about that is put in another sentence to make it clearer. The infringing code thing is also cool, right? Apple and BP are thinking of the same thing, it just doesn't look that way on paper. They just need to make it a little clearer, so it doesn't look like the Jikes license. The only thing that didn't seem to be addresssed is holding patent-infringing code until the patent expires. That's a pretty minor point, and maybe they already have that worked out. So, as I said, this is good, right? Now everyone can be happy!
Try reading some more.
Clause 2.1 states the terms of use for internal development, which state that you do not have to redistribute the source code as long as it is being used for development only.
Once you decide to actually use the code, section 2.2 takes over, which is basically the same as most other open source licenses, with the exception of 2.2c, which requires notification of how to obtain source code modifications.
And as far as Open Source definition clause 6, let's look at the rationale for it:
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor.
The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.
But then again, I could be wrong.
Perhaps you have never been part of dealings between two large corporations, this type of nit-picking of licenses is just as common, if not more-so in standard dealings between companies.
This is just the Open Source(tm) way of dealing with licenses: Out in the Open, not buried in some room where only 3 people get to figure out what the license should be.
When you have name-recognition (whether or not you LIKE Bruce, you generally know who he is), you can use it wisely, or as Bruce did THIS time, you can use it unwisely, and you lose stature and respect. Open Source/Free Software is not JUST about the source code, it is a new way of doing business, and it should be applied to every aspect of the business, including the licenses.
-- Keith Moore
This sig is the express property of someone.
--Webester
The wimps who are whining "oh, lets just get along, this makes the open source community look bad" should shut their holes.
Just like any GPL'ed product, people cannot plan, plot and calculate exactly what the resulting piece of software will be. Obviously you whimpering fools have not read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar." What was the number one lesson? Fetchmail evolved. "When you start community-building," wrote Eric Raymond, "what you need to be able to present is a plausible promise. Your program doesn't have to work particularly well. It can be crude, buggy, incomplete, and poorly documented. What it must not fail to do is convince potential co-developers that it can be evolved into something really neat in the foreseeable future."
Think about that. Will coders flock to Apple's code to work tirelessly on it like people are doing right now with KDE and GNOME? Who knows? Only time will tell. But if Apple's code is incompatable with GPL'ed work, serious limitations manifest themselves. For one, distribution will be slowed. This will only hurt Apple, and the rate that people can update the code. Remember, exhaustive testing is just as much part of the open source concept as open source! If Apple has limitations on how compiled versions of their code is distributed, (which they do) then beta testers become rare and product evolution will slow.
This debate is important because it is helping shape an open source business model. This debate is part of the evolutionary process. Both sides are making very good points, and these points are going to be useful in the future to build this model.
If you don't like this debate you can:
Refuse to help code for Apple because you don't like their license
Code for Apple because you think their license is great
But if you do neither, shut the hell up! Don't dismiss this as immature bickering. This debate is part of open source. Open source is inherently political because it involves social relations with authority or power (i.e. $$$, standards, freedom.) Get used to it.
There is such a huge difference between simply making source code available and offering a product under the GPL or other simular agreement that I don't think they can even be compared.
What if someone else registers apple.com after apple (hypothetically) dies, and has that url? Woul dyou then have to send your changes to them?
Burocracy breeds evil, what self respecting hacker culture starts tradmarking things and creating organizations to monitor use of the trademark? [sic]
I would suggest that evil breeds bureaucracy; if everyone were trustworthy, there'd be no need for lawyers (the creators of bureaucracy)- or gov't, for that matter. Consider this...
I'm writting some software right now which I plan to open source soon
Once you made your software open source, I could sell it. In fact, that could become my business. I could then trademark the name of your software and all the filenames involved. Then I would sue anyone else who is distributing your software for violating my trademarks, and charge them a fee for using my trademarks (1). You could change the names and filenames of your software, but I could simply trademark those as well. Your legal protection against this would be to sue me for possession of the trademark (2), or to trademark the software to begin with.
Somebody trademarked "Linux" and Linus sued to get possession of it. It would have been cheaper if he had trademarked it in the first place, but I doubt it occurred to him that it would be worthwhile to do so.
Since the Open Source Initiative was founded to (among other things) make "Open Source" software commercially acceptable, it seemed likely that another commercial entity might trademark "open source" and begin distributing non-free, non-open-source software. Naturally, people would say "Look! It's Open Source (tm)! It says so on the box! They couldn't print it if it weren't true!" And Open Source would die an ugly death.
(1) This may or may not violate the GPL, but I don't care; I'm not really trying to make money selling software that costs $0 elsewhere. I just want to make money from the frivolous lawsuits. Or maybe I'm already marketing an inferior commercial product which your program threatens and I want to make it a big hassle for people to get your software so that they'll have to buy mine.
(2) You'd probably win this, but you would need $1000's in attorney's fees, since I've got obviously got scads of dough to be able to push through a shaky trademark application and then sue all those people.
GPL software can be used for pretty much anything; you just can't restrict the further distribution of that software or derivatives of that software. If Apple used some GPL code in their software, then that software is also GPL, which means that Apple can't sue you for copying it.
:)
This is, of course, an oversimplification. For further info, consult www.fsf.org and read the GPL; then get a JD and specialize in intellectual property. Then you can tell me if I'm right
Darwin is no annoyance to RedHat, because only Apple can redistribute stuff contributed to Darwin. RedHat is likely more bothered by the likes of SuSE and Caldera, where the same stuff in binary form can run on any of these platforms, thus keeping them from owning the market completely. Everyone in the community benefits from fixes to RedHat's distro, as these fixes may be propagated to other Linux variants.
;)
The only people, AFAICS, who benefit from fixes to Darwin are Apple (and their users). It's my take on things that Darwin doesn't compete with RedHat, but I might be wrong eventually.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Hallelujah. If any of these folks spent as much time coding and organizing as they do bitching and whining, flaming and inflaming, the "movement" would be all that much stronger. We might have open-sourced office suites on our desktops _today_!
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
To paraphrase Rush Limbaugh, "I'm pro-choice. I just hope that the choice that's made is for [freedom]."
The real challenge here is to make a logical, rational argument for opening source code. If that can be done, then advocates for open source win. If not, then advocates for open source lose.
Screaming, foaming, zealotry will _not_ persuade anyone to open their sources, but will _dissuade_ those who would otherwise consider it.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Ayn Rand would have no problems with Open Source software. It's an "ego-boo" or whatever, and that makes it worthwhile to the author of the software. Rand's theory is that people are rightfully selfish. If you see value in inflating your ego by releasing the fruits of your labor into the public eye, then that value is what you will obtain by doing so. Your selfishness caused you to do these things, not some social-minded good-will-toward-men crap.
She's right.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
I'd like, wrap you up in genuine Saskatchewan seal-skin bindings if some hoser hadn't horked 'em, eh?
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Woohoo!!! FREE BEER!!!
I'm game.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
But that would mean not going to a great little Thai place in Springfield, MO called "Thai House" (I think). Talk about a meal. Damn, Jimmy, them's good eatin'.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
They've bound and gagged RMS and stuffed him in the handiest closet at OSI headquarters.
--C
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
Apple is doing something right in going open source. why the hell are people bitching and complaining about the little things, they are doing something right with a great operating system, i mean even John Carmack likes it, he loved NeXT Step (it's how we got wolf3d/doom/quake) and it's mostly from NeXTStep, give apple a break, they have great hardware, a unix like environment in OS X, and OpenGL support. they are doing something right under the direction of Steve Jobs. These people need to get off their apple hating horses and accept that they are doing something right and endorse it rather than just tear it apart
Not at all, if the people discussing these questions maintain an atmosphere of mutual respect. These questions have to be addressed in a constructive and thoughtfull way. Just to drive this message home: These things have to be discussed in a mature way, and not on the level things are usally "discussed" on /.
Do you mean this Bill Gates persona? The perhaps most hated man on the Web?
The fact that he is admired by others does not diminish the hate he instills in many people.
Do not get me wrong, I do not hate him. He is just not particularly important to my life. But I would not want to be in his shoes. I do not like the prospect of being bombarded with a cake when I show up somewhere (like it happened to him in Brussel).
Now would i love to be in Linus shoes? Hell, yes, people love him for good reasons.
I'm working on compiling Coca Cola(TM) into a chocolate bar. It doesn't quite fall under the Open Softdrink Initiative, but it is Open Recipe compliant.
Imagine the sugar rush contained in that convenient little bar.
--
InstantCool
I don't know much about this stuff (and should probably just shut up), but if Linux is open source, can't you use that code for anything or is it property of the Linux distributor (or some other Linux body)?
I sort of asking too, so...
--
InstantCool
I think you misunderstand. The open source movement is about preserving user choice as much as it is about anything else. "Linux on every desktop" may be unrealistic taken on its face, but IMHO it's a good goal for people to work towards and it certainly beats the pants off of "Windows on every desktop." (As much as I like Linux I wouldn't mind seeing GNU Hurd or BSD take off too; choice is always good.)
The trademark was registered to keep companies from making false claims of "open source" (at least it seems that way to me). Yes, too much politics will kill the initiative, but I think making it clear what licenses are open source and which aren't is important and not excess politics.
-- Shawn K. Quinn
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.
In other words, if the license is invalid you must stop distribution of the software. It seems to be that Apple's version is simply written in a more formal manner, but has much the same effect.
I don't think Steve want's to "rule" the world. He most certainly wants to CHANGE the world. and in fact, he already has (co-founder of Apple) He's left his mark on the computing world a long time ago. Which is why people call him a visionary, and call Bill Gates a businessman.
Steve's annual salary is $1.
Why does anyone who isn't an Apple employee have any interest in whether apple contines along these lines or not... it's not like anyone who doesn't run Apple hardware is going to get any benefit from Open Source advancements to the MacOS.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
This is getting ugly. The MacOS people are annoyed with the linux/open source people (being stereotyped as "slashdotters") because the open source people are fighting over whether or not APSL is open source or not. This fighting needs to stop. Apple has just taken a large step by opening their source, and that fact should not be lost in all of this in-fighting.
may the source be with you (Episode I, May 19),
hollis
i don't want to start another fight here. many in the mac community are very supportive of the open source movement, and the availability of easy-to-use software. unfortunately, some of the mac community are still opposed to linux and linux users...and they scream fairly loudly on the mailing lists (macosx-talk for example). i apologize for my insensitive stereotyping of the mac community. i should have used "some of the macOS people."
anyways...
hollis
Or so i'm led to believe he's the one with formal legal training on this stuff.
Correct me if i'm wrong Bruce.
Microsoft tried to speak for me, so i quit (Toldya i would)
This is an excellent selection. Have you forwarded it to OSI?
So did you talk to Eric before you made the public statement? It's often much easier to resolve these issues privately, so as to avoid anyone feeling like they might lose face. And if private efforts fail, well, there's always time to go public later.
But there are still a lot of people watching.
btw, I thought Bruce's original comments were indeed well-phrased. I believe that he tried as hard as he could not to start a flamewar. I think Eric was pretty reasonable too.
And look! It still started one around here.
Sounds to me like the license is for the most part a good one. *I thought that already* Once again, I feel quite strongly that we should support Apple in this as much as possible. If we do that, they will gain confidence, and their products will improve.
:)
Now, let's stop arguing about nitpicky little details in the license. According to a preliminary definition I got from Perrens, any code that has been altered is 'sublicensed' so that it is immune to the Termination. So, go start grabbing the source code and making modifications.
--
Matthew Walker
My DNA is Y2K compliant
Matthew Walker
http://www.tweeterdiet.com/ - My Diet Tracking Tool
--
Well, can we now let this rest. I find it disturbing that there is such fear of Apple in the Linux/Open source community.
Apple have made a large effort over the past few years in this area with MkLinux and not hindering other projects like LinuxPPC. Prior to this Next also made considerable efforts in this area.
It appears Apple has actually already benefited from this as LinuxPPC believe Apple have used some of their (open source) code to further optimise the performance of Mac OS X server which in beta stage was approx 20% slower than LinuxPPC yet appears t have caught up in performance since then.
The open source direction is a great way to foster excellent development but Companies have to protect their rights and it seems Apple has made the best comprimise it could in this regard.
From the license:
- -
13.6 Severability.
(a) If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction finds any provision of this License, or portion thereof, to be unenforceable, that provision of the License will be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to effect the economic benefits and intent of the parties, and the remainder of this License will continue in full force and effect.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if applicable law prohibits or restricts You from fully and/or specifically complying with Sections 2 and/or 3 or prevents the enforceability of either of those Sections, this License will immediately terminate and You must immediately discontinue any use of the Covered Code and destroy all copies of it that are in your possession or control.
-----------------------------------------------
A _court_ must first decide when and where the license is unenforcable (meaning you may have to hire a lawyer to work with code you helped write!), and the second part seems to imply that the entire license can be voided due to any conflict with existing or _future_ laws. You could lose acess of your own code because a local bureuocrat changes the laws.
Screw this. Any developer would be an idiot to work on this software. You're basically working for apple for free. They own the code, and anything you add to it you may lose.
Ah, but you don't have to destroy the code, you simply may not redistribute it. Which allows you to modify it yourself to avoid patent restrictions, and take the legal consequences into your own hands.
Section 4 of the GPL reads, however, that parties to whom you have distributed the code may continue using the code provided they remain in compliance themselves. In case of patent infringement, all holders would be in violation of the GPL, and could not use the program from then on. In fact, the GPL just assumes the end user will know when a patent claim is made. Apple is providing a notification scheme, and covering their butts. It was their proprietary code for a while - who knows who they received licenses from. They need the protection they specified. I have to admit, the lack of required proof is bothersome given the new wording, but, again, they could be sued for lots more damages if they leave the code out there while the claim is settled.
Give it a rest, everyone. The license is better than the QPL, IMHO.
Let us live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry -- Mark Twain
from Webster's new Collegiate Dictionary:
irony: 2a: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning
Sure, there are good reasons to have ``politicians'' in our ranks. One glaring one that comes to mind is that I'm no lawyer and I can't make heads or tails of most license agreements. I was happy to hear the view of both sides of the APSL issue, because looking at it myself, I didn't know what rights I had.
But let's not get carried away here. It good to get our ``politicians'' into flame wars. That is, in a very real sense, what politicians are meant to do. But after all is said and done, I'm still just a coder that's hacking on some source that I'm going to end up giving away. Our motivations are our own, and no matter what politician (or corperation or monopoly) wins the votes in the end, that's still what I'm going to be doing.
So I'm greatful to the advice BP and ESR have given us re: APSL, but let us not go around yelling ``Look! Apple killed open source!'' Even if (in the highly unlikely event that) BP and ESR never again see eye to eye and the OSI crashes around their ears, that doesn't really change what we do, does it?
--
I am tired of the Ford/Chevy, Apple/Microsoft
argument.It's time to ignore the marketing fools at Redmond and Cupertino.
The truth is they both make lame products and are not worthy of our time
Says the fire-breathing Linux zealot...