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 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!
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
"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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
---
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).
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.
--
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
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
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.
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.