Slashdot Mirror
RMS on APSL
We've all heard what Bruce Perens and ESR think of the APSL, so
it's time to give RMS a chance. Read what he has to say. He
brought up some very interesting things which I don't think have been
discussed before, and are very important (the copyright bit).
I think that although Apple screwed up, they had good intentions.
I also think that the license is flawed, and RMS' article points that out very clearly.
I think even "open source" software that is not free software has to provide a certain level of freedom in order to be practical. As a developer, I would be adverse to contributing under such a license because of the three issues RMS has mentioned (especially the privacy issue).
This makes me wonder whether it's even possible for an open source license to be practical without being a free license. I don't see a big advantage for Apple in releasing code under this license versus just not releasing the code at all. I don't think many developers are going to rush to find all the bugs in Apple's code knowing that there are so many restrictions imposed by the license.
Ok, I think Richard M. Stallman is a pretty cool guy overall. But face it, we need the Netscape browser. Are you saying maybe this biased him a little? Anyway, maybe he's just saying some of this to try to get Apple to do better. This is still the company which was big on "look and feel" stuff.
I appreciate what many have done for the free software movement (Perens, Stallman, Linus..etc). BUT... I think we've have seen in the past that some are not tending to the interest's of the Free Software Community, but their own beliefs and views.
Instead of having self-appointed leaders of the software movement. Why are they not elected by the free software community?
Central control This is NOT control. This is publication of information. Presumably this will make it easier to find modifications of interest. (I am assuming they plan to publish this database.) I can't count the number of times I've implemented a new function for a piece of GPL'd code only to find later someone else duplicated it. Or even the times the central maintainer didn't think it had broad enough interest so declined to include it.
Possibility of revocation at any time The license only allows apple to revoke the license for "affected original code", not the entire license. He's right about this spreading stifling US patent effects abroad. If someone has a better idea of how to protect the grantor in the face of litigation please speak up, it is needed. Maybe something along the lines of a "quit claim deed", a mechanism for selling land where you only transfer such rights as you actually have?
This ridiculous multiplicity of licenses certainly threathens to take the steam out of the open source movement.
Not that I would lift a finger to assist Apple in any way shape or form even under the best of circumstances...
Simplify your life - use the GPL.
Go here!
http://lwn.net/1999/0318/a/raymond.html
Why would anyone want to contribute to MacOS if at any time they can pull the licence? Why would I want to fix somebody else's bugs if I can't benefit from doing so? Only the low-level part of the OS has been released and the only thing it can be used for is running the proprietary upper-level part.
APSL s a joke. Apple has always been proprietary and simply cannot understand the spirit of Free Software.
is a non-issue. How the hell does it make the APSL non-Open Source? As far as I can tell, other third parties will be able to find the modifications as well, and Apple's intentions on this seem to be that they want a central repository of all code deriving from their code, to make life easier. It allows them to check for patent infringements, and it allows everyone else a place to find new modifications (bug fixes, etc). The other two parts are a problem.
Sure this license might not be perfect, but it is a hell of alot better than an entirely closed source piece of software. This is no way prevents RMS, or any other free/open developers, from developing their own software. He still has the choice to take it, or leave it. What is so wrong with this? This truely would not be an issue if Apple produced worthless software. RMS's problem is that yet another piece of commercial software does something that free/open software does not. While it may be nice if Open/Free software could ride the on the tail of commercial software, it does not actually RESTRICT his freedom. If Apple, a commercial company, did not exist he would be no further ahead. In fact, the world would probably be further behind. Apple was the one who brought the GUI to the end user, not Xerox, and most certainly not Stallman.
~ FallLine @ another machine
I toally disagree with RMS. Here's why:
1) What is wrong with publishing your changes to source code? Anyone who doesn't publish their modifications isn't "acting in the spirit of free software." The good of the community, remember? And if you're the only one who ever sees this modified code, nobody will know/care anyway.
2) Central control is a good thing when end users could be using the software. Anyone can download and change open-source software. What if there's someonw out there with not-so-good intentions? What if someone downloads that bad code? Apple is putting itself in jeopardy by releasing code used in a commercial product. They must be able to control it, their business depends on it.
3) If Apple decided to revoke a license without a real reason, they're only hurting themselves. The whole point of a company embrasing open source is to gain more talent.
4) RMS is obsiouly confused about what the Darwin project includes. This is NOT the low levels of the traditional MacOS,but of MacOS X/MacOS X Server. It is NOT limited to the Mach kernel; it includes many libaries, drivers and BSD. In fact, a usable distribution of Darwin, complete with an interface, is being worked on right now. I invite RMS and everyone else to visit www.publicsource.apple.com.
...the source for OpenDoc/Cyberdog would now be
floating freely around the Net with Apple's
blessings and a GPL compatible license.
Its all great being idealistic about open source however the roots of the idea is for developers to cut the bullshit and red tape and just write good software. Of course now its a movement and big corporations should see the errors of closed development systems shouldnt they? So they should
open up their source, so that lots of people can develop better quality software for them, for free! Which is exactly what Apple is doing. Lets not pat them on the back for that.
-kojak
Normally I'm a little warry of RMS, but I have to agree with him 100% here. The APSL is just trying to cash in on the publicity of Linux/GNU and "Open Source."
and many other things too! But it doesn't mean i ever going to buy anything which comes from apple or ms.
You took mach and bsd from free community, modified it to fit you proprietory and guffy looking desktop, and now you want me to be exited about your release of something as useless as clippy. WAKE UP!!
If you still work for apple, that's your problem. My advice would be: jump off the dead platform vagon, there is plenty of exiting jobs around. I did.
"What does an inidividual programmer to do?
If you are not cut out to work directly with customers"
Customer service SKILLS aren't the problem.
Time is the problem. If you're working for
customers, you're not working on the product.
personally I think it's just a whole bunch of people being scared of a formerly *very* closed company stepping into *their* "open" turf.
I used to believe in Apple--I even still have some of their equipment around--to put GNU/Linux on. Face it, though. They are not going to change the world. They are merely an evolutionary force, like most other big companies (though not as regressive as Microsoft). Free software, however, is revolutionary.
One day, you will wake up--until then, it seems a bit pathetic.
why would I want to code for Apple if at any time they can pull the licence from me?
As a detractor let me explain my point of view.
I don't expect all my software to be given away for free. I expect, however, that software written 15 years ago should be in the public domain. I'm tired of paying for "upgrades" and I feel that the proprietary software that I write should also be put in the public domain eventually. For example, it is stupid, stupid I say, to be trying to charge money for Coleco Vision games and C=64 software, but companies try anyhow. Have we really made a better OS with Microsoft, or just a new mousetrap? Planned obselecence bites. Sure, if the philosophy is followed I'll eventually be out a job, when I retire.
Fewer and fewer are entering into EE and CS or any technical field for that matter. Either we take 5 steps back or be a little less greedy. I figure either way I win. It's just a question of the public loosing.
Apple is not the GUI innovator you make it out to be, and Steve Jobs certainly is not anybody's GUI innovator. For one thing, neither jobs nor anybody else at that company, or at Microsoft, either, for that matter, understands the difference between a GUI for use at the desktop for general management of the hardware and OS, versus a GUI for use in any particular vertical market for the specific use of the turnkey software.
Apple and Microsoft both have a B+ in GUI's 101, but neither one showed up for the classes in GUI's 201.
IBM was long known as a "bad" company
What do you mean "was"? I haven't worked for them, personally, but one of my friends father still works there. It's still pretty Dilbertish. Of course, I work for Motorola, and we are #1 on the Dilbert index (companies that produce the most fodder for Scott Adams). Still, my boss isn't a PHB.
First, there are plenty of GNU/Linux users who have Macs around--although those Macs may be working a little better now if they received a GNU/Linux upgrade. :)
Second, and the real point, it is Apple trying to reach out to the Free Software community, not vice versa. So I think Apple better be careful. If their track record is anything to go by, I wouldn't expect too much.
That's amazing!
Why did the post called "I'm so ashamed" get a -1? Because it was critical of Slashdot? Unbelievable!
The relationship that best describes what RMS is apparently thinking of when he uses the term "community" is more like a marriage relationship than the releationship of people in the same community.
WE have ALL voted for Microsoft.
WE paid them the biggest chunk of money.
I don't want to be generalized.
This is where capitalists go wrong and communism wins. (Read communism as TENOSH>CGUYhc in order to not think it to be communism, because some fixed thought makes you believe that a bad thing.)
Thanks,
Smoke of CRAP
So arrogant..bet you wouldn't like it very much if Apple really pissed RMS off. After all, he called for a boycott on Apple years ago. The GNU/Linux community is certainly booming. And RMS will not rest while the likes of Apple try to masquerade their self-serving licenses as Free Software or Open Source.
Although I don't give a rat's patootie what Mac using Hippies...
Or refuse to use Apple Products.
Considering your opinion of Mac users, I doubt you have a Mac or are considering buying one. So what effect do you think boycotting them will have?
Using GPL doesn't simplify things--it complicated them greatly. GPL, as interpreted by RMS, completely falls apart when one starts to make heavy use of component-based software. Microsoft is moving strongly in that direction, and Unix will to if the CORBA people ever get their act together. In a world of COM or CORBA objects, and programs that support plugins, and where linking is all dynamic, GPL is hopelessly quaint.
No text
At the risk of stating the obvious, if Joe Bloggs downloads it and then gives me a copy, without imposing any license conditions, then I distribute it to a thousand other people without imposing any license conditions, any non-copyright license has been lost. Saying that Apple could Sue Joe Bloggs (quite possibly penniless), if they can identify him as the original downloader, is irrelevant, that would not enable them to impose their license on the thousand+ people.
This doesn't have to be a deliberate attempt to subvert the license, just the natural results of people downloading and redistributing without thinking through (or ever reading) what they've already committed themselves to.
Only a copyright-based license can help them as it enables them to apply conditions to anyone redistributing it regardless of how they got it.
I go to the store to buy a car, and i take it home, and it does not work, so i open the hood of the car and fix the problem, and then have to go back to the store and tell them how i fixed the problem, and they put it into their next version. I get nothing in return for all my hard work, plus i had to PAY for the car.
The car company looks at your fix and sends out a recall to all owners of similar cars and fixes their cars before they are break, they implement the fix in all future cars. Do you get something _directly_, _personally_ and _phyically_? No. You do get that "warm fuzzy" feeling that you helped all those other people get their car fixed. And hopefully you get the benefit of someone else fixing a different problem on his car that you either haven't noticed or figured out how to fix on yours. It's called elightned self interest.
"try comparing the hours worked on the Linux kernel, to, say, the NT kernel"
Substantiate please.
Check out this for some problems that some Free Software advocates have with the term "Open Source."
But the releases of "netinfo", "HFS+", and Apple's version of Appletalk/Appleshare are not very useful for "all OS development". Being under the APSL they're pretty much unusable by any otherwise licensed free software.
And you also say the other free operating systems can benefit from the release of drivers. They cannot use the code either.
And, *NO*, you cannot even *look* at this code if you are involved in any similar free software project, or you will be legally tainted and unable to continue working on it.
This is basic IP law. If you look at the source and work on something similar, you're bound by the license. It doesnt matter if you paid $50000 and signed an NDA or if you got it for free off the net from Apple, or you've looked at the source of a GPL application. If there's any chance you're influenced by the code, then you're legally tainted and the copyright holders can go after you for copyright violations unless your work follows the license.
The APSL code is not useful for anyone not working within the APSL legal framework. IE; MacOS X users who want to fix bugs. For the rest of the free software community it's unusable.
With that said, that doesnt mean it's not a good thing. But it isn't much to get excited over. And don't make the legally fatal mistake of thinking you can actually use or even browse the code just because it's 'sorta open source (tm)' if you want to work on any free software projects.
Yeah, except the slight problem that you seem to have missed:
*IF YOU LOOK AT THE CODE YOU'RE BOUND BY THE LICENSE!*
This cannot be overstated. You may not look at the code or you are bound by the license. It doesnt matter if it's 'open'. You're still just as bound. The only thing you accomplish by looking at the code is making it illegal for you to work on LinuxPPC.
*sigh* I apologize for getting a bit annoyed by this, but there's a very real danger in free software hackers thinking they can look at the code because they can unwittingly get sued for copyright violations if they're not careful with what they look at.
Dont you think that Lesstif could've been done a lot faster if they just got a couple of motif source licenses? It wouldn't be unattainable. Or maybe the WINE folks could get finished real quick if they took a peek at the Windows source? I'm sure it's available in some places. Except, of course, it's *illegal* to do it that way. If you want free software you have to do a clean-room implementation. And with the 'semi free' stuff floating around it's not getting easier to claim 'clean room'.
What is it with you americans? If someone says something that is even sounds like it might be criticism of capitalism you have to jump to it and reply with: 'thats just the way it is', 'theyre just out to make a buck' or something along those lines. It's like you are parroting some party line, brings to my mind discussions with people from old Sovjet Union (when it still existed), now even they think with their own brains.
Why should a company give anything away? They're there to make a profit. Other companies don't give stuff away, and you buy from many of them (you do buy things, don't you?) and don't complain about it. Why should Apple suddenly start giving everything away?
This would be noewhere near the mess it is if Apple had declared the APSL to be a draft.
Brilliant legal analysis.
Considering Stallman's contribution to jurisprudence, an honorary J.D. is warranted at least.
I seriously suggest slashdotting the White House just in case any Supreme Court vacancies come up anytime soon. I think Richard would be quite comfortable in the black robes. He may have some hurdles to cross in dealing with the Senate Judicial Committee. Who's chairman - Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond?
Do we really need Apple? I don't think so. The ASPL, in itself, is pretty harmless, but I agree that it sets a bad precedent for others and the danger of this becoming business as usual is too great. Not that anybody in his right mind would write software for Apple for free.
Apple's position is somewhat different from IBM or Oracle or AOL-Netscape because Apple is a direct competitor of Linux (which really is free software's defacto operating system at this time) in the operating system business. Their motives can be no different from Microsoft's motives. It's just a matter of relative business acumen and tactics. Beos is also a competitor but a more cordial relationship exists because Beos is not regarded as a serious competitor.
In my opinion, the tables are now turned in that all the proprietary systems are viewing themselves as competitors to Linux. I know Microsoft has a lot more market share, but not mindshare. Microsoft, Sun, Apple, etc., are ACTING like Linux is the leader - the guy to compete with. This all happened in just the past few weeks, but such a shift can endure for a very long time.
The battle has been won. It is now just a matter of not letting the spoils of victory go to the wrong people.
Stallman is extremely fortunate - or cursed, to be a prophet honored in his own times. Let's hope it doesn't go to his head because I really do feel that his motivations are mostly for the work or cause and not selfish.
Thank you GNU
Do you feel that computing has reached it's zenith? That everything has been done and written? That there are too many programmers for the available jobs today?
I dont. The corporate proprietary software mindset has virtually brought computing and programming to a standstill, only generating new variations on an old theme, where it's been the last 10 years.
The only serious new stuff to appear has been the popularization of the internet, and that came largely due to free software. If not for free software we'd have a complete standstill with MSN, Compuserve and AOL competing on buzzwords, together with a plethora of BBS systems.
But did the open foundation of the internet lead to more or less programming jobs? The free foundation just led to the real development moving up a notch and developing new stuff above the free base. And yet another huge market for custom programming appeared.
That is where the free operating systems will lead too. Yes, the boring reinvention of the wheel and mindboggling featurism to sell the next version will go away. But it will be replaced with new levels above the commoditized base. Games development will remain. Custom integration will expand. We can actually get to work on advancing things instead of stomping around doing the same thing with a new name every year. Those living off the mass shrinkwrap market may suffer a decline, but most people with computer related jobs dont work in that market.
In the end, it means that you may not be able to get a programming job in Redmond in ten years, but it also means that Redmond wont be the only place you will be able to get a programming job.
These I-hate-to-agree-with-RMS, he-is-right-this-time, type of posts are really stupid. Is there some bot making these up? If there are humans behind these, learn some history about Free Software before treating the man like a cheap, arbitrary PR fool!
Were you trying to convince anyone but an Apple worshipper, that Apple is somehow more special, more benevolent, than IBM, Be, Sun, etc.? If so, you'll have to try harder.
Because you get tons of extra stuff with it that NeXT and Apple developed over many years. And you get support. I haven't tried Mac OS X Server yet, but it sounds like it's well worth the money they're asking for it.
Sun does the same thing with Solaris. So do many other companies. For some reason I don't see people whining as much about that.
Have something like comp.license.APSL newsgroups etc. and a standard form for all of them, and allow you to crosspost between them all. That way everyone can get notified and everyone else can find out if there is a modification that they need :-D I'm so proud of myself. Now please tell me why this wouldn't work, i know there is some reason why it wouldn't. Feel free to email me at tsu@home.com
-tsunake
I never said anything was wrong with "free software" or open source or Linux or anything like that. I just stated, to expect EVERY single piece of software to be available for free is just too utopian.
Innovation will happen at all fronts, but I expect more innovation will take place in companies hiring specific people or groups to try to innovate, rather than expecting programmers who are programming on the side to lead innovations. NOT that they won't happen, but it isn't as likely.
Human beings also have a tendency to be lazy (not all) and greedy (not all again) to some extent. When something that needs or should be created is mudane, very long, and really needs to be done quickly, I think it will take more than just satisfaction from writing the software. You can be as optimistic as you want, but I do not want to disappoint myself.
Again, the issue comes who will hire the programmers? How will they pay them? What if free, better software versions are available for almost everything and the companies hiring programmers can't sell their software?
I think a good balance between what exists now with free software, and a more commercial side, which has slected or all open sourced software is the healthiest route. To promote and expect otherwise just seems to be a bit optimistic and utopian to me.
I think your argument that proprietary software has led to a standstill in software is a bit incorrect. There are some software programs (apache) that are better than commercial counterparts, but there are a slew of commercial products that are better than their freely developed counterparts (Netscape vs Lynx; Photoshop vs. GIMP; Word Perfect or MS Word vs Star Office). EVen the design of the GUIs... what are the popular role models? Mac OS, NeXT, and even Win 95/98.
Yes a lot of this commercial stuff has become very large and slow, but they've been around for a long time, and have just been adding on top of what was there before. Linux is anewer and fresher and will likely run into the same sort of problems at some point for it's version of the same software. Unless you want to believe people will constantly rebuild the software completly... or will look through the millions of lines of code to optimize the existing code.
The commercial software was developed bya group of talented and not so talented programmers, just like open source software. Yes, there are more programmers overall working together for the Linux OS as a whole, but all of those programmers are not equally contributing to each piece of software.
I got a bit off topic there, but like I said. A healthy mixture of the commercial world and "free software" world is probably the best route. All of this talk about free software being the revolution of computers and will destroy all of these computer based corporations is nonsense. It's just as nonsense as thinking they would kill Linux.
No, I can easily move to something else like the Hurd or the MIT exokernel, with no problems.
Even if I was attached to GNU/Linux, I wouldn't mind being a zealot for it. Being a zealot for a company is silly unless you're earning something for it.
Qt 2.0 will be the first free version.
Obviously they're appealing to those who feel macs are cool and worth supporting
Just as obviously, a significant portion of those under appeal are not satisfied yet. Hopefully, Apple will quickly fix the problems RMS outlined.
Apple differs from Microsoft in one important way: they just want to make cool stuf and a few bucks at it. They are not out to steal products from other companies, annex the internet, or publically humiliate and ruthlessly crush "insubordinate" software companies like they have done to Netscape, Citrix, Spyglass and Stak.
No, they just tried to establish a monopoly over the Graphic User Interface...
Apple is no different than MS, as you attempted to allude to... In fact, they're worse because they monopolize the HARDWARE in addition to the OS.
100% Microsoft Free thanks to my G3 Mac and GNU/Linux
Hmmmm, remember that LinuxPPC had to reverse-engineer the G3 PowerMacs... Had the specs been public (as DEC Alphas, Intel x86, MIPS, etc.), the G3 port would have been much quicker and less vulnerable to the capricious hardware changes that your beloved Apple is so fond of making.
OK, so tearing down that guy's example was easy. Still, is there any reason to trust a company? Is there a reason why Dilbert(TM) has become so big? For Apple, it's put up or shut up.
Please inform us, how forthcoming has Apple ever been about their hardware specs, even the old 68K stuff? There must be a reason why many are skeptical about Apple's intentions.
I didn't know they made every piece of hardware for their platform and in their computers. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
For a group that supposely promotes freedom and choice, there sure are a lot of people who likes to impose its own brand of "freedom" and "choice" on others.
Who is stopping you from coming up with your own definition of free, or getting a whole bunch of people to agree with you? You don't have much of a point, do you?
Try examining a chip that bears the "VLSI (c) 1995 Apple, Inc.", one of the many that exist on most Apple main logic boards.
Spend countless hours with a logic probe, all because Apple doesn't want you or anyone else to know what's inside..
BTW, the serial ports and bus architecture on Macs are totally primitive and inferior; no wonder Apple doesn't publically document their hardware!
"Dirty hippies?" Ha! That was what the PC/DOS heads said for the longest time about Mac users, the new kids in town. Ironic.
Nobody. Apple apparently came up with their own definition according to many people on here. They also got a bunch of people to agree with them. I just find it funny that so many people are crying how it doesn't meet their definition and therefore Apple must be "evil" and what not. I have no problem with people disagreeing.
I think Apple has made it clear that they don't see the APSL as the final license for their OSS project going forth. Certainly they couldn't have released their code just yet if the license was still in a draft form and nothing more. I think we have to keep in mind that Apple has shown good faith with this project. This is apparent on their willingness to listen and make changes when warrented.
Evil? I don't recall seeing many mentions or implications of that. What I have seen are a lot of users who are indignant about a company proclaiming a non Open Source(TM) license as Open Source(TM). Open Source is a trademark and has specific requirements to satisfy. Apple has not quite done it. Yes, the posts are on the emotional side, but that's not surprising. Apple is as closed as you can get and parades the APSL as Open Source. They could have at least called it a draft.
OTOH, there are clearly Mac users who are devoted to Apple (not you, necessarily). They certainly should never expect Free Software users to ever care about Apple, an arbitrary company.
Amazing, your original post has now been downgraded to only 0 instead of -1. I guess somebody changed their mind after realizing that they made a mistake. Perhaps in the near future Apple will also realize that they made a mistake with their APSL and will make it truly open source. If this happens, then the moderators here should rethink their biases towards Apple and ponder the fact that people and companies do make mistakes.
There's a lot of irony here. People used to dump on Linux because it was too "marginal"--it wasn't the "in" operating system, didn't have enough applications or users.
Now Linux is getting popular. And Linux bigots (note I didn't say Linux users--I'm one) are dumping on Apple, BeOS and others because they're not the "in" OS. Hmm . . .
But how many bigots are there? Many posts seem to be coming from the free software perspective. That may be bigoted but not of the OS-du-jour kind.
Your big point seems to be we're not giving Apple a fair go. So what? If you've been following Apple's fortunes, they have a notorious history of maintaining proprietary solutions at any cost. That's all the more reason to not trust them now, or ever.
First, they ripped off Xerox's GUI concept, then tried to sue Microsoft when they did the same. They kept the Mac architecture closed shop for years, then allowed clone manufacturers to compete for a while, before cutting off the licences when the cloners complained about OS licensing costs.
Don't even get me started about the hype of an under-specced, but "pretty" computer...
Now they see a cheap way of getting their partially ripped-off sources improved, and presumedly good PR at the same time. Sorry Apple, you've used up all your goodwill. Find another bandwagon to jump on.
Daniel.
Did I claim everything he says is perfect? But if you like, I will claim that in his major public statements, he is almost always correct.
It would be fascinating to see someone successfully rebut those statements. I won't hold my breath.
First of all, the give you the code. If you need to modify it that is a nice option.
Secondly it seem like a good first step. I think apple has decided to make money on hardware not OS software...
It you don't like it stick your head in the sand and don't look at, never mind that it might contain some interesting and useful code...
Apple just wants to know what your doing with it... There giving it too you.
Microsoft doesn't give you squat. with their OS's. You don't even get the code when your paying 800 dollars for a "server" OS that costs more and more.
As for BSD, Avie Tevanian (formally NEXT now of Apple) worked extensively on MACH Kernel for BSD and is a known as a Unix Guru.
If you don't like it, don't use it.. Maybe they'll make it freer. Malbe they'll just end there whole experiment.
The I want software FREE is ironic considering myself and many others who read this page make software for a living...Open is different, athough its very hard to be open without being free..
GUI 101 and GUI 201 are the courses one might take in the first and second semesters of college, for instance. I meant that Neither Gates nor Jobs nor few others know much at all about interfaces. It was Mike Markula, the other Apple founder and president who lined up all that venture capital, and NOT Steve Jobs. Both the Atari GEM desktop and Amiga desktop provided color and many other GUI features before Apple did. These GUI's were both better and on less expensive computers than those from Apple. They are every bit, and more, important than the Apple GUI in what goes on today. The general desktop GUI you speak of does not work at all for household applications. The GUI that does has not become popular yet, if it even exists yet.
Henry Ford's contributions included mass production, standardization of parts and new economies of manufacture. His company is still doing very well. I don't see how you can assert that he ultimately lost out to competition.
In all the news about Apple since Jobs returned in `97 there is no real news about the GUI. That's in no small part due to the fact that there have been no innovations in the GUI to speak of.
Doesn't the OSI define "Open Source(tm)?" Didn't ESR and the rest of the OSI board grant Apple the rights to use "Open Source(tm)?" Seems to me like the real problem is with what OSI defines to be "Open Source(tm)" rather than APSL itself. As far as I can see the APSL nothing more than an application of the OSI's definition. It seems completely reasonable to me that Apple would look to the OSI to help with their first steps into this community. Apple has also made changes to their draft of the APSL based on OSI's recommendations to enter this community on the right note.
I think they entered this community in good faith. They seem to appreciate the guidance that this community and especially its leaders has to offer. Care for the company or not, I think we should at least represent this community which we care for, also in good faith rather than with childish attacks.
"Squabbling, infantile community that corporations should stay away from." *shrug* Welcome to the community, brother! Free software is not about being liked or accepted. Don't you get it yet? Computers are fast becoming integral parts of all our lives. In years to come they will be inseperable. Free software == our freedom. This is a long term investment. Corporations don't matter, acceptance doesn't matter, freedom is what matters. Apple took this concept of freedom and tried to twist it to their advantage while completely ommitting the freedom aspects. What they've done is ridiculous and to dislike them for this is rational. I can understand your connundrum, trying to defend apple against people who have logical reasons to criticize. And to make matters worse, you don't even know what free software means. If apple feels the need to be associated with free software, they will have to play be the rules because they have *no* bargaining position. Their absense is inconsequential.
Well, to be honest, I think the Open Software/Free Software leadership is in way over their heads. While they may think of themselves as "guiding the vision," they can't even get along amongst themselves (RMS, ESR, Perens). When you have folks who squabble and each squabbling with Apple over their licence, they don't realize they have let the genie out of the bottle, and they are going to get squashed. Regardless of your intentions (and actually upon further reflection, ESR and to a lesser extent BP are transforming themselves) unless you become a politician, you will be marginalized, though revered. Watch out RMS and BP (RMS is lost). Get your act together or there will be no practical/idealistic voice.
Wouldn't Linus (at least) be the village blacksmith/miller, or some derivation thereof?
But you could, if you wanted to, tell your neighbor about the fix first, publish it in a car magazine, garner some small respect, etc.... With the APSL, you are FORCED to give it directly to apple first. And (yeah, bad grammar) they don't have to give it to anyone else.
As of now, yes. But not in the past, and not necessarily in the future. People who say, "Life isn't fair. So Deal with it.", are some of the most vociferous when that unfair life comes back to bite them. Life isn't fair, so deal with me trying to change it.
It's not about apple! It's about the source code.
Lemme get this straight...Apple is derided on this forum for seemingly to want "just a bunch of free bug fixes" yet Apple can get improved code under existing OS/Free licences already? I think it's about making a better product, and giving out code to make a better product. I just think Apple feels confident it can make money by providing the best implementation of the code with their hardware (GNOME notwithstanding ;) )
Apple joined what community? The Mach microkernel and BSD have been in the community for a good long time before Apple "openned" their source.
I am skeptical of their "improvements." If we did a diff on all their code versus the base Mach and BSD distributions, how much difference would you find? MkLinux seems to be running fine on its version of the Mach microkernel. Yes, yes, Apple gave MkLinux the initial push, but they haven't touched it in a long time, but it's rolling along just fine without the so-called improvements Apple plugged into MacOSX.
Apple has never wanted to share its technology with anyone. Every time it has had an opportunity to expand it audience, it has ended up shooting itself in the foot. It's been years since Macs have been technologically superior to PC's, yet it's only been in the last 3 years or so that their prices have come down to reasonable levels. What was the reward the few Mac clone makers received from Apple? First thing Jobs did was to cut off all clone makers and refuse to support their hardware, invalidating the individual owner's right to upgrade their software and receive support. And now, with its chance to impress the fastest growing computer community - the open source, free software community - it fumbles, quite badly.
I wouldn't count on seeing anything new from Apple's "open-source" policy.
However, I think the point Stallman fails to recognize (or dismisses) is that Apple is a corporate entity that has a responsibility other than living up to Richard's ideals. It has a responsibility to its employees to make money so that it can comphensate them for their efforts; this is a virtuous goal.
What crap! To a corporation, employees are merely a sometimes necessary evil, to be tolerated only until they can be replaced by something cheaper and/or more productive. This is as true in software development as anywhere else.
Maximization of profit (either short or long-term), within the constraints imposed by law, is the *only* goal which corporations consistently pursue. Anyone who seriously expects them to exhibit "virtuous" behaviour towards anyone but their shareholders is a deluded fool.
Alex Berkman
Maybe OSI could come up with a Open Source Liscense that would be acceptable to the capitalists in the audience and then we could settle down to two variants that (hopefully) wouldn't be mutually exclusive.
You obviously don't get it...
The whole point of corporate, Open Source(tm) licenses is precisely to be incompatible with every other license. A unique license ensures that your software cannot be incorporated into a potential competitor's product, while still encouraging some of the more gullible open-source developers to improve your product for free.
Corporate lawyers are not stupid, and we should given them credit for knowing what they're doing when they draft these licenses. What we see as "license problems" are a deliberate result of pursuing corporate goals, which are fundamentally incompatible with the very human goal of software freedom.
This method of licensing, while not as attractive to outsiders as genuine free software, still provides a net benefit to the corporation -- and does ensure that whatever benefits there are flow one-way. Anyone who expects that software sharing will somehow become compatible with the goals of corporations is in for disappointment.
Alex Berkman
Apple's open source release is possibly a good first step, or maybe it's just a cynical last ditch attempt of a failing computer company. Given Apple's history, people are justified in being suspicious. And so far, all we are seeing is a restrictive license for code that mostly used to be open source to begin with and that doesn't seem to be very useful to anybody except maybe a few Macintosh developers.
Let's hope that Apple is genuinely interested in open source, and let's also hope that they figure out how to address the needs of the open source community better.
Oh not this "Mac UI ripped off Xerox" crap again.
Xerox didn't even have overlapping windows, okay?
In reality, Apple is just as ruthless as Microsoft and uses every trick in the book to manipulate public opinion, build a brand name, achieve market dominance, get proprietary technology adopted as "standards", and beat competitors. They aren't any different from Coke, Pepsi, Burger King, Macdonalds, Nike, or all the other corporate biggies either.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't buy their products or that there are no differences between companies. I still prefer Apple products to Microsoft products in some cases, just like I might prefer Coke to Pepsi (actually, I can't taste the difference). Just don't be under any illusions about what Apple is: a run-of-the-mill big US corporation.
The only thing that is primitive is your experience with Macintosh.
BTW, the serial ports on Macs today are USB and Firewire - yeah, totally primitive and inferior.
It may be prudent to avoid looking at sources for something you are trying to clone, but it certainly isn't part of copyright law yet. At best, that may be something you agree to as part of a license agreement you sign in order to get access to the sources.
you are developing an OSX application that crashes or doesn't work right. If you can't find the problem in your code, you look at the Apple source and fix the bug. Now your app works as it should, and Apple's OS is better. So, their "open source" effort, though not to everyone's liking, is nonetheless better than the old days or clumsy workarounds to avoid OS bugs. This type of "feedback" will help OSX, though not as much as it would if it were GPL.
They are not going to change the world.
Apple has already changed the world. They have had a considerable impact on personal computers.
I think I may have come off a little too harsh against Apple. It looks like much of this mess sprang from ESR's goof.
I think the Amiga had a bigger impact on computing than Apple. Apple is still using the same aweful GUI as in 1984.
I still find fault in the QT license. I dont like the idea of only distributing patches.
I think Rob should do what he wants. I dont think he should run mod_perl, but he can do it whatever way he wants. Have you ever thought that he has all these readers because of the way he reports his news?
I'm sure the true 60's dirty hippies resent being compared to you, man.
This won't happen because Apple keeps most of the codecs proprietary and closed, and won't let people clone it.
"excepts to be heralded"? No one says you have to herald or give applause to Apple or Sun or Linus T. or anyone else for anything they do. And if you are not in the Mac "community" (aka a paying customer), I doubt anyone outside of this webpage really cares.
But you have a good point. Apple's got nothing but the already free Mach and BSD and ten years of hard labor turning that into the NextStep/OSX foundation. Anyone who wants to develop an operating system variant already has the tools to do it. So why bitch about Apple trying to help *its* community? It certainly doesn't affect you negatively at all.
[I for one thinks this is a good move. In the short term it means more device drivers for OS/X. In the long term - who knows - Darwin on x86 or PPC may be a more robust Apache/Samba server than Linux is. If it is, I'd consider using it. (Since I don't code operating systems, the details of the source code licence don't affect my freedom one bit.)]
RMS's Privacy issue casts a new light
on something which looks like a loophole
in the GPL. I am quite sure however
that RMS would not like the following
scenario:
Someone creates a new GCC compiler with
very smart optimizations for that new
supersmart processor. Instead of publishing
his source code, he creates an internet
site where you can do the following:
- register and pay 25$
- send your source code
(confidentiality guaranteed)
- receive the optimized object
code within seconds.
This person is just using a 'derived work'
and not distributing it. I think that the
GPL allows that. Of course that was a stupid
issue when the GPL was first written. But this
is becoming more and more realistic every day.
I can have a few MB/sec bandwith at home
for cheap.
This scenario raises two issues:
1- Should this loophole be fixed and how ?
2- The GPL makes the license virulent: derived
works must be distributed under that license.
Yet the license itself can become obsolete.
How to fix that ?
- Leon Bottou
WHOAMI:
See http://www.djvu.att.com
I did a part of the science there.
DISCLAIMER:
This email is my personal opinion,
and not the opinion of my employer, etc...
[...] several so-called "experts" have ranted about the "problems" with Apple's open source liscence, while they cant even grasp the general economic concept of the whole thing.
People are criticizing Apple and the APSL precisely because they do understand the "general economic concept of the whole thing". That is, we realise that Apple is merely another corporate parasite that is attempting the use the Open Source(tm) gimmick to offload some of their development costs onto the free software community. In return, we get nothing useful -- their license ensures that OSX code can't be used in any of our projects, and their proprietary GUI ensures that people will still have to pay Apple for each copy of the complete OS, once we've improved it for them. This thing isn't even gratis, much less free.
The bottom line is that people resent being asked to work for free, when the only cause is to make Apple's shareholder's richer. As long as Apple considers their operating system a proprietary product, they should be responsible enough to pay people to improve it, rather than asking the community for handouts.
Alex Berkman
Instead of just alking about the diff, why don't you just do it yourself? You seem to have a lot of talk but nothing to do about it. I am accustomed to seeing this response from the all-knowing folks who read /.
Do any Linux apps support external codecs?? I thought all the Linux players had hard-coded support. This is a huge obstacle to getting any kind of real CODEC support for Linux.
imlib fulfills a similar role for graphics... keep in mind that the word "Codec" comes from "Compression/Decompression". Someone could easily make a similar architecture for motion video (or use a similar one to QuickTime, if anyone actually knows how it works).
I actually haven't seen how much money RedHat makes. They just seem to have acquired a lot of investors.
Ah, well, you have successfully avoided with commenting on any of the other items in the message, such as Apple's general policy of doing itself harm, and, in such, managed a completely useless and thoughtless addition to this discussion.
I will be happy to diff the code, and I'll let you know the results.
I'd like to see Apple (and every other company out there writing their own "Open Source" licenses) explain why they didn't just use search-and-replace on the NPL anyway, or at least a moderately modified version thereof.
Apple would never use the NPL, because doing so would allow Netscape or other competitors to incorporate their code into those companies' products. Corporations routinely use copyright and other forms of "intellectual property" as weapons to stifle competition, and they're not going to give them up, unless or until their proprietary products cease to have any market value (often not even then). That will usually only happen if people write genuinely free replacements. Sharing is antithetical to the way corporations work, and unique licensing is one of the best legal means available to ensure that it can't happen.
Fortunately, as a result of all these license problems, hackers are waking up to the fact that this whole Open Source(tm) thing is merely a snare laid by ESR and his corporate backers to undermine the free software movement, which is the only *real* long-term threat they're facing. If enough of us resist the tempation to work on mere open source, and insist on contributing only to truly free, GPLed software, the corporations will have no choice but to GPL their products, or risk having them made irrelevant by a free replacement. Either way, the community wins.
Support LinuxPPC, and forget about OSX and the APSL!
Alex Berkman
Rubbish. RMS believes in a community based on mutual respect and co-operation, and the GPL provides the guarantees that allow such a community to flourish (sort of like a constitution). Apple and the other corporate sharks that ESR has embraced are not a part of this community, as they are neither respectful of outside developers, nor co-operative.
If Apple had any respect for hackers, they'd be providing code that *we* can use, in return for our help in improving it, and they'd be using a license that allows even competitors to work together on developing the software (in other words, the GPL).
Apple may be a part of the "Apple community", if you think that a community can mean a relationship of complete dependence by Apple's customers on their corporate mother, but they're certainly no part of the free software community.
Alex Berkman
If it's good, why fix it? I can understand some changes (like the whole floppy disck to trash can thing), and other minor things. Is the OS only good if they completly change the GUI every few years? That seems rather absurd.
The OSI publishes a definition of "Open Source(tm), sure, and the general consesnsus seems to be that the APSL doesn't comply with it. In any event at the end of the day I guess it's SPI (the trademark holder) who get to decide whether their certification mark is applicable.
Yes, it is perfectly reasonable for Apple to look to the OSI, or to anyone else they care to, to help with "their first stpes into the community". If they thought the OSI somehow had some sort of authority over everyone else that stopped us disagreeing with them then they're not just mistaken, they're completely out of touch with reality.
All I said is that I find it ironic that people who say they value a "community" based outlook are so eager to jump on a company when it makes an effort to become a *limited* part of that community.
I never thought of it that way...
I suppose that Apple is trying to become a limited participant in our community. Much like a thief in mainstream society, they will limit their participation to taking from others, and giving nothing back.
Apple will take our labour, and give us nothing in return, and we're supposed to pat them on the back and thank them for joining our community? What bullshit.
Please, Apple - we don't need you - return to whatever community you came from!
Apple did fight to protect its product against copying. If you think software deserves any protection, just HOW MUCH can you copy the GUI of a product before you've crossed the line? If you don't think there is a line, please state so.
As an X developer during the lawsuit and a free software advocate now, yes, I don't think there is a line at all. Anyone involved with GUI design strongly opposed Apple's lawsuit not necessarily because of the suit itself but because of future implications because of the suit. Interestingly, the FSF and LPF opposed this lawsuit and subsequently boycotted Apple.
Yeah, and Intel is "open".. Bzzzt!! How can you say that?
Because I can find information on the bus and memory architecture so well as all controller silicon for commodity x86 main logic boards online or in my university's library.
OTOH, the Apple "Technical" Library and Apple Computer, Inc. reveal little by comparison.
But I really don't care about Intel/Cyrix/AMD or vendor-specific commercial issues; I just care about the register-level info necessary to assist the port of an OS.
Also, why all the animosity towards MS? Personally, my animosity is directed towards ALL commercial software vendors equally - Apple, MS, Sun, SGI alike.
Bob R. (Too lazy to create an account)
100% Commercial Software Free (DEC Alpha + GNU/Linux)
The GUI may be old but it was good enough for M$ to spend 15 years copying it....
Recycle Bin... how lame...
Except that Apple doesn't own the license to OpenDoc.
RMS may be a little left of mainstream, but he's dead on. Without him watching over the shoulders of the large corporations, they will exploit and "leverage" the open source movement and its developers for their own gain, while returning nothing.
Unfortunately, the European parliament
has proposed to adopt the US Patent System
so businesses can compete on "even terms" and
because "The United States is, after all,
our largest trade partner and having harmonized
business rules can only be of good.". Microsoft
was used as an example of why the US Patent
System is so good.
Another thing the US has managed to stuff
down the throat of us Europeans, after
hormone grown meat and genetically modified
organisms.
All because of the European politicians
spinelessness. Bah. Stop the world, please,
I'd like to get off now.
The proposal is out for ratification in the
various governments right now. It is expected
it will pass without much fuss.
Isn't this a bit hypocritical?
Set your threshold down to -1 and search for "score:-1". You'll find a bunch of posts, many of which aren't inflammatory at all. The only thing wrong with them is that they aren't entirely negative about Apple.
Posts replying to them, that are negative about Apple, get elevated scores.
...they would still be flamed by slashdotters. "They didn't release [insert favorite Apple technology here]." "They still sell closed computers." "They used to be proprietary, are we going to reward that?"
Let's not pretend that people who base their opinions without reading the license ("I trust X's opinion more than Y's, but I won't actually read a small license.") actually care or would contribute. It's too KeWl to hate Microsoft and sneer at Apple.
Bruce raised some concerns--though I wish he'd done it privately first in hindsight, but he was quite honest and calm. I read the APSL the way that ESR did before seeing Bruce's concerns, but I viewed it as mainly giving me a better OS if I used Apple stuff. Then the personalities got involved and it's degenerated.
I think what this means is that you don't have a coherent picture of how the real world will coexist with your ideals. If you think corporations are going to wither away because you coded a nifty OS, oh, just stay out of politics--you're computer, not political, specialists.
i wrote up a post like 5 minutes after this news piece was added but something was wrong with this comment section. so i waited for about an hour constantly reloading it and seeing if any comments had made it on. finally, giving up i went and did other things, and came back to find this section full of comments. so i guess the best place to get what i wrote read would be here since it sort of adresses the same issue...
I don't mean to get in to a philosophical argument here, but how would programmers expect to make a living if everything they coded was given away for free? You could say you'd sell it, but wouldn't that violate free software? Even then, once one copy is out, wouldn't it be okay for anyone to use it without paying you?
So, you say you'll make money on tech support? Please, think about this one critically. For one, do you expect companies to call each individual programmer individually, not to mention pay you? And if the software is so perfect, why would they even need tech support?
So you decide you'll work for a major distributer. But wait, they only have a certain number of job slots. You and thousands of other programmers can't get a job there. Oh well, maybe you'll get a job doing something else computer related, even though your true love is with programming. Now you can't devote nearly as much time programming as you wish you could, and are somewhat satisfied, or dislike your job. Is this how you want to live?
I am not arguing for proprietary software at all, but for those who are thinking realistically (and aren't living minimalistically without a family off of grants from the government), some sort of lisence (or multiple) needs to be created that allows for this. As long as the source is open, it's good. If you do not agree with the rules, do not contribute code for it. Pretty simple. Not that it isn't good to try to get such liscenses pushed further, but let's not be unrealistic, and possibly even causing companies to turn away from this.
Although he mentions it doesn't meet some sort of definition, he seems to totally degrade both the NPL and APSL completly. However, I expect the highschool and college kids on here to use this as fuel to flame Apple more and avoid thinking critically. Oh well.
I'm sorry but that is bullshit. When it comes to companies like that, money is the start and the end of everything they do.
Yeah. That's why Steve Jobs gets paid so much.
(He gets paid $1 a year, and that's just sp his family can be on the health plan...)
A) Apple was a taxpayer too, so they paid
for it and should be able to use it.
B) It's not buried. You too can license
Mach and BSD.
Apple and NeXT made additions to BSD and Mach
which taxpayers did *not* pay for. Thus,
you can't have those except under Apple's
conditions.
I see them as all about the same. (A few, like Microsoft, are worse because of doing illegal things to control and stifle the market.) The company you bought that CD player from, whichever one it was, was certainly as "closed" and "proprietary" as Apple, but I don't see you moaning and sobbing about that.
People have this reflexive, knee-jerk reaction to Apple here, for some bizarre reason. Sort of a "my OS is better than yours, and I won't be happy until you stop using yours" fascism, I guess.
I don't mean to get in to a philosophical argument here, but how would programmers expect to make a living if everything they coded was given away for free? You could say you'd sell it, but wouldn't that violate free software? Even then, once one copy is out, wouldn't it be okay for anyone to use it without paying you?
So, you say you'll make money on tech support? Please, think about this one critically. For one, do you expect companies to call each individual programmer individually, not to mention pay you? And if the software is so perfect, why would they even need tech support?
So you decide you'll work for a major distributer. But wait, they only have a certain number of job slots. You and thousands of other programmers can't get a job there. Oh well, maybe you'll get a job doing something else computer related, even though your true love is with programming. Now you can't devote nearly as much time programming as you wish you could, and are somewhat satisfied, or dislike your job. Is this how you want to live?
I am not arguing for proprietary software at all, but for those who are thinking realistically (and aren't living minimalistically without a family off of grants from the government), some sort of lisence (or multiple) needs to be created that allows for this. As long as the source is open, it's good. If you do not agree with the rules, do not contribute code for it. Pretty simple. Not that it isn't good to try to get such liscenses pushed further, but let's not be unrealistic, and possibly even causing companies to turn away from this.
Although he mentions it doesn't meet some sort of definition, he seems to totally degrade both the NPL and APSL completly. However, I expect the highschool and college kids on here to use this as fuel to flame Apple more and avoid thinking critically. Oh well.
RMS wrote:
> Aside from this, we must remember that only part of MacOS is being released under the APSL--and it is the lowest level part.
This is true.
> The only practical use for this code is to run the non-free part of MacOS.
This is not true. Of the code that has been released, quite a bit is making its "debut" to the open-source/free-software community. Often cited examples are "netinfo", "HFS+", and Apple's version of Appletalk/Appleshare. Having these technologies out in the open, although not earth-shattering, can benefit all OS development.
> It will not help free operating systems, because they already have the low-level drivers for the PowerPC Mac.
This also is not true. The free OS's do not "sleep" well on PowerBook hardware. Some have sound problems. Granted, the current Darwin source release doesn't do any better in these areas, but according to what Apple's saying, they'll be releasing drivers for MacOS X [client], which _will_ have these things. The free OS's DO need this stuff.
In general, I believe the rest of RMS's and Bruce's points are valid. I believe that Apple is trying to do "the Right Thing", and with a few mods/clarifications to the license, they'll get it right.
Apple, like Netscape or AT&T, is obviously free to do whatever it pleases it most with its own source code... still presenting something as "pseudo-free" is much more dangerous for the free software community than keeping their source code in their safes. Probably the discussion on the QT licence and what followed have proven that the developers' community is more sensible to the legal aspect the software is released than it was supposed to be... In fact being able to modify the source code of an application (or of an OS) does not necessarily qualify that application as "free software". I find quite upsetting, beside what has been stated in the article so far, the regulations on export control... maybe they are compulsory for US law (and I am not in a country that has been banned from them), still free software is supposed to be free to anyone (hence a grundge also against all the clauses in other licences that restrict your use to non-profit or educational only).
Quite recently another "Public Code" licence has been released by AT&T, concerning their DjVu technology. To me it seems quite similar to the licence that has been prepared for QT2.0 ( but even here there is the "export control" bit, alas!), but I would like to hear comments from people that are much more expert on these issues than I am. The url is:
http://www.djvu.att.com/open/attlicense.html
I've addressed this issue before... I think the people who run the news updating on this site should try to be less biased. It often appears as if CmdrTaco's own hatred of Apple controls what Apple related news gets published (mainly negative or related to the negative press, and of course the unignorable) and how it's presented.
Not that he (or any of the other people at this site) isn;t allowed to express his opinion, it's just I think his opinion influences the opinion of many of the readers of this site. If he reports a topic in a negative way, degrades, or attacks it, the readers of this site will likely go along. Then you'll have the opposite extreme defending against the other extreme. Then you get debates that shouldn't even exist. Discussion is healthy, but heated, flamatory attacks are ridiculous.
I think it's time for Rob to understand that his site is no longer read by a small group of people with similar beliefs and interests as him. This site is now read by NT fans, Apple supporters, Linux users, Be users, and BSD users. He doesn't have to do this, but I (and others) would really respect him more if the site became less one sided.
I love the way the site is structured, and it's highly impossible to make a competing site to this one (anyone willing to try? didn't think so). Just like we are pushing Apple to go a bit further, why settle for what we're getting here?
Perhaps pick up a few more news people who specialize in other subjects such as Be, Apple, BSD, whatever. Now that filters are set up, there's really no reason more news can be reported, and this will give a chance for all sides to get equal representation. Not to mention boost the site up another notch in respectability.
I think he was just trying to show that the argument that Apple (and Steve Jobs) is the greediest, heartest, ruthless company is absurd.
We can argue Apple's business moves and who thinks what for years, but sometimes you have to say to yourself "despite what has happened in the past, this is a step in the right direction." Rather than allowing previous hatred, or even not so previous (everyone else hates Apple, I should too without questioning their stance), control your thinking.
I wish RMS would express himself a bit better, and with a bit more... polish... than he's shown in the past. He's right about the vast majority of things he talks about, but just turns people off with his percieved arrogance/fanaticism.
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
When Bruce Perens wrote the Debian Free Software Guidelines, the intent was to codify the idea of Free Software into rules that could be easily verified. This makes DFSG == Free Software
The rules for the Open Source trademark are essentially the same guidelines (I think they edited a couple of names). However, by endorsing non-Free licenses like the APSL, the OSI is forcing the concept of Open Source Software to deviate from the concept of Free Software. If they persist in supporting such licenses, they will be discarded by the Free Software Community, and be left with only the half-hearted support of the fickle "Free Enough" software "community". I don't think anybody but the proprietary software giants want to see that happen.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Text.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
If not, go and read it now...
http://www.lwn.net/1999/0318/a/raymond.html
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
That might have something to do with the personal references attached to your original comments. The license issues could have been stated without the
"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. "
Being tagged on the end, implying he alone made the decision.
But then the common theme in all these editiorials is a lack of diplomacy.
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
---
--
"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?"
"open source" has a broad meaning now. in apple's instance of it, they think that programmers are going to work hard on a kernel -- insignifigant by itself (what makes it so special?) -- and be FORCED to report any changes to apple, and RISK having ALL PRODUCT RIGHTS be taken away for ANY REASON.
I come to two conclusions, either:
1) Apple/Steve Jobs is an idiot
2) Just another marketing spin to make a few of the light-hearted go "ooh ooh it's open source".
personally, i see no reason why i should waste my time on apple's code.
find freedom at http://www.gnu.org/
>Because it would be helpful to me.
How, specifically? BSD source is already out there, so is Mach kernel source. Without Apple's restrictions.
>Because it would be helpful to tother BSD users.
AFAIK it uses BSD source, how would looking at source BSD developers made be helpful to them? And they could never put it into a *BSD OS, because of the license.
>Because it would be helpful, period.
Yes, maybe, but you'll always have that nice feeling that Apple can terminate the agreement, huh?
Back to the old half a glass of water problem, I guess.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
...of this viewpoint. There is _no_ merit to any access to source code unless you get to own it and make your own versions of it etc etc yada yada? ;)
I'm sorry- that's too narrow a view for me. With all the history of proprietary software- hooks to punish DR-DOS, secret APIs, the repugnant history of Aladdin Stuffit products on the Mac platform which continues being a serious problem to this DAY, you're telling me the _only_ merit of source auditing is if you also get to own it?
That's way too unparanoid a view, my friend
I for one am greatly pleased to see Apple opening source- even if they allow _no_ copying! Because that means we can play watchdog on 'em, and I'm afraid you have to play watchdog on proprietary software. All too often vendors have turned treacherous. There have been lovely hostilities lately- most fascinatingly, Microsoft's practice of hunting out private information like Emails and embedding it silently and invisibly into Word files. Many people have discovered such information in their files. MS claims this is just through writing entire disk sectors to RAM, but do we have any proof that's all it is? No, because we can't audit what they're doing: they could be doing anything, they could be trawling HDs for sensitive data quite intentionally for all we know, and there's no way to be sure.
Furthermore, there have been repeated tests that indicated that somewhere within the bowels of NT, it manages to give preferential treatment to IE for connections. How? Where? We don't know, we can't see, all we can see is the statistical data indicating that something is happening to cause this.
Well, Apple don't play that game- in fact, Apple has so little to hide that it can pseudo-opensource its code. Whether or not it goes to a license that deserves full cooperation and shared work, this is crucially important because we NEED to be able to audit code that might critically affect our systems or those we work with.
Apple Tech Info Library
Apple OS8 Developer Documentation
Apple OSX Server Developer Documentation
Apple Tech Info Archive For The Old 68K Stuff, Not To Mention All Kinds Of Other Stuff Up To And Including Pinouts For Those Weird Old Monitor Cables
The reason isn't about Apple. The reason begins with a prej and ends with ice- and it's about as warm and reassuring as the latter.
ALL! vendors suck. Apple has done plenty of asinine things, just like everybody else. To hold them as an example of arch-evil just because they don't make PCs is completely preposterous. How forthcoming is Compaq or Packard Bell about the twisty details of their more strange variants of the basic theme of 'PC'? How forthcoming is Toshiba about the hardware of their laptops?
"Wait for them to get back into the power ring, we shall see how benevolent apple really is."
Are you kidding? Apple spent _millions_ on an internet suite that was bundled with the OS. It was revolutionary, perhaps too revolutionary. It was called Cyberdog. I used it for over a year... you know what? They never did a fscking thing to push it over the other web browsers/Email programs/ftp etc etc etc vendors. They spent all that money and then just put the result out there and left it to twist in the wind...
If you think for one second that Apple embraces and exterminates like MS does, you are just plain out of your fscking mind and, on top of that, have never even _asked_ anybody what the real truth of it is.
Apple's sin is lack of promotion- for years they just ran around making 'cool stuf' (Cocoa? Colorsync? Applescript? OpenDoc? Cyberdog? Project X/HotSauce/MCF?) and did nothing to try and promote it. Meanwhile MS was ripping off companies and ramming their choices down everyone's throats (read Crushed By Microsoft: What I Learned for an example). Who do you think ended up winning? Now, who do you think really deserves your nasty fit of attitude?
You are incredibly wrong and the record shows how wrong you are- if Apple was as you think they are, they would not have been whipped so bad in '97 and '98. It's anybody's guess as to whether they will get fully into your 'power ring' but it's well to remember that Apple's culture is one hell of a lot more like the Linux culture than MS's is. It was an internal gift economy- a playground for Apple programmers to play with nifty ideas while the marketshare collapsed and Rome burned around them. Jobs put in some backbone and some ruthlessness, but man, have some sense of proportion! Do you want a detailed account of all the different ways Apple completely didn't even bother to ruthlessly crush their competitors? God! I don't know whether to laugh or cry- you should talk to some of the OpenDoc guys who got caught holding the bag when _that_ 'cool stuff' ended up unpromoted, un-whipped-on-customers, un-forced-down-everyone's-throat... geez... talk to some people who know the truth, will you?
Well, it seems that the intent of the Open Source Definition was to be a set of rules defining Free Software. However, it appears that either something is unclear, or people are misinterpreting it.
Richard Stallman says that the APSL is not compliant with the FSF's definition of Free Software.
Eric Raymond says that the APSL is indeed compliant with the Open Source Definition.
Since the Debian president signed onto your letter, it appears that at least part of Debian doesn't consider the APSL to be compliant with the Debian Free Software guidelines.
If it is not Free Software, and is not compliant with the DFSG, how can it be Open Source(tm)? I was under the impression that the Open Source Definition was virtually identical to the DFSG.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Posted by Assmodeus:
good point. its not free...its like...almost free...in the sense that you have restrictions... plus its apple...
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
The GPL is not about communism. It is about personal freedom. If I am FORCED to republish code changes, that is a lack of freedom and therefore inconsistent with the GPL.
Posted by AnnoyingMouseCoward:
Firstly, I agree with most of what your saying. To me, the most important point that you have made here is
"Steve Jobs never was good at letting his pets roam free in the wilderness".
What most of these big companies ( IBM, Apple, etc ) seem to have forgotten is that open source software development is evolutionary in nature. In short, it follows a Darwinian process of "survival of the fittest", rather than "ordained by management".
This is why I'm really not that worried by what the corporate sector does. If they try to impose a bureaucratic process of system development on the code, the only result of this will be mediocre systems that are inferior to open source code.
In short, they want the advantages of open source without the evolutionary process that actually makes it all work.
Just my 0.02c worth gang.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
I don't care enough about Apple and it's software to read the whole license myself, but my_trust(RMS) > my_trust(BP) + my_trust(ESR)--and since even those two luminaries *cough* disagree, I'm taking away a belief in the non-free-ness of the APSL.
Which is not necessarily bad. They are doing what they want to do which is fine. Just don't try to convince me they are trying to further the altruistic goals of the FSF.
Why? If the result is to be simply a different proprietary solution, and one that proprietarizes the hardware also, I don't see the point.
As long as part of the OS is proprietary, the whole thing might as well be proprietary. The practical effect is the same.
This time, he is very clearly correct, and made his case in a straightforward, sane manner. This has not always been the case.
The whole point of Free Software is that everyone has equal freedom to use and modify the software; no one has veto power. That doesn't seem to be the case with Apple's license.
The termination clause is the killer for me.
I don't usually side with RMS in these RMS/ESR debates, but on this one I think RMS is 100% right, and ESR is 100% wrong. Sorry, Eric.
It's my understanding that your claim is untrue, and that the fact that these are different concepts is one of the few things that both camps agree upon. Open Source licenses need not have the concept of copyleft, whereas free software must. Note here that "free software" is taken to be FSF jargon that implies copyleft, not merely a label that denotes that the software can be obtained sans cost.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
OK, so it appears that the advocates of the Open Source label would like it to be equivalent to the term Free Software, but I'm not convinced that the feeling is mutual. I get the distinct impression from reading Richard's opinions vis-a-vis the ASPL that he's taking the terms to not be identical. He first talks about the ASPL as an open-source license, then he moves on to the (seemingly separate) perspective of the ASPL as a free-software license. Why would he do this if the terms had identical semantics? I think I must be slow on the uptake here.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
RMs often tells how the inability to fix a printer driver started him on his free software crusade. The APSL license would allow him to do that (at least if Apple provides the driver), and thus should be considered a good thing.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I don't usually agree with RMS, but I think in this case he has raised good issues. Hopefully Apple will consider his and Bruce Perens' comments carefully.
I'm a little disappointed in ESR. I would have expected a much more critical reading of the license - legal language must be very precise, and the mere fact that RMS/Perens and ESR disagree on the meaning of the termination clause indicates that it needs to be rewritten. I also like RMS' suggestion of allowing 3rd party challenges to alleged patent violations.
I am not really concerned with the 'practical' aspects - RMS' position in the GPL is so extreme that few companies will ever be willing to write compatible licenses. It is a good point that Apple is not giving away the 'crown jewels' here - all the stuff that makes Apple special is still proprietary.
And a note to the Rah-Rah crowd on both sides. Apple is not your friend, nor your enemy. They are out to make a buck just like every other corporation, and if some subset of the Free Software/Open Source world think that their license is not okay, then it is neither disrespectful nor unreasonable to call Apple on it.
This is not a 'giveaway' from Apple to the masses. They believe they stand to gain from this license. The question is, are the rights and responsibilities laid out in the license equitable for both developers and Apple?
- Ken
Different people in the community have different views on this; it's not really possible to toss them all into the same "free software" bin. RMS is from the "all software must be free" camp, but some of us have more moderate views. IMO the real issue here is: Am I going to spend a significant amount of time working on code that Apple can take away from me? I think a lot of people would be happy with the license if a few of the grey areas were clarified a bit more.
TedC
TedC
Maybe you were reading something into it that wasn't there, or more likely some moderators looked into it and it got corrected. With the oodles of moderators there now are I expect things like this can get corrected fairly quickly.
(I didn't check non-top-level posts, but moderation/threshold doesn't work terribly well for that anyway)
I think we should give them a chance. IBM was long known as a "bad" company. In recent times, we've seen them change their course and begin embracing free software. I see Apple as a company who's heard about this 'open source' thing and wants to get in on it. Rather than flaming them, I think it's more productive to point out to them, in a reasonable manner, things that are not in the spirit of free softare. If they're really intent on joining us, they'll change. If not, we wait and try again later.
Companies, especially companies steeped in proprietariness, will only change slowly. We need to be patient and show them the way to go.
--Phil (Optimist extraordinare)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
Free means no cost, no cost means free.
^ ~
GPL != freedom.
(GPL is free if your time has no value (slightly misquoted JWZ))
free != freedom.
BSD liscence is free.
However, the GPL is fair.
APSL is public source, meaning source tolerated in public use.
Use the liscence you want to use, use the software you want to use, or code your own.
I'm tired of liscence wars. Not everything can be or will be GPL. But everything I need at home can be.
and I do like what the above posts have to say, I agree with their misgivings and their expression of misgivings about the APSL, etc...
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
And that person is therefore responsible for any failures to follow the license terms in the distribution of his copy of the licenced source.
Non-copyright-based licenses probably do not have much chance of success...
That's interesting speculation. I assume that you would post the legal reasoning or case law behind it, if you had any.
The APSL is a shrinkwrap, er, clickwrap contract. By downloading the code under APSL terms, the downloader agrees to give up certain rights that would be givens under copyright law.
Since the APSL isn't a copyright-based license, "fair use" and other copyright-based concepts do not apply.
-- Chip Salzenberg, a director of OSI
Once again Steve displays his knack for picking up on good ideas but failing to make it embracable by third parties. That's not to say Apple is all air heads. There are some damn good engineers in their low, entry level, software testing positions:
/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)"
This is just a minor note on someting RMS said, which I'd mail to him if I knew his current email address.
The MacOSX bottom layer source release does help LinuxPPC; currently, they're still having problems with getting linuxppc to run on the "Blue G3's."
Apple should be doing what they can to help Linuxppc run on their machines, but they think they'd be losing OS sales to LinuxPPC. They don't understand that instead, they'd lose a HW sale to VA Research in addition to the lost sale of OS X, and not just an OSX sale.
Quite sad, don'tcha think?
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
(currently testing something about signatures here)
Linux doesn't run on the new G3's to my knowledge.
Apple has been less than forthcoming about the
spec's. Hopefully the Linuxppc people can find
the specs in the Darwin source code.
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
(currently testing something about signatures here)
Cygnus happens to make a lot of their money from their closed-source addons to the GNU utilities.
-Stu
First of all, the job of any for-profit company *IS* to turn a profit. It's their social obligation and responsibility. You don't do good deeds by bleeding cash.
Second of all, Apple hss a long track record of innovation: far more so that most computer companies. IBM is a successful inventor - they have thousands of patents, but a spotty innovator: only recently have they really been taking advantage of their amazing research staff for innovative products (their new hard drives for instance).
Apple has released 3 successful "revolutionary" innovations: The Apple II, Macintosh, and iMac. Compare this to Microsoft.
-Stu
Assume for a moment that the APSL will be fixed eventually & become a "free software licence".
The point here is not that there is a closed-source GUI on top of MacOS X Server. The point is that we now have a robust, fast, useful BSD-like OS for the Mac platform that we can build our OWN open source GUI's for if need be.
Apple has every right and significant business reason to keep the MacOS GUI proprietary, as it is their biggest asset. Not everything must be free.
-Stu
Businesses aren't always about lip-service.
In cases like Apple, where they have a very bright board of directors & top managment team, there usually is a method to their madness.
-Stu
We already have plenty of 100% pure free software operating systems. Linux, Hurd, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD.
The name of the game is *increasing personal freedom* to develop software. Assuming the APSL is changed in our favour, it matters not that the MacOS GUI is proprietary - it matters that Apple users have the freedom to extend, modify and support their core-OS in whatever way they please.
Does it really make logical sense to release the Mac OS GUI right now? They're overhauling Mac OS X for a client release by year end. Coordinating an open source effort would push the product release back by at least 6 months (as has happened with Mozilla). Open source has its advantages, but time-to-market of "production quality" products isn't one of them yet. (time-to-market of patches is unparalleled though, of course)
Sure, opening the GUI would be nice for us, but it would be tantamount to business suicide to open up the Mac OS GUI code *at this moment*.
Apple is flying high on the sales of its machines and its superior interface. Let them ride out the momentum & give them time... and *eventually*, there probably will be an open source release of the GUI, once there is real incentive to do so for both developers AND Apple.
-Stu
The way I understand it, it is perfectly legal to freely distribute code which uses patented techniques. It is only illegal to make, use or sell such code.
I myself distribute a couple of free programs. If I would get a letter tomorrow from some evil corporation telling me that one of my programs violates some patent, I would of course stop making that program, and would probably have to pay some compensation to them. And I wouldn't be allowed to use that program anymore. They will have to sue the thousands of actual users individually if they want to stop the use of the program. That has nothing to do with me though. Similarly, if someone writes a derivative work based on my infringing original, they are at fault, not me. My license gave them the right to create derivatives, true, but of course that license cannot overrule the rights of third parties under patent law.
In short: anyone who has every distributed free software can live without the patent clause. Why can't Apple?
--
Copyrights protect the copying of the "expression of an idea". If you take, say, a story of "boy meets girl", change all the characters names, change the setting, change all the words in a non-mechanical way, but still have the same basic plot, then you are fine. You can use the same "idea" as long as you don't express it the same way. If you have never seen the original, but by some miricle come up with exactly the same words, then you are also OK because you haven't "copied the expression of an idea". If there are only a few ways of expressing an idea, then it is common to have most of them copyrighted, but that is OK.
So, by just looking at some source code, you are not bound by its license, unless you copy the expression of the ideas in that code. Companies often want people who have never seen the original work so that there is no chance that they can possibly copy the original work. That makes life much easier in court, but it is not critical. Companies also have to make sure that people haven't signed non-disclosure or non-compete agreements, which is not a copyright issue.
Patents, on the other hand, protect an invention. It makes no difference if you have seen the invention before, or if you came up with the same idea completely on your own. If the invention is patented, then you can't use it with the patent holders OK. So, in this case also, you can look at the source all you want, it won't change things.
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
Bruce Perens says that he is talking with the folks at Apple about these issues. As in the case of Troll Tech and QT, I think there is a good chance that Apple will come around to a truely free license. Bruce, once a very vocal critic of the QT license, is now a vocal supporter of them because they did respond.
It is important to keep the flames down and only talk about the technical problems with the license. Other issues with Apple, whether it is the fact that they are part owned by MS, or they once filed the much hated (in the OSS communuty) "look and feel" lawsuit, or the quality of their GUI, or whatever, should remain seperate issues. IF they fix their license then Apple has done A Good Thing. If they don't, then we should consider it to be "not free software", but no worse than most shareware and as such, it should not get flamed, it should just get ignored.
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
Wouldn't there be some license problems here? Sounds gray at best to me...
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
If you think Stallman is recognized in his own times, go scan over the comments any time his name is mentioned in a /. article. I think if I see one more person say "I appreciate what he did, but..." I'm going to..to..to perpetrate violence on a handy piece of C code. It's frustrating, though, to see him and his ideas being shoved into an "extremist" box where they can be 'safely' ignored or (more likely) misrepresented as straw men to be shot down... (yes, I'm mixing my metaphors..)
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
>1) You can get, use, modify, and compete with >Apple using their own (and others) source, with >some restrictions. But it would be foolish to do so, since Apple has the right to make modifications without distributing them under APSL, whereas You do not, and Apple is guaranteed to see every proposed modification, whereas You are not. >2) Apple now has to provide some additional value >added to make money. Maybe not-- see above. But it is already apparent that Apple will be making money by keeping the source to the upper layers of MacOS X proprietary. If the past is any indication, then the efforts of the Free Software community will go toward cloning the upper layers before any significant contribution is made to the "Darwin" codebase. If that happens, then Apple will face a very tough choice: some of their options will be: 1. Use patent litigation to slow the cloning effort, thereby earning ill-will in the developer community. 2. Realease the upper layers under an open source license, just as Troll tech changed the license on QT when the Harmony project threatened to make them irrelevant. Profits then have to come from hardware and services. 3. Play Microsoft with their APIs, changing things frequently and leaving large portions undocumented, thereby earning the wrath of third-party software vendors. 4. Release APIs and documentation only under NDA, thereby alienating the computer book publishers, and inconveniencing the small third party developer. There are many other options, I'm sure, but those are the ones that jumped off the top of my head.
>1) You can get, use, modify, and compete with
>Apple using their own (and others) source, with
>some restrictions.
But it would be foolish to do so, since Apple has the right to make modifications without distributing them under APSL, whereas You do not, and Apple is guaranteed to see every proposed modification, whereas You are not.
>2) Apple now has to provide some additional value >added to make money.
Maybe not-- see above. But it is already apparent that Apple will be making money by keeping the source to the upper layers of MacOS X proprietary. If the past is any indication, then the efforts of the Free Software community will go toward cloning the upper layers before any significant contribution is made to the "Darwin" codebase. If that happens, then Apple will face a very tough choice:
some of their options will be:
1. Use patent litigation to slow the cloning effort, thereby earning ill-will in the developer community.
2. Realease the upper layers under an open source license, just as Troll tech changed the license on QT when the Harmony project threatened to make them irrelevant. Profits then have to come from hardware and services.
3. Play Microsoft with their APIs, changing things frequently and leaving large portions undocumented, thereby earning the wrath of third-party software vendors.
4. Release APIs and documentation only under NDA, thereby alienating the computer book publishers, and inconveniencing the small third party developer.
There are many other options, I'm sure, but those are the ones that jumped off the top of my head.
But I think it is a problem. You are required to notify Apple of your Modifications, but they are not required to make those modifications available to anyone else. The license should require Apple to keep a publicly accessible database of all Modifications (not just those that are folded into later releases). Furthermore, as the license stands, you must notify apple before sharing any Modification with anyone-- otherwise, said sharing will be in violation of the notification clause. There is no "reasonable time" language in the license-- the words "within one week," e.g., could go a long way.
For the APSL to gain more respect, it needs to read more like a contract between Apple and the Free Software community, where both parties have rights and obligations, and less like a set of conditions imposed by Apple on its would-be developers.
The APSL is starting to look like a big sham. They may not have done it on purpose, but that's what you get when your organization has a marketing and legal department. I was kind of looking forward to MacOS X, but forget it, apparently my copy of LinuxPPC R5 is in the mail!
-- The unsig...
The message we've sent is "Your licence is no good to us because it isn't totally free, change it to reflet the GPL because it's the one that works for the developers in the community." I'm interested to see what Apple's reply will be, because the ball is in thier court.
-- The unsig...
I suppose Bruce thinks they did (see previous reply), but when I went to their website it was the same old non-free "Qt free edition" license that I got. (No redistribution of modified versions, etc.) Am I missing something?
What's more - Apple paid Xerox in Apple stock for access to Xerox's research.
No, the programming field will not shrink -- we'll just have better-written and more programs.
-russ
Right, well, your opinion is exactly why I plan to try to get Apple to drop some parts of the APSL. If they're trying to get the Bazaar effect, and their license impedes that (as I expect it will) then they should change the license.
-russ
It seems to me that is what ESR et all are pitching to companies: Let your user base fix bugs and help you with the development. Depending on the licensing, that's not a bad thing. But from the stories I've read about the Apple announcement, it seemed that it was their main goal to siphon off developers to help them fix their bugs. I certainly hope they modify the license to address some of these concerns.
What I wish Apple would also do is release the code (if it's still around) and the specs for all their M68K platforms (or even Newton). The hardware is all obsolete, so it's not like it would hurt sales of their new stuff. But it would certainly help the Linux m68K team. I like my SE/30 running debian and I would certainly like a version of Linux that would work on a Powerbook Duo.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Didn't Microsoft get in a lawsuit because they were abusing the temporary labor concept (ie. they were using temps to do jobs that obviously should be 'company' jobs to avoid paying benefits)? One of my wife's friends says she has a brother that works for MS. Her view is that they pay lousy wages, but give away lots of stock options. Given how much cash that company has on hand, that sounds really shitty. No wonder they try to make sure the stock stays up.
Now the company I work for contracts a lot of stuff out to overseas consulting companies because they can't hire enough programmers in this area (another national company in the area is also constantly griping they can't lure enough people here). Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of what I do is fix what the contractors screw up.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Consider this:
1) Disrespect for privacy, as he calls it. Other Open-Source licenses which he has accepted already require you to notify someone. I find just a hint of hypocrisy here.
2) The bit about not being allowed to use the code for your own private purposes. Completely untrue.
3) The termination clause. Again, sounds like Stallman didn't read the license very carefully, if at all: Apple cannot terminate the license to the full codebase. Only the bit of code which was in fact illegal to put into the code in the first place; were Apple not doing this they would be committing a crime.
Now, let's dissect his "other flaws":
1) He talks about it allowing the linking of files which may be proprietary. The GPL can be made to do this if the author desires; it's called a Section 10 excption, if I'm not mistaken (I've had to use this one before myself, actually).
2) "It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to your changes which Apple will not give you for its code." What rights? I don't see anything special about them. Not, at least, that weren't in the NPL, which RMS did in fact accept.
3) "It is incompatible with the GNU GPL." So are most Open-Source licenses that I've seen. I see an ego trip here.
Basically, what I see is an uninformed interpretation of what is only a draft of an Open-Source license. Stallman has to accept that he's no longer the only leader in this movement, and he appears to have been voted out.
Apple was known as one of the most closed & propriatary computer companies for decades..
Its hard to belive that suddenly they changed their mind.. And in fact they didn't, remember that most of the code they released under APSL actually comes from BSD.
We'll see...
I think all this hooplala over APSL is Apple's fault - if they wanted to do it correctly, they should have take the way Netscape did NPL - i.e. rise some public discussion and release several "beta" version of the license before releasing a final one.
Everybody here seems to be taking jabs at Apple for trying to get publicity from this, and saying that Apple gives nothing back to the people who fix their bugs. But the people who fix bugs do get something back. They get the bugs fixed.
Everybody knows that the software we buy is full of bugs. And I don't think its such a bad thing for us to be able to fix them.
Sometimes it is worthwhile to buy a commercial piece of software for one reason or another. What is so wrong with being given the opportunity to fix these bugs? Even if we don't have complete rights to what we fix, we do end up with software that works.
The notification clause only becomes a problem if Apple disappears. Right now there's a form that you fill in and submit notice of your notification. Some process at Apple then distributes the notification. If Apple disappears I'm not sure what happens with the copy right. If it still holds you'd have to notify everybody yourself.
I'm not sure about the URL requirement. Is it a one time deal and then Apple provides mirroring or is it a perpetual thing, where you are responsible to provide your modified sources?
Stallman makes good points, articulating them much more clearly than either RMS or Bruce managed to. He did such a good job at articulation and logic that I almost found myself agreeing with him by the time I was finished reading his thoughts.
Then I woke up.
Stallman, as always, places idealism before practicality and goes to far as to ignore the latter. Whether or not that's good is up to the individual. Idealism doesn't always work, communism being the classic example. Stallman's ideal is a far stone's throw from communism; his does actually work in the right circumstances. However, I think the point Stallman fails to recognize (or dismisses) is that Apple is a corporate entity that has a responsibility other than living up to Richard's ideals. It has a responsibility to its employees to make money so that it can comphensate them for their efforts; this is a virtuous goal. One of the most significant ways in which it currently accomplishes this is by selling software. Apple can't discard that business at the drop of a hat. Ultimately, it has to make money somehow. As such, I don't believe that we will see a license that agrees with Stallman's "copyleft" ideal from Apple in the near future. Indeed, doubt that you'll find in the near future one from any company that makes its money by selling its developer's time, as these companies have an obligation to their investors and to their employees to make money. This is why Apple retains rights under the APSL.
Another point that Stallman entirely neglects to mention is that Apple cannot currently release its entire codebase for OS X Server under an Open Source, Free, or Copyleft license currently. Most notably, it doesn't own Display PostScript, upon which the Yellow Box APIs (the interesting bits of OS X Server) are predicated. It is reported that. Other technologies that it has licensed are surely more common than I could recount, but, very significantly, all modern QuickTime codecs and all of the ColorSync color management modules are licensed code. In short, the Yellow Box doesn't work (currently) if you remove the licesnsed technologies.
Of the first three criticsms, as to why the APSL is not a Free software license, I agree with Stallman except on the third item, which is that the APSL can terminate at any time. The GPL provides a similar termination clause. The APSL shifts responsibility for patent infringement, however, from the individual to a particular Apple Computer, Inc. Whether or not this is agreeable is another individual decision, but the reasoning is sound--Apple cannot be sued for releasing code that infringes upon patents. Now, if it falls under a suit, it has a method to clear itself of infringement that does not involve broach of contract (that contract being the APSL, if it were not to include a similar termination clause). I believe it's clear from the license that Apple would make a good faith effort to clear the infringement, and it's also worth noting that only the code directly in infringement is affected.
The reason that this clause really becomes necessary, though, is that this software was not born and bred GPL. It's been extensively modified for more than a decade by both NeXT and Apple. If there is an intellectual propery violation in the code, the responsibility for that violation is not with the entire community (which is where the GPL places it), but instead with the entity which developed the original code that was released to the public, Apple; the company must protect itself from liability by allowing itself to back out of patent infringements gracefully.
In short, Stallman's idealism is incompatable with the corporate interests of Apple as well as the nature of the development of the code that is being released. This is why the GPL and the APSL are incompatable; they were written by seperate groups which have seperate goals.
- Mali
Do you mean Open Source(R) or "source code available"? Open Source and free software means the exact same thing.
And, yes, who the hell cares if they can see the source if they still aren't free to use it?
Quote from opensource.org:
"if we take the very same tradition, the same people, and the same free-software licenses and change the label to ``open source'' - that, they'll buy."
What they disagree about is how to advertise it.
A fairly good, short definition of what FSF means by "free software" is the Debian free software guidelinesFor more detail see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categorie s.html and the rest of www.gnu.org/philosophy/
RMS is right the APL is not free, and it is pretty useless.
Apparently the new apple code released under the APL is limited to some low-level networking code for Macs. Now, if I remember correctly there have been independently developed versions of this for a while.
Frankly, I don't think Apple did this because they were either interested in contributing something, or to even implement OpenSource in a way were they get bug-fixes from the community. Who's going to mess around with irrelevant unnecessary, and useless (by the license, and by the existance of similar) code?.
This is not any kind of honest contribution, the only reason Apple did this was to get some publicity.
--fred
I think RMS rightly stresses the most important issue in evaluating these licenses - the community value or contribution. Those who support the APSL have branded its opponents as religious fanatics, or ingrates or, horror of horrors, SOCIALISTs. The fact is, if you are uncomfortable talking about values, than as a rabid, greedy little capitalist, you should support RMS's position purely out of self interest.
Besides all the semantical and legal issues, the key reason to oppose the APSL is that it exploits rather than contributes. Open source, free software, whatever you want to call it, works not because of some radical Maoist theory, but because the more one gives the more one gets. Pure and simple. The APSL and its ilk are zero sum games - Apple wins and you lose (even worse, if Apple loses, you lose even more).
The argument that working on the APSL will help those who use Apple hardware is spurious. LinuxPPC does just that and is truly free. It is also a better practical alternative, as it makes instantly available the huge and growing body of Linux compatible source code. The argument that working on APSL furthers the development of micro-kernel based OSes is even more spurious. AS RMS points out you can't incorporate Apple code freely into other products. Bettter to work on Hurd. In short, the only one who benefits by developers working on APSL is Apple.
As for criticism scaring away corporations from open source, I can only say big effing deal. Why are so many of you so insecure that you need the validation of a corporation to see the practical (if not the social) value in free software? Corporations that get it will learn to play by the rules and make a real contibution (that's why Netscape is good IMHO). A little flaming wont scare them away. Those who don't, well who needs them. Free software will continue to flourish and grow with or without these corporations. Those who buy into the model will flourish along with it. Those who want to toady up with the capitalist free-roaders should buy and use NT.
Flame Disclaimer:
For the humorless amongst you who probably wont get it, all references to "capitalists" and "socialists" in the above, was written using mild irony.
The trend in the software industry over the past couple of years has proven the exact opposite: namely pure software companies trying to sell proprietary shrink-wrapped tools have more and more difficulty surviving. One reason is simple: develop any truly worthwhile idea and Microsoft will embrace it and destroy you. Netscape is just the latest victim. The other reason is that software is more and more becoming a commodity. Any idea you come up with will instantly be followed by others offering more, better, cheaper, faster. The competitive environment makes generating profits through software virtually impossible.
Most important however: customers don't want code - they want a solution to their problem. More and more people are beginning to realize this and understand they don't want to buy computers or software, but want to buy a system or service that gets done what they need done. Hence the market is demanding service not products.
It is for this reason that major corporations like Oracle and IBM are moving into the service model. True they did services in the past, but now both these companies are positioning themselves as 100% ecommerce service companies (IBM has a double reason to do this, since hardware is also becoming a commodity).
What does an inidividual programmer to do?
If you are not cut out to work directly with customers you have two alternatives:
If you like the corporate environment, go work for one of the many major corporations following this trend. More and more of them will be supporting and developing open source projects. Or else find partners who know how to relate to people.
If you believe you are good enough to develop your own products, and have basic social skills, then choose a niche, develop a solution for that niche and give the source away. Customers will pay you for access to that solution. You can charge using a rental model, where you deal with all the upgrades etc. so they dont have to.
In short, making the code free does not mean you can't make money off of your efforts. On the contrary, it offers you the many free software resources that allows you to compete without having billions to spend on R&D.
There are like 400 moderators, Im one of them and i only ever use it to kill "First Posts!". :)
I have to return some videotapes...
hmm...Isnt that what the Windows/MSDOS people called the Macheads?
I have to return some videotapes...
Im not dumping on Apple for letting out some source code. Im dumping on them because they let it out under the APSL and call it "Open Source", when it is not. They seem to be just looking for good PR and maybe some free bug fixes. Not giving anything back to the users. RMS is right
I have to return some videotapes...
Has anyone even been able to get Darwin to compile AND boot? Is there any web sites up about doing this?
I have to return some videotapes...
I'm waiting for the day when an individual open-source project has the kind of coordinated consistency, elegance, and simplicity of Apple's platform efforts.
To paraphrase what ESR said in his famous document, both central and distributed development models have their strength. And Apple has developed a cleaner and more elegant integrated solution, from the non-expert end-user's point of view, than any open source effort to date.
I use OpenBSD daily, and sometimes Linux (SPARC, MIPS, & PPC), and see the advantages of their openness. But these things are still a chaotic hodge-podge of inconsistency. Lots of people have contributed lots of good ideas to these projects. But each different idea from each separate contributor simply adds to the inconsistency and complexity of the entire platform.
In other words, Apple is trying to harness the advantages of open-source efforts, and still maintain the advantages of a clear consistent vision that has been the source of their strength in the past. Not only has this not been done before, but it is a very difficult compromise to get right.
RMS makes some valid and thoughtful comments from his point of view. I think in the long run, if we give them the chance, Apple and other proprietary industry players will get there. Somebody has to be the extremist in order to make the rest of us look more moderate; RMS does a great job of that. I think the tone of the comments from the major players mentioned in other posts (RMS, ESR, BP, etc.) have been thoughtful and responsible.
Apple is taking a radical risk from their, and from their shareholder's, point of view. You accuse them of attempting to make ...a quick buck off the naivete of a bunch of geeks. Though I don't believe that this is their intent, only time will tell.
As for whether you or anyone else contributes to Darwin, it all depends on whether you value the unique elegance of consistency and integration that Apple's design philosophy represents. I'm convinced there is enough of a community of people who do to make contributing to code licensed under APSL worthwhile.
Overall, I think that Apple's action is an example of the effects of the year-old "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to business with the purely materialistic goal of faster development, while putting aside the deeper issues of freedom, community, cooperation, and what kind of society we want to live in.
Wow, we live in the US, the heart of the capitalist world, and you even flinch at this? As much as I may love many of Apple's products, they are still a company with shareholders, and their primary purpose is to make money.
I can't say whether that's good or not, but that's how this country of ours works.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Revocation will be a problem until we have a definition of Affected Original Code, Right now it could mean all code, and if they ever say it means that do you want to fight it in court? Better to get the words right at the start. Even then, it is going to be a problem in the case of a specious claim that Apple decides not to fight.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
- You don't have to write the bad law into your license, because people are still restrained from breaking the law even if it is not written into your license.
- It puts you in the position of supporting the bad law.
- Your license may survive after the bad law expires! For example, an old U.C. Berkeley license for the SPICE circuit-analysis program restrained us from distributing that program to the police of South Africa long after apartheid was over.
Netscape didn't see a need to do this. I'd think their lawyers must be as good as Apple's and IBM's, they all have more than enough money to pay lawyers.Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bit of a typo there. I meant to say "defining it better seems to be no big deal for them", as in they don't mind defining it better.
Bruce Perens.
What we are objecting to is that the license purports to be Open Source, but slightly misses the mark in its current 1.0 version. If we continue to accept licenses that miss that mark slightly, this slippery slope will carry us to the point where "Open Source" is really just a new name for shareware with source.
Notice that RMS says something like "would that the APSL did not have the problems of the NPL", and he accepts that the NPL is a free software license even if he does not like it. He is not totally deprecating it.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
However, this has little to do with the fact that there are a few easily-addressed problems with the license. Getting Apple to fix that will certainly not diminish their vision!
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Notification is a problem. In general, you can take a Linux distribution and just hack it a bit and re-distribute it, as long as you distribute the source code with it. Notification is a bigger problem when it's part of 100 licenses rather than one. Then you have to find and notify 100 people before re-distributing. Or 1000. That's a good reason to keep it out of our licenses.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
That does it for me. ESR is now classed together with corporate lawyers and other baddies who care not about freedom but about legal technicalities. He seems to forget entirely that any clause he can overturn on an interpretation can equally be overturned yet again on appeal by roomfuls of suits that get paid for doing nothing else.
Freedom in software is not about clauses. It's concerned with the way you feel about things in the community, the way you contribute while using parts created by others, the way you cooperate with and trust other developers, the way you seek to empower others through the things you create. ESR has the wrong focus entirely, and in seeking to pass that focus on to industry he does us no favours.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I sure hope you're right. He needs to be a little more careful about the message he sends to the community and to the commercial world, in my opinion. There is nothing to be gained by playing a confrontational card, and plenty to lose. He shouldn't view it as about himself or RMS as alternatives.
Free software and also OSS are all about building freely upon the work of others in a perpetually cooperative framework, and if he stressed that more then he'd be in hot water a lot less. My work as a contractor in the software industry suggests that companies understand cooperation very well indeed (cooperative agreements are signed by the dozen daily), and they also understand the costs of traditional marketing and distribution and support, so I don't think the OSS task is half as hard as he makes out. Making it look like he is a focus of confrontation just makes his own work harder.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I suppose this might help people who want to write drivers (and don't mind giving copyright away to Apple). The termination clause REALLY SUCKS.
Anyone who calls this "open source" just doesn't get it, or is one of the suits who gets it but doesn't care. I don't agree with everything RMS says, but he is right-on here!
Sleepy
(an otherwise fan of Apple, who wishes they would REALLY go open source. The G3 hardware is *awesome*. )
Come on... give them a break!
I sincerely hope you didn't type your post from a Windows box, either. Would be rather ironic, wouldn't it?
Apple is closed, and closed is bad, but "closed" is not the be all end all. Being closed is a BUG that Apple must fix, and an incremental fix is OK *for now*. Let them hear our dissatisfaction and constructive criticism and they will change. Apple IS listening to criticism, and moving onto a UNIX core, licensing OpenGL (woo-hoo!), agressively courting developers especially GAMES and low-cost systems based on THIS YEARS technology (not last-years discontinued Pecker-Bell computers) is all part of their recovery. Killing Newton and the clones were also painful steps needed for profitability.
Personally, I'd like to see them open everything, fix things that are wrong with Linux, but that won't happen for a while. Apple differs from Microsoft in one important way: they just want to make cool stuf and a few bucks at it. They are not out to steal products from other companies, annex the internet, or publically humiliate and ruthlessly crush "insubordinate" software companies like they have done to Netscape, Citrix, Spyglass and Stak.
Sleepy
100% Microsoft Free thanks to my G3 Mac and GNU/Linux
Um, I don't think Apple tried to patent the graphical UI, unlike some OTHER company I can think of which now owns electronic style sheets (THERE'S audacity!).
:(
Apple did fight to protect its product against copying. If you think software deserves any protection, just HOW MUCH can you copy the GUI of a product before you've crossed the line? If you don't think there is a line, please state so. BTW, I was an Atari ST user at the time, and was extremely annoyed at Apple for bullying Atari/Digital into making changes to GEM OS. In the end though, Apple was not demanding the end of GEM, just that they not copy so closely. Over time, your protection decreases as we have seen. Apple had every right to protect their R&D from wholesale copying by Microsoft, and that does not mean MS was not allowed to create THEIR OWN graphical user interface that did not look and feel so much like the MacOS.
Yeah, and Intel is "open".. Bzzzt!! How can you say that? If as you put it the specs are public, so explain to me again why there are no non-Intel upgrades for Slot One? When you are done, please follow up with your analysis of Intergraph vs. Intel, Motorola vs. Intel, and DOJ vs. Intel. I'll be waiting here, not cloaked behind AC.
AMD and Cyrix are nothing but reverse-engineering efforts, and with Merced coming out what do you think will happen to AMD and Cyrix? What, you were not aware Intel is not inviting AMD to that party? Intel has learned cloning of their CPU's led to the $200 chip - they WILL NOT let that happen again. Merced will be as closed if not more as the G3. (The G3 isn't really closed anyways, you can buy them from IBM or Mot... in quantity though
Sleepy
PS - The "Linux" in my statement refers to x86 version that replaced Win95, not LinuxPPC. We can all be Microsoft free depending on what we use, I suppose, but until there are Linux versions of QuickTime, PhotoShop (tried GIMP..), After Effects and Infini-D AND drag-and-drop works between these apps, Linux won't do it for me. I've tried WINE also and it's not even close to running Windows versions of these apps. OTOH, there's progress on SheepShaver/PPC which I am following closely...
Yes, it's rather unfortunate Apple has, IF the news I read is correct, has locked some codec vendors into QuickTime exclusivity.
The LEAST Apple could do is offer a version of QuickTime for Linux. This may offend the free software people, but hey, this is the reality of the non-linear video world. The possibility of more platforms becoming supported is a real one... someone should start a QuickTime for Linux petition, that is IF there is any interest..
Do any Linux apps support external codecs?? I thought all the Linux players had hard-coded support. This is a huge obstacle to getting any kind of real CODEC support for Linux.
:-(
>Apple does not differnt from microsoft, only they have less power.
:)
I would infer then by your logic, ALL companies are like Microsoft, no?
Or would you provide some sort of post-Next/Steve example of Apple really being bastards? Please, only post Steve Jobs examples (when I bailed from Windows). I'm sure if they are as bad as you say you could still come up with awefule examples in the 2.5 year timeframe I limited you to.
>>"They [Apple] are not out to steal products from other companies, annex the internet, or publically
humiliate and ruthlessly crush "insubordinate" software companies like they have done to Netscape, Citrix, Spyglass and Stak."
>Wait for them to get back into the power ring, we shall see how benevolent apple really is. Another Microsoft, and we have always known it to.
Oh, great logic here. Shall I even waste my time making you look like an idiot? Why not, it's almost lunchtime.
Who are the collective "we" you refer to? All of Slashdot??
How is Apple, in your predicted future, going to become like Microsoft? Please provide both future and past examples of really bastard-like Apple activities.
Of course, I could be incorrect in assuming you are singleing out Apple. Maybe you are a complete moron and believe ALL COMPANIES are just like Microsoft... just give them the chance to get there, right?
Apple is and will ALWAYS BE the underdog, and as a Mac fan with years of experience on other platforms I can say this is the way things should be. NO one should control the market, and only by pitting ideas against each other on a level playing field will the best idea win.
I do not consider Microsoft OR Apple to be a "standard" since MY definition of standard is a "documented way of doing things", and both Win and Mac are closed platforms. The difference to me is Apple competes somewhat fairly, while Microsoft uses your Windows money to destroy competition using means other than competing fairly. "Oh, it says here Mr. Gameway and Mr. Dwell you once bundled a non-Microsoft Office suite. that'll be an extra $20 per Windows license please."
Ever hear of Aimtech Jamba? It's a cool product I once supported/QA'd. MS asked to buy Jamba, but we wouldn't seperate the product from our company (it was a hit, buy us completely...). Well, to make a long stort short Microsoft bought DimensionX, a direct Aimtech competitor, and now gives the product away free (how DOES Microsoft afford such things? Hmmm???). You read between the lines.
Safe to say Jamba is a dead product now; I am elsewhere and much happier, but I'll always sympathize with anyone with the guts to challenge Microsoft.
So there!
Granted, the big corps, full of people who wear suits and pay lawyers more money in a day than I'll likely see in my lifetime might sweat the details. But the flaws RMS perceives in the APSL won't affect J. Random Hacker because, for all intents and purposes, they're not enforceable. If I've got the code here in my apartment, they'll have quite a time preventing me from doing darned near anything I want to it. Is it legal? Maybe not. Is it ethical? Probably.
I hate to say this but I agree with RMS entirely in this case. Apple (in particular, as embodied in Steve Jobs) has no interest in openess or freedom in the sense that RMS holds dear. Really, Apple has no interest in even the underlying ideas of the "Open Source" movement either. They aren't clearly interested in advancing the state of the art, just the state of Apple. Apple has always been guilty of the Not Invented Here syndrom. All they want (IMHO, of course ;-)) is a cheap source of beta testing and bug fixing.
RMS is right about the issues of privacy and controle, too. If you want to give your efforts to Apple for free, then go ahead and work under the APSL. But Apple has never given anything away.
Whether or not you like RMS and his notions, it is nice to have one basic liscense that everyone adheres too. I think the proliferation of "liscences" is a shame (perhaps inevitable, considering the viral nature of the GPL). Maybe OSI could come up with a Open Source Liscense that would be acceptable to the capitalists in the audience and then we could settle down to two variants that (hopefully) wouldn't be mutually exclusive.
He pointed out it's unfair *like* the NPL. He did not say that stopped it from being open source. He specificaly mentioned the APSL and NPL as having similar problems that didn't make them non-free.
As for disrespect for privacy, name the licenses that have been accepted as open-source that require you to notify someone. I know Debian turns them away frequently as non-free.
As for it being incompatible with the GPL, that is a practical problem, even if it originates in the GPL. When I use the OS Kit (which derives partially from Linux) to build an operating system, I will be unable to use any Darwin code. It's annoying.
I go to the store to buy a car, and i take it home, and it does not work, so i open the hood of the car and fix the problem, and then have to go back to the store and tell them how i fixed the problem, and they put it into their next version. I get nothing in return for all my hard work, plus i had to PAY for the car.
So you trying to tell me that is okay to buy broken crap, as long as you can fix it and tell the people who sold you the broken crap how you did it.
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
a rehash of the same ol' thing? What *real* innovation has come out of all of this? I mean let's be honest here:
Linux is a Unix clone.
Right?!?
has this NOT been done and done to death?
As a matter of fact, virtually every attempt I've seen to do something truely new (Qt/cgi0 has been beaten back.
Hmmm.
It just shows ta' go ya' i guess...
One day, you'll learn to watch what you post...
Because it would be helpful to me.
Because it would be helpful to tother BSD users.
Because it would be helpful, period.
-K
One day, you'll learn to watch what you post...
Hey, if it was worth stealing, then it was worth protecting.
The two best ui's on Earth are Apple flavored:
The Next UI, and the Mac UI.
C'mon. Give'em credit where credit is due.
-K
One day, you'll learn to watch what you post...
There will be a huge market for this. Companies can't afford IS departments or expensive shrink wrap, but they can, say hire a programmer to make a few changes to (insert program here) to better suit their environment.
Freelancing in this manner is the furture for individual programmers, I think. Especially those who don't want a 9-5 job with some souless corporation. There's no reason why this can't work and the more popular free software becomes, the more people will realize this.
It really is a beautiful arrangement - far better than the shrink wrapped crap we all have to deal with today.
support gun control: take guns from cops
I hate to say it, but RMS seems more level-headed than ESR or even Bruce does.
He seems to make his point fairly quickly and concisely, even though his idealogy doesn't quite fit in with mine, I can respect his opinions.
I didn't like the APSL very much myself..
There are many moderators.. They don't all think the same way. Some moderators bump back posts that really shouldn't have been bumped down.
how could linuxppc have problems running on the new g3's? I didn't know they were controlled by intel . I also didn't know that darwin code could be used in other OS's besides macosx
---
yeah, people do that all the time with cars. People just want to drive their favorite car and if helping the company means a better driving experience in the future then that extra value pays for the effort. Same with macosx.
---
note that the bsd community is very different than the gpl/FSF community. They don't seem to mind when companies use their code as part of a proprietary commercial distribution
---
if they were only interested in the free software community then they'd just use the GPL and just charge for support like redhat does. MacOS would then be on multiple platforms and clones would be ok too. Obviously they're appealing to those who feel macs are cool and worth supporting
---
exactly. You need both commercial proprietary software along with free open source stuff with shades of grey in between. Pick the best one for the job
---
because sometimes there are times when proprietary makes sense. Microsoft is always bad because it wants to be a dominating monopoly. But there's some good proprietary stuff out there. It's another choice-it may be proprietary but it's still a choice
---
only the mac community has the right to decide if the APSL is best for them-not people who've never touched a mac in their lives
---
the mac community doesn't care about joining the Free Software movement. They just want a better macos and bug-fixing by mac devs within the APSL will give them that. That's right. Mac devs have the final say on this
---
Whenever I read an article of his, I always end up withthe impression that RMS feels that all software should be free, and all free software should fall under the GPL. This may or may not be true, its just the way I feel. The guy is just getting too big for his boots IMHO. I'm not saying he hasn't done a good job. He has. But bullying others is not the way to go about these things. That's the Microsoft way. It's NOT the free software way.
Sounds like a very rational analysis to me, with just a bit of a dig towards the Open Source folks...
I do have some fears that all the publicity and corporate hype around open source software will cause problems and conflicts of interest in the long run. As loopy as RMS can sometimes sound, at the end of the day, the GPL sure does feel like a safe haven from corruption.
I'm 100% with RMS on this one. The community needs the watchful eye of RMS. Without it the corporate vultures might tear us apart. Down with ESR for taking everything on personal front.
Moderators: why did the above comment get a -1? Was it inflammatory or obscene? I guess it must have been, since the combined wisdom of no less than two moderators has deemed it unacceptable.
A reasonable option in user preferences would be "ignore ratings from moderator X", along with moderation info for each upgraded or downgraded comment (that is, the ability to see which moderator changed any given comment's rating).
XAnim 2.80.0 apparently has support for dynamically loadable codecs. There are also several codecs for it that are available only in binary form, and you link them in when you build it. These codecs are available for Linux x86 (a.out and elf) and many other UNIXes as well.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. The community has been quick to rip into any company that only does it "half-ass", if you would. If Apple didn't do it's homework and released an "open source" license, that wasn't open source - then they deserve to get some flames sent their way.
This is the way the technical community operates - by definition it evaluates, and judges, the technical merits of each issue in purely technical terms*!
Apple failed to create a true open-source license. And they just got plastered for doing so. Does that mean if they come back in a week and post a "real" OSS license we'll still flame them? Nope. It'll be as if the issue never existed.
If this bothers you, go find another field to be in, because this one ain't touchy-feely, and we don't take anything but the facts into account.
--
I really couldn't care less about his secondary points, though.
I'd like to see Apple (and every other company out there writing their own "Open Source" licenses) explain why they didn't just use search-and-replace on the NPL anyway, or at least a moderately modified version thereof.
No, the NPL/MPL isn't perfect. But it's already been put through over a year of debate to find all the pitfalls. An amended NPL, therefore, would be far easier to analyze.
BTW, IMHO the problem with N/MPL-GPL compatibility is the GPL. All the GPL has to do is include a clause that allows FSF-certified free software the same privileges as the GPL extends to closed-source operating systems...
There is no way in hell Bill Clinton (or any other president) would nominate RMS for Supreme Court Justice. He is not already a judge, nor does he have a law degree that I am aware of.
In fact, Bill Clinton probably doesn't even know who RMS is.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
You think after Apple's litigous past while under Steve Jobs has been FORGOTTEN? If MS started giving away pieces of their source, would we turn around and embrace them wholeheartedly as One Of Us?
Apple isn't in the business of Free Software, and they don't have to be. Perhaps free software is antithetical to corporate interest entirely, and that's just fine, because it takes all types to satisfy all needs. But don't expect me to start marching to Apple's drum anytime soon.
As for Slashdot being agnostic ala Byte in the old days: Since when?
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Although I don't give a rat's patootie what Mac using Hippies do with their source code, I think that Apple's decision could be influential to the Open Source Movement as a whole. I propose we pressure them for a less facist license! Or refuse to use Apple Products.
xm@GeekMafia.dynip.com [http://GeekMafia.dynip.com/]
I can just hear all the Open Source hippies... Free software man!! Make software not proffits!!
I imagine you all want Apple do just open it's doors and say "welcome hippies!! Come stink up the place."
At least it's a start. I agree that the APSL is not as open or free, but it's a start. People always said Apple was dead. They were wrong. People said that Apple would never open up their proprietary code. They did. What's next?
I was kind of looking forward to MacOS X ...
You were looking forward to a closed source OS, and now you don't like it because of the open source licence?
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Uhh, the BSD licence allows commercial implementations - BSD's "community" includes both open and closed developers.
Do you go around whining that Sun hasn't released the source for it's BSD-based SunOS, or is this just an irrational hatred of Apple in particular?
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Hey, when I was 10, I had a Microsoft CP/M card inside of my Apple ][. I didn't have a mouse, but I loved it.
Therefore both Microsoft and Apple are great companies!
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
You could get the original Mac GUI in any color you wanted, as long as it was black.
$2,500 for the 128K Mac (about $5,000 in today's dollars) was certainly no Model T, but it was a hellava lot cheaper than a Lisa or the Xerox box. Sure, Atari and Amiga were lots cheaper, and they also went bankrupt.
And don't forget, in 1984 your average PC didn't even come with a graphics card. Time Travel any 1984 DOS user to today and they would be shocked that every one is essentially using a Macintosh clone.
With the rise of commodity hardware and OSes (including Windows NT and OS/X, which are damn cheap relative to Unix 10 years ago), I wonder if any one could afford to design a completely new computer the way Apple and IBM did in the early eighties. Why bother if the best you can hope for is a 5% profit margin.
Which means we're going to see only incremental changes in computers for a long time. (Linux hasn't revolutionized computing the way the original mac did, and it probably won't. It's a faster, cheaper, and more maintable implementation of a subset of what any other modern computer can do. )
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Cars are fundementally broken crap. They are designed with a specific lifespan in mind to force you to replace it at some point, but not before you pay plenty of money to the dealer's repair shop.
That hasn't stopped General Motors from becoming the largest corporation in the world, nor has it stopped Americans from radically changing their living and working patterns so that they are forced to use their car all the time. Most people seem fine with the broken crap of the automotive market.
(Of course if there was an AutoDot, then we could see people bitch about the licence on the repair manual.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
The keyword here is innovation. Apple was THE catalyst which brought the GUI revolution. Sure Xerox, and god knows how many other companies, might have had rough GUIs at forbidding prices well before. Sure Apple borrowed the basic GUI, laser printer, mouse, etc. While Steve Jobs may not have been the master coder, it was his vision that made it happen. He PUSHED and PULLED and got the money on the table, and risked alot to make the macintosh a success. He may have failed in the long run, but you can not say that he hasn't had a positive impact on the creation of the GUI.
What is this GUI 201 that you speak of? I am no fan of MS and I never much cared for the restrictive GUI which Mac had, but this it is still this same GUI that is practically a house hold item now. That would be like saying Henry Ford doesn't deserve a mention, because:
a) previous cars existed
b) there have been better cheaper cars since
c) He ultimately lost out to competition
It is Henry Ford that brought the Automobile to Joe Schmoe. Likewise, Jobs can be credited in the same manner.
As I stated initially better GUIs may have come along AFTER the fact. Henry Ford made the first affordable car, only to be overtaken by competition who catered to customers whims. Just as Apple made the first affordable GUI. Like it or not, it has raised, if not placed, the bar. My analogy still holds.
I also disagree about the allocation of credit to Steve Jobs, but that is entirely besides the point. It is the company that is at issue. Apple has created products that Stallman finds some value in. Stallman would LIKE to appropriate it for his 100% free/open/socialist uses. My point is that this license is in improvement. The conditions are known and published, no suprises or deceptions here. It in NO WAY takes away from anyones' freedom. They MADE something, and while you may not be able to do everything that you like with it, it in no way robs you of your personal freedom. If GNU is such a wonder machine it can create its own superior versions based entirely on unique code. It does not entitle Stallman to advocate software piracy and the like.
I do not think Stallman is elloquent or particularly rational when it comes to his 'freedom limiting' arguments. I believe that propietary/commercial software and free/open software can coexist for the most part(The only real issues are ludicrous and obvious patents and the like). If you ignore the IP abuses, there is no valid reason why they can't exist uninhibited by one another. Stallman effectively asserts that if a company sells a piece of software, and merely witholds the source code that they are some how limiting ones freedom. The only IP restrictions being that you can't copy the binaries. Without IP interference what is stopping anyone from creating their own original software? GNU has created damn little software of value. The real problem is that this ideological view does not work. It is shortsighted in a way.
How the hell does it make the APSL non-Open Source?
It does not make it non-Open Source. It makes it non-Free Software. It is Open Source, as defined by ESR, but it is not Free Software, as defined by RMS.
Me too.
100% with GNU/RMS. We want Free Software.
0% with OSI/ESR. We don't want Open Source.
Alejo.
I agree with your feeling.
If there is someone who is *always* very coherent is RMS.
Most people don't get to read directly from him. They just hear "RMS is asking you to call it GNU/Linux because it has more GNU software there" but never get to read his reasons. Some even think he has a big ego and is doing it to get the credits for him self. Puhlease.
Well, obviously if/when Free Software is the main model of programming, there will be a need for much less programmers. There are a lot of BAD programmers out there, and it is them (and probably a lot of good programmers, too) who will be out of jobs. Coding Free Software is much more efficient than coding proprietary software (try comparing the hours worked on the Linux kernel, to, say, the NT kernel). And programmers will mostly cooperate instead of compete. There will definatly be a slimming of the herd.
effin' capatalist
;-)
It has to be legal. Are you saying Free Software hackers should degrade themselves and thier software to the level of warez d00dz? Yeah, lookin for the Linux kernel? Go to the nearest warez site.
Here we are, one of the biggest computer companies around, the owner of one of only two mass marked operating systems, goes for open source, both by including open source software in it's products and by opening the source to some of it's products, and all I see is flaming.
I feel bad enough that there's a large group of people (obviously with personal grudges against Apple (what's the matter, honey? couldn't afford one?)) out there who have decided that this is a good place to do some kicking around of their favorite rag doll.
But what's worse it that Slashdot, who I've always respected as having a sence of Agnosticism equalled only by the old Byte magazine, has been a major instigator of this attack, posting derivitive article after article.
So, thanks, people. We've just sent the perfect message:
Open source your software....it will earn you legal liability and the hatred of the technical community.
Way to go.
I've read through a bunch of replies here, and I wish I could say that I was convinced I was wrong. Heck, I like you people...that's why I hang around this joint. Unfortunately, nobody's really said anything new.
There is one major argument hanging around. Basically it says "if I can't have it all my way, I don't want any of it." I'm not saying that it's bad to critique the license or suggest improvements. But that's not what we're seing here, is it people? Be honest. No. It's a flamebath.
The truth of the license is that there are some weird points, but good people have stated it does the right thing. I dunno. I'm not a lawyer. But at the very worst, there's some doubt. Doubt isn't enought to send someone to the hangman. Doubt shouldn't even be enough to make you angry. Doubt only becomes a reason when you have a grudge....
Which a lot of you folks do. "the much hated 'look and feel lawsuit', 'Apple's litigous past while under Steve Jobs', '$1600 beef with Apple...a certain powerbook' It doesn't seem like you're giving this a fair chance...why not?
Of course, the core of my shame isn't just that there's a bunch of folks with opinions and a quick mouse aimed at the 'reply' button (trivia question: who popularized the mouse?). My real shame is that slashdot has been pushing an anti-Apple agenda which has been picked up by the outside, mainstream press as divisive and negative. (Thanks, to Bruce Perens for picking up on this, Above) We have a responsibility to put a reasoned face on things that are possible to deal with reasonably. I have no problem with a strong angry response to PIII ID numbers, or Kevin Mitnik's situation, but all you have done here is rub egg all over all of our faces and prove that the open source is a squabbling, infantile community that -most- corporations would save them a lot of headaches by staying away from. Like a married couple fighting in a restaurant.
Even more to point the finger at Slashdot, I blame the moderators. For posting the article so prominently in the first place, with the slant that they have placed on it AND for the incredibly lame and infantile scoring that has been done. My original articles has replies with a score of 4, yet it's own score was downgraded to ZERO. It has more replies than anything else on this thread, but the reply calling me a 'twat' has a higher score than the posting itself. I won't point a finger at an individual moderator, because who done it isn't as open source as the slashdot code, but who ever you are, you're a wanker. Thanks for being petty.
"I may not agree with the word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." -Voltaire
Well, folks, it looks like the moderation here does respond a bit to criticism. This thread is back up to a score of one which means that, once again, I can see it without -adjusting- my threshold down to the level of 'first' messages and four-letter word users.
So, thanks, guys.
Now, I'm not in the industry, but the temp stuff is becoming a problem (there have been meetings and such for unionizing around town, I live in Oly, WA, about 60 mi south of Redmond).
This stuff does get thought about. Go read some of ESR's stuff on the matter. It is actually really good.
ph43drus
Like some of the guys above me. I like apple. MacOS 8 is better than windows. OSX will rock. I like the fact that they are trying to go open source. I'm not going to support them until they get the liscence right.
Doing it poorly, and not getting the free part right isn't going to get them very far with the community. Get over the fact that anything that looks like an attempt to purely take advantage of us will be harshly treated. It happens, it is part of the community. Which is what this issue is all about, is it not?
ph43drus
PS RMS is my hero
While normally I find myself shaking my head at Stallman's comments, I found this article to be tame, clear, and a good read. Except for the jab at ESR at the end, I found this to be a calm, refreshing side of the creator of the copyleft. Even better, in my opinion, than the writings in www.gnu.org/philosophy.
If he could be this rational in arguments over the label GNU/Linux, my respect for him would be much greater than it is now.
An aside comment, though. Now that I'm using the cookies and have my preferences set, I'm seeing the moderated comments for the first time. Something that disturbs me is that nearly every pro-Apple comment on this thread has been knocked to -1. Rob: it's not worth having moderators if there's such a strong bias in it.
The problem is that the license is NOT open source. They are releasing the source code but they still have a tight leash around its neck. Open source in the true sense means that ANYONE can modify it in ANY WAY they see fit. The code essentially belongs to the community. With Apple they don't want to give up controll. Steve Jobs never was good at letting his pets roam free in the wilderness and he hasn't gotten any better. Essentially Apple wants the community to take its code, hack it, fix bugs, make it better, and then Apple wants to take all of that work and use it w/o paying the people for their work. Essentially Apple is offloading its developement work, which it would have to pay for if done in-house, to the world where it doesn't have to pay. That's not what open source is about. Also, this is dangerous in the fact that it sets a precident for other companies to follow. We need to make a stand and show the world that we won't accept this psuedo-open source license.
-matt
I agree that there is nothing wrong with offloading developement, provided it also helps the community. FSF and Linux and other similar projects are all examples of this. The users fix the bugs, and get rock solid software that they can use and break and play with in anyway they wish. I just don't see this being the case with apple. I think they are just trying to get in good with the free software community by claiming to open the source to their OS, and they are trying to leech off of us by making us do their work.
-matt
First off, RMS doesn't degrade the NPL. He said that iw as a free software license, just that it had problems with the GNU GPL.
Second, have you tried to sell Free Software (notice the caps)? If not, why don't you ask Cygnus Solutions how they make their money? Why don't you ask RedHat how they make their money? Why don't you ask AbiSource how they plan to make their money? It's a growing market, but people are selling Free Software.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Apple does not differnt from microsoft, only they have less power.
They have repeatedly shown this, i don't know why you can't see it.
"Apple differs from Microsoft in one important way: they just want to make cool stuf and a few bucks at it"
I'm sorry but that is bullshit. When it comes to companies like that, money is the start and the end of everything they do.
"They are not out to steal products from other companies, annex the internet, or publically
humiliate and ruthlessly crush "insubordinate" software companies like they have done to Netscape, Citrix, Spyglass and Stak."
Wait for them to get back into the power ring, we shall see how benevolent apple really is. Another Microsoft, and we have always known it to.
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
RMS isnt out to go for an office.
He says what he wants, you read it if you want, and thats the end of it.
regardless of whether you agree or not, RMS is just saying his opinion.
If what he says is 'fanatic' who cares? Hes not the president.
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
Cowards (anonymous or otherwise) don't contribute to society becasue they are scared of the possible repercusions.
Something is wrong, oh well, thats just the way it is. whatever. that kind of attitude lead to the dark ages.
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
we voted with the GPL.
Scott Aaron Bamford (vpp) "We`re giving you the chance to skrew it up in a whole new and exciting way" sab@clara.net
> I'm waiting for the day when we realize the
> power of free software is in the technical
> merits of what we produce
>
Surely this is exactly what Apple has realised,
(pseudo) open source means they can get their os
developed cheaper. The important day is when
companies grasp that open source is about
freedom (and start feeling scared).
The end result of the APSL is that Mac users are going to be able to fix bugs and security holes in their OS quickly. Apparently, this bothers people who haven't even touched a Mac. I'm still trying to figure out why. If you don't like the license, don't code on it. It's not like you were planning to, anyway.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
I don't know about the APSL being a sham... personally I think it's just a whole bunch of people being scared of a formerly *very* closed company stepping into *their* "open" turf. I find it quite ironic.
:)
As for MacOS X... I've tried it out and it is *very* cool. Especially if you already know some Unix techniques to get around. The Blue Box works fine... the Next like interface is really smooth. And the bultin utilities for managing networks, services, appearances etc are slick.
I really like the apps that come with too especially MailViewer and OmniWeb... you can see the common dialogs and looks that developing in Yellow Box provides.
I downloaded Samba yesterday and am in the process of compiling and installing it so I can see the rest of our Network.
It comes with a really slick chess game too.
Did I say they were going to change the world with MacOS X Server and Darwin?
No.
Did I even say I use a Mac every day?
No.
All I said is that I find it ironic that people who say they value a "community" based outlook are so eager to jump on a company when it makes an effort to become a *limited* part of that community.
My point was that perhaps we should give Apple a couple weeks to see if they actually change the APSL for the better. I think if you talk to Bruce Perens you might hear that Apple is trying to do just that right now. If in a couple weeks, the APSL is just as bad as it is now, then you can laugh at Apple's weak effort all you want.
And by the way, it's not like you are *required* to even try out Darwin... personally I'm going to help the effort to get it working on x86 so that Apple can give us Rhapsody for Intel like they promised.
You know, I had a huge response to that Bzt! comment... but I looked at it at the end and wondered why the hell I was wasting my time. I'm obviously talking to people who are so blinded by *their* righteousness that they are not willing to see change what *might* be good for *their* movement.
Whatever... I know there are more reasonable people who come to this site who have a bit more of a head on their shoulders.
The point of this thread is that Apple has proven that it can change, and listen. So we should give it a little time to change the APSL so that it is better for the Free Software community.
Bruce-- I admitted I was a bit harsh in using the word "lambaste". Thats why I published your email and had it linked to Mac Surfer. Thousands of Mac users read it. I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong.
Louis Pierce
I'm genuinely surprised at all the grousing regarding APSL. I don't understand.
1) You can get, use, modify, and compete with Apple using their own (and others) source, with some restrictions.
2) Apple now has to provide some additional value added to make money.
Apple products will be better as a result. The world will get to see and use some good software as a result.
Making money is a good thing. I hope Apple reaps some substantial benefits.
If the restrictions don't fit your needs, don't use software under APSL.
Shawn
If I am FORCED to republish code changes, that is a lack of freedom and therefore inconsistent with the GPL.
The APSL page includes two buttons, one labelled "Yes, I accept" and the other "No, I reject".
The license does not include a clause in which Apple expresses its intentions to break down your door, and force you to accept the license. Nor I am aware of any rumors to that effect. And its hardly a Hobson's choice...there are plenty of alternatives.
Contracts are a fundamental part of a modern economy. We literally couldn't function as a society without them. Honoring contracts that you have entered into of your own free will is not force.
Shawn
Huh? What about Linux on the PPC?
The code being licensed is the low-level OS stuff; it could be very useful for Linux to be able to use some of this stuff. And in the process, Apple may see bugfixes and new ideas, if they follow what the Linux developers are doing, as I'm sure they will. This will be good for all of us, once the kinks get ironed out.
I for one am not trying to tell Apple how to license their code, but since they seem to be trying out the whole "open source" thing, they'll need input from the "open source" community. RMS is helping them achieve what they've explicitly stated they are trying to do. Nobody is bullying Apple here.
Copyright is not relevant to the APSL.
The APSL is a shrinkwrap, er, clickwrap contract.
It seems to me that a clickwrap license is based in copyright. Downloading is just another word for copying, after all. What's the difference between a clickwrap license and a copyright license?
>but how would programmers expect to make a living
>if everything they coded was given away for free?
>You could say you'd sell it, but wouldn't that
>violate free software?
Aw, c'mon! You mean that you haven't read the multiple explanations of free(beer) vs. free(speech)?
That said, your questions about how to make a living are valid. But, yes, people do make a good living as consultants. There's always a need to fix and tailor for individual needs and a well-trained hacker can always find a job. I am not sure from your post if you are defending Apple's licence as a "realistic compromise". But if you are then I suggest that you are far less likely to make a living from a world where it is the norm than from either a free-software utopia or the current ultra-proprietary one.
I really did not like the end of your post though, you appear to be attempting to dismiss all those who have a legitimate worry about the trend to "Open" Source as "high-school and college _kids_. Well, gramps(or granny), this does not automatically dismiss their ideas and it is more than possible that many of those that you characterize in this way do not in fact belong to the group. Spare us the ad hominem denigrations!
Lest your cheap comment about "free software hippies" slide by unnoticed, your attention is called to the fact that a lot of people that are in the free software movement aren't even old enough to have been around in the 1960's. I resent your comparison.
-- Shawn K. Quinn
I've never trusted Apple!
:-)
I still remember when i was 10 or so and i had a MacPlus and my mouse broke, when i tried to buy a new one, Apple didn't make those anymore (now that sucks).
Ok but seriously...
I think it's great to have people like RMS to protect us from the big-ugly-evil-companys
There is absolutly no reason for Apple to help the Open-Source community, they just want free proggrammers!
Apple did not try to establish a monopoly over the graphical user interface. They tried to prevent Microsoft from stealing Apple's technology in a few (very specifically enumerated) points. Note that it's not illegal (or even really unethical) to have a monopoly. It is illegal and unethical to use monopoly power to extend that monopoly into other fields.
Apple doesn't "monopolize" the computer hardware industry. They sell a product (Macintoshes) and they do not elect to license that technology to other people. It's their technology, and they can do with it as they will. You may purchase it or not as you may elect (note how this is different from some operating systems that I could mention). Do you think that the X86 market would be any different if IBM hadn't lost their suit against Compaq? (that is, the one where Compaq clean-roomed IBM's BIOS, and could make clone machines).
Capricious hardware changes? Yeah, I sure want 'em to stop using faster and faster microprocessors and peripherals. That SUCKS!
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
This debate over the open source licenses gives developers some very good information. Now each, being well informed, is able to choose whether or not to join in the development effort for Apple or IBM.
Thanks, Richard, Eric, Bruce, et al.
Information is not Knowledge
The APSL isn't free. Thats the real issue. As for liability, the GPL will protect them just fine, shoudl they choose to use it. And who ever sues over software (non)performance and wins? The EULA is totally stacked against the user.
And some of us might have a beef against Apple. I have a specific $1600 beef with Apple myself w.r.t. to a a certain powerbook. Why is that a problem? Apple didn't give a crap about me. Once the check cleared I dropped right off their radar screen. Why should I give a crap about them and their non-free license?
Free software will crush a certain percentage of programmers. It probably won't be any worse than the percentage crushed by MS.
Why Apple be allowed to take code developed at taxpayer expense (Mach and BSD) and bury it propreitary products? Sounds like corporate welfare to me.
No one forced Apple to do anything. They want in the club, they gotta play by the rules.
I admit I am prejudiced against Apple. I used to own one. I owned a Ford once too, and a Chevy. Never again!
The "leaders" of the free software and open source communities are not self-appointed. Remember the LSA? That was an example of self-appointed leadership, and it failed.
People like RMS, Linus, ESR, etc., are respected by a lot of people in the community, and that is how they maintain positions of leadership. "Leader" probably isn't the right word--they fill a role similar to village elders in older times. They've been around, they've done a lot, and people listen to them.
Where we all disagree is in how much respect we think they each deserve. This, though, is a good thing as it preserves diversity of opinion.
Democratic elections, on the other hand, suck rocks because then everything becomes political. Let people lead who earn the respect of the community, not those who sway voters. Please, let's not turn our happy anarchy into a miserable "democratic" nation state.
RMS made a lot of good points in a clear and concise way. I agree with every point he made on his analysis of the Apple license, which I can't say happens very much.
Thanks RMS for clearing up where the APSL stands!
Absolutely! Easily the most coherent thing I've ever read from RMS. One thing I have to wonder about, is: why do all these companies feel they have to cook up some gee-whiz new license every time they give us a peek at source code? Why not just LGPL it, avoid the wannabe-license-lawyer wars, and gain the unquestioned support of ESRabids, Stallmanites, and BP? I suppose I don't understand the Corporate World sometimes....
When did open source and free software become synonymous? Apple should be able to distribute its software any way it wants. If they say that you must give them two years hard labor and your firstborn, so what? They are far from a monopoly so you are completely not obligated to use thier software. All of you hippies can live in your little everything-is-free bubble, but the rest of us have to make some cash.
What most infuriates me is not only that most of you would probably never even use an Apple product, but that several so-called "experts" have ranted about the "problems" with Apple's open source liscence, while they cant even grasp the general economic concept of the whole thing.
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
There seem to be at least two very general categories people are falling into regarding the recent corporate trend to show that they "support" open source: first are those who wish to look at the licenses and objectively evaluate whether the license is "free" or not -- and the second just blindly accept any corporation that throws the words "open source" around.
Just because Apple or whoever says the words "open source" in front of a bunch of reporters does not mean that it is a step forward for gnu/linux, or free software, or anything. It just means that here is another corporation hoping to do the most minimum they can to get the support of a huge grassroots movement.
I'm waiting for the day when we realize the power of free software is in the technical merits of what we produce, not in the acceptance of a bunch of corporate sharks who are intent only on making a quick buck off the naivete of a bunch of geeks.
"is this just an irrational hatred of Apple"
Not it's an entirely rational critisim of a comapany that excepts to be heralded for giving back the changes.
Sure the BSD licence never required them to, but its hardly a great revolution now they have.
Apple took stuff under a very liberal licence, modified for their needs, and then re-relesed it under a very restrictive licence. They can't expect applause for that.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
The definitions are the same. The difference is the judge.
Bruce & Debain think the APSL fails the guidlines (Both Debian Free, and OpenSource)
ESR thinks it passes both.
RMS thinks it's not free, but he doesn't refer speicially to any defined set of guidelines.
So we have a unfortunate position where something can have the "OpenSource" mark, but not be allowed to be part of Debian.
Ultimately it doesn't matter what any figure-head decides. They will make their points (and should) and the users will way up the pros/cons and decide whether to use/deveop the APSL stuff.
I don't think I would.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"