Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Open Source Stew
Tor Slettnes
sent us a link to a fairfax article that talks about the
sticky situation
Apple seems to have gotten itself into regarding Open Source.
Touches on the Open Source Trademark issue, as well as the
ever Popular Perens vs. ESR vs. RMS issues. It actually
covers the bases pretty well. Worth a read.
The end of the article mentions possible legal action. Why would there be any legal action? Or is the author just being overly dramatic?
The comparison in the article about selling a brass ring as a gold one really rings true. If you download this 'open' software and then make changes and apple implements your changes you should get some credit. It sounds like they want
the best of everything for themselves.
IANAL but, I assume legal action would be between ESR/OSI and SPI over the Open Source(tm) trademark. SPI could sue Apple for using the term and Apple could use ESR as a witness. The whole thing is, of course, just silly.
Joe
Open Source is registered trademark of god-knows-whom.
Presumably, (IANAL) Apple printed that in the same spirit that it prints 'Macintosh is a registered trademark of Apple Computer, and 'Apple' is a registered trademark of Apple Computer.'
In truth, neither of them are. Apple is a registered trademark of Apple Records, used under license, and Macintosh is a registered trademark of Macintosh Labratories, likewise used under license.
I'd imagine Apple licensed the trademark 'Open Source' from ESR, and said what they said accordingly.
Whether ESR had the right to license 'Open Source' in the first place, I have no clue.
Don Negro
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
That's a really good article, and a really sad situtation. The Open Source movement is really picking up steam (preaching to the choir ;) and it is encouraging to see companies putting their corporate weight behind it. Sadly, Apple jumped the gun. If they had done more research and gained some understanding of how the OS community works, they could have seen the arguments over the license they have constructed ahead of time. Had Apple done it's homework, they would have either 1) written a different license that appeased more of the OS community or 2) had a long list of arguments (and puns, especially "ring" ones ;) to use to support their lisence. All in all, I think Apple jumped the gun, but I'd rather have companies jumping behind OS with good intentions instead of companies who shoot people who even get *near* the source.
;0
~Nameless, the fearless moderator!
Great. Now we're creating a battle over the semantics of "Open Source".
IMHO, ESR may have been a little excited about the opportunity to enlist a big name like Apple into the Open Source Movement(TM). As best I can tell, the APSL does not really meet the criteria for "Open Source" as outlined on the Open Source website (yes, I know ESR was responsible for the criteria).
I refuse to condemn Apple for taking a step in the right direction, but I think the APSL falls into the category of "Semi-Open Source"(TM).
I think there's a place for source-included software that is not released under the original GPL. It should be made clear, however, that licneses like APSL are not really in the spirit of GNU/Linux, GNU Emacs, and the other software we know and love.
For what it's worth,
Big Ed
Well, Apple, here's what you should be doing: For any/all of your products which are declared to be "Open Source"
- Publish your source code in a very public, easily accessed place.
- Establish your self not as owner of the code but, as coordinator.
- Fully emprace and incorporate the GPL with regard to all open-source projects.
Source is not truly open if it's contributors are eventually to be denied by the coordinating entity. If Apple can understand and apply these ideas, they can be established and accepted as project coordinators in much the same way Linus Torvalds is regarding GNU/Linux.D. Keith Higgs
CWRU. Kelvin Smith Library
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
kmj
kmj
The only reason I keep my ms-dos partition is so I can mount it like the b*tch it is.
I sent an email to OSI, SPI and Bruce Perens (covering all bases :-) about that attribution. Someone at OSI checked, found that the original press release from Apple did not contain the attribution. It was the website's error in adding this statement, and they were sent an official nasty letter for doing so.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
For a long time I would have sided with ESR over
RMS over the philosophy of open source. But I
think that this proves that RMS was right after
all - the term 'open source' should not have
been introduced, since it has turned out to be
open to easy abuse, with a little help from ESR.
I expect we will see Microsoft claiming that NT
is open source next year, on the grounds that
there is an academic license which allows access
to the source.
This kind of open debate, however bitter it may seem to outsiders, is how the collective operates. Somebody posts something to the net (be it draft code, or a draft license) and everybody who gives a shit starts to argue about the Right Way(tm) it should be done. Anything that a company offers to The Community is, implicitly, an RFC. If your request gets you no commentary, that's when there's a problem. Beware the day when any of the people involved want to stop the dialogue, not the day when the dialogue is passionate.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Yeah. ;) ) adding patented code to it and then suing them for distributing thee code without a license, while at the same time maximising their return (in code improvements) for their investment.
It seems that Apple have tried to open source Darwin in a way that protects them from somebody (not mentioning names
Maybe if they had asked more people then just ESR they could have got it right first time.
I did read that Apple were "open to suggestions" on improevments to the license, so maybe they'll manage to sort it out.
---
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
Apple obviously wants to jump on the OpenSource bandwagon.. and for what it's worth I say more power to 'em. I've always like Apple GUI's, and OS X isn't an exception. However, for Apple's sake, I hope it listens to the criticisms of the Opensource community. Apple is perfectly within its rights to say "This is our license, like it or don't use it" just like everyone else, however, since Apple seems to be making an honest attempt at an OpenSource OS, let's hope they dont' get discouraged or even frightened off by some hard-line whiners. I guess it boils down to "Will they bend or shatter?"
- Dave
ROFL! That's probably the best observation I've seen in a long time.
This is a very good point. It is rather ironic, that this is happening.
To me this fight amoung factions of the open source movement is the greatest threat facing open source. Once they had someone "sign off" on it Apple probably thought they had a good License. I beleive this whole thing is a big surise to them.
What Apple does next is going to be the big question. Will they be scared away from Open Source? Jobs is widely blamed for not wanting Mac clones made; so I just can't see him being very warm to OS. Time will tell.
Just my $1.03
Clinton made me a Republican. Bush made me a Libertarian. Trump is making me question reality.
Now this may be a lack on knowledge on my part, so please feel free to chime in and show me where I am wrong. But this is how I see it.
I think this is a buch of noise about nothing, and will do nothing but hurt Open Source. Apple has no obligation to realease the source to their software, so why should we care what type of license they use? Any prudent devoleper should read the fine print, and if they decide they do not like the terms, not work on it. Work on software that has terms that you do agree with, be that GPL, BSD style, etc. People must get over this idea that something is owed to them, if you dont like something, use something you do. Support what you do/can belive in.
All this infighting looks to be a bunch of men with big egos trying to see who has the most influnce. They all want to domanate, so no one will back down. But a outside observer will just look at all this infighting and think that Open Source is falling apart. It makes the movment look bad.
Now, I am not a coder. I just know a little Perl. But Open Source does help me, just last night I was screwing around in a app that has a bad interface cleaning it up to make it work better for me. It was fun, and usefull. But, you must remember that people are free to make their own choices. If someone spends time on a app, and only realses the binary, that is their choice. If you dont like it, use another app the is open source, or write your own.
The curse that I see in the Open Source movement is that people spend tons of engery in complaing about what is wrong, and very little in fixing it. Let Apple do what they will, if you dont like it, dont use/support it. Support something you like, and leave it at that. This whole "issue" is a non-issue. It should not matter.
Please, give me a reason as to why it does.
Elwood
Q. How did you come up with the Apple Public Source License (APSL)?
First, we studied several of the open and community source models that currently exist, including the Free Software Foundation's General Public License (GPL), BSD license, Apache license, Netscape and Mozilla Public Licenses, and Sun's Community Source License. Drawing from those examples, we drafted the APSL in an effort to promote open source development of our software while at the same time allowing Apple to reasonably protect our intellectual property and meet our business goals. It's our first attempt at open source licensing and we expect that it will evolve over time.
This all happened long before Eric Raymond ever wrote a single essay. The issue seems to be that Eric is losing his focus on what Open Source really means. This saddens me greatly, even though my cynnical nature told me all along that I didn't want to trust him. Still, I was hoping to be wrong in the end.
I'd still like Eric to prove that I'm wrong, but alas I don't see it happening soon. Maybe after he's been burned a time or two.
Hear Hear!!!!
Very well put, AC! This is what I've been saying all along. Apple may not be perfect, but this is definately a step in the right direction. We should encourage them to continue in this direction. I have personally written Apple and stated this to them as well.
That article was quite interesting, IMHO. It strikes me as almost comical in several places though. I mean, why are people who are fanatical about having everything public and un-controlled as far as software goes arguing over which of the various groups 'owns' the name Open Source? Is this really necessary, or is this a symptom of the beginning of the breakup of the various Open Source movements? Will they begin fighting among themselves, and forget that they have a common goal?
If this happens, it could have serious implications for the community as a whole. I feel that if they do begin infighting, they will make themselves much more vulnerable to folks like Microsoft. Let's think about that for a while folks. It's rather sobering. Is this a big enough deal to cause Open Source Civil War? I think not.
I think I've made my point, and I'll stop this spam fest now. I hope my comments will be taken seriously, as I meant them no other way.
Thank you for your time.
--
Matthew Walker
My DNA is Y2K compliant
Matthew Walker
http://www.tweeterdiet.com/ - My Diet Tracking Tool
At this point I'm really concerned about using the GPL personally. However creating YAL (Yet Another License) seems almost as bad. Can't win I guess, eh? =p
"Open Source" is a stupid name anyway.
I don't care to use Apple's software. I do care that they are lying about what its license really says. Licenses do matter.
My view of the root problem:
Someone says "Open Source", and the GNU, Debian, and all of the various advocacy splinter groups people immedately think "We represent Open Source, they must be talking about us! But they didn't get our buy-in! Quick - publish a manifesto!"
Meanwhile the Linux and BSD user base hears "Open Source" and they think "Open Source - they must be competeing against Linux/BSD! Flame On!"
The truth of the matter is that Apple isn't advertising or trying to reach out to any of these people. (GNU/Debian/OSI/PSI/Linux/BSD people just do not make up a significant portion of Apple's customer base.) They're reaching out to their traditional base of Mac hackers and Mac software/hardware companies to try to make their new OS as popular and supported as possible.
Right now, the MacOS is such a shifting morass of interfaces that it seems that any particular piece of hardware or software has a good chance of breaking as soon as you throw an OS upgrade or a new Mac model at it. Having a stable and open foundation to solve this problem is a huge benifit to Mac users. It's really a non-issue to you if you are into Linux/BSD/Hurd or whatever.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
OSI is anti-establishment? ESR has pretty much made himself THE establishment. And SPI is certainly not anti-establishment either. SPI feels that the Open Source mark is being abused and as the rightful owner of that mark in the first place (registered by Bruce Perens in official capacity as SPI's President) the "arguing" over the mark is purely a matter of preventing its corruption. Eric has had his chance at managing the mark and he has tried to corrupt and abuse it. SPI seems unwilling to let this continue, and I agree with SPI!
Thanks for the clarification. I should have checked my facts better on that point.
Big Ed
I don't have the APSL in front of me, so ...
1) The APSL states that Apple may, at any time, revoke your license to use the software. So, if you are developer and have put hundreds of hours into making adjustments so that it fits your needs, you are suddenly without recourse, and your million dollar project is now DOA.
2) All changes that you make must be submitted to Apple.
3) and if Apple revokes your rights to the license, they get keep and use your modifications without compensating you.
These are the concerns that most of us have with the APSL.
Any prudent devoleper should read the fine print, and if they decide they do not like the terms, not work on it. Work on software that has terms that you do agree with,
This is very true, and this is what Apple will discover in the very near future. With the correction of these few minor problems, Apple will have a win-win situation... good publicity and some very good programmers improving their products.
My opinions only, your mileage may vary.
You allude to the fact that if the license terms are not the right kind to allow the existing code to become a base for new efforts then developers will spend the effort to build alternative open versions. Well those are *big* efforts. Don't you think it is useful to have a term telling developers whether or not they need to do that? That's the kind of thing that linguistic categories are for. It is worth arguing about. - Josh
Ok , I thought we had it pinned down that Apple's license and proclamation of open source
was deceptive. And now the "good intention"
and "just don't use the source" arguments are
back.
Intentions and whether or not one participates
in the APSL are irrelevant. The deception is the
relevant issue. Apple proclaims to be something
that they are not. This is where the problem
lies.
Projections regarding, Apple's intentions,
the effect on the future of free-software and
how Obi-won Kanobi is doing are all very interesting things but are not relevant aspects
of this problem.
The OSD says, "The license must ALLOW [not required] modifications and derivative works to be distributed under the same license. " (OSD s3). Although I think this license is bad for "the community" (only the (L)GPL is good ;) ), Apple doesn't necessarily violate OSD. Only in a few areas does the APSL differ in wording to the OSD. Furthermore, the document does not specify what should happen to code modified by a third party then modified by Apple. Apple's flexiblity only covers code modifications "made by or on behalve of Apple" (ASPL s11). In fact it says that Apple's redistribution of third party code is to be covered by the "open" portions of the document (APSL 3a).
SPI exists to support Debiaan and other free projects. As such, opposing IP is not one of its ends (as I see it).
The FSF is the anti-IP group here. And they have no interest in the Open Source (TM) trademark.
---
The best thing SPI can do is take an active role in making sure Open Source means what it should mean and what it was intended to mean. I just hope Eric hasn't done too much damage for this to be possible now.
If you don't care to use it, STOP YOUR DAMNED WHINING and get on with your life. Someone with half a brain will read the license instead of just listening to what people say about it.
RMS has done the same. He has said exactly what he thinks should be changed for the APSL to be truly free.
---
Wow, another person who obviously didn't read the license. Look people, this is simple. If you don't like the license, get on with your life and don't use the code. Grow up.
ESSR understands that loans have to be repaid and until you have a method of repayment developed, the bank is going to own your code.
Good point. I wonder if this is not an effort to recruit GNU/Linux/BSD developers to Apple as much as it is an effort to re-invigorate current and former Apple developers.
It all boils down to intention. If Apple truly
is trying to move into GPL/OS-like licenses,
then
(A) this is just a over-cautious misstep on their
part, the ASPL will slowly evolve to be better.
On the other hand, if Apple is just in "bandwagon
mode", then this was a very bad thing for them
to do and they will eventually regret it.
If you already like Apple, you believe (A).
If you already hate Apple, you believe (B).
If you think anybody will change their minds
after much flaming, you are (C)razy.
--Anonymous Kevin (who believes (A) )
For once, I'm ashamed to be a Linux user.
The reason: this savagery. Apple is trying to get on its feet in the OSS community, and the OSS community, rather than trying to help it, is visciously attacking it because it is Apple.
Case in point: The original NPL was rather like the current APSL. There was a bit of griping from the zealots, but all in all the community worked to help Netscape.
Another case in point: the QPL. Now there's a can of worms, bit I'd like to point out that the original draft was even worse than the APSL, yet it was accepted by many of the same people whi now hypocritically attack Apple. Once again, there was some complaining from the zealots, but the community helped Troll work on its license until it got something which was tolerable.
But what do they do when Apple tries? They gang up on this poor company. They take a license which does not violate any of the principles of Open-Source (note that I do not say Free Software here; the two are not necessarily the same, and once again I will go into why they aren't violating anything later on here) and yet when they should have been greeted with open arms they were attacked.
Now, let me reiterate why this license does not violate the Open-Source philosophies:
1) People complain that if you make changes to the software you have to tell Apple about it and make the changes available. In other words, you have to make the changes Open-Source and tell Apple. Yeah, that's one more restriction than the GPL (telling Apple about it) but that's hardly a violation of anything. I might add that there are other licenses which even RMS accepted as Free Software which do require you to submit your changes back.
2) The infamous termination clause. For the last time, people, read the stupid document again: Apple cannot terminate this license. It can terminate the license on sections of the code which violate patents, yes. If Apple did not do this it would be committing a crime (contributory infringement of patents, if I am not mistaken). Note that Netscape did this with Mozilla too, and nobody has complained.
I could go into theories as to why the Open-Source community is so prejudiced against Apple (mainly because they don't want to see really open computing, that is computing which is easy enough to learn that no one has to be dependent on command-lines and so-called "experts," a category into which Linux and the BSD's do not fall)_but that would take far too much space and this comment is probably going to get moderated out of existence as it is. But the truth hurts, doesn't it? Think about it for a second before you respond with a flame: why is it that you're just flaming Apple instead of trying to offer help?
What really scares me is how nobody has yet pointed out the way Fairfax describes open source in their article:
(Emphasis added.)
That really is the way quite a few companies view it -- not as a philosophy or even a "new business model", but as a marketing tactic.
It seems that, where we had to do some education last year on the meaning of the word "free" in "free software", we now have to do some education about the meaning of the word "open" in "open source".
An earlier post under the subject line "Poor Us" stated:
I don't mean to jump down that person's throat, but that is only one small part of what's necessary for something to be open source. I use an alternative MTA, Qmail, which comes in source form, so you can definitely see the source, but the author keeps tight control over what actually goes into it -- nobody else can check things into the source tree, even suggestions for improvements or alterations are generally rejected. There are lots and lots of patches, but nobody but the author gets to fuck with Qmail's source.
There have been discussi ons on the Qmail mailing list about just how free (or open) Qmail is, based partly on that requirement. (Follow Vern Hart's reply from the link.)
Apparently, the proliferation of patches to Qmail (and, more importantly, the fact that the author places no restrictions on such patches!) allows it to meet the OSD, but it's a close shave.
I use this as an example, and especially refer readers to Dave Sill and Vern Hart's "more free/less free" phrasing in the referenced thread on the Qmail mailing list. Freedom or openness is a continuum, and supplying source is only one step along it.
If we let corporations get away with promoting the idea that "if you can see the source, it's open source software" -- and especially if we start believing it ourselves -- then the movement is finished as a significant force in computing. That's the first step toward letting it become the mere "marketing position" that Fairfax claims.
Kai MacTane: Web developer for hire in San Francisco
Now really, what I read from your post is that you do not like the terms that Apple has given. And you understand that you dont have to work on the code if you dont want to.
What I do not understand is why you care if Apple makes the right choice or not. That is one thing I see alot as well, people that seem to take a extreame interest in the action of others.
Why not, if you really want a OS that gives you the freedom that you want, use the one that gives it to you allready? Why care what Apple does?
Elwood
>I don't care to use Apple's software. I do care >that they are lying about what its license >really says. Licenses do matter.
I do not understand how Apple is lying about what the license says. If they hid the term of the license, then yes, I would be in total agreement with you. But as far as I know, the license is up for public viewing.
Elwood
Great. Now we're creating a battle over the semantics of "Open Source".
Yes, we certainly are. Precisely what 'free software' or 'open source' means is what our community is founded upon.
I refuse to condemn Apple for taking a step in the right direction,
If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt, that's a compliment to your trusting nature. But I'm more cynical, and I think Jobs is just trying to get developers for his product (free bug fixes! woo hoo!) and also trying to trump MS without actually giving anything away. (Mach and 4.4 BSD were already free!) Apple has traditionally been one of the most closed and secretive companies ever. Recall Alan Cox' essay about how hard Apple made it for him to port Linux to the 68k Macs. Apple is not Freedom-friendly.
It should be made clear, however, that licneses like APSL are not really in the spirit of GNU/Linux, GNU Emacs, and the other software we know and love.
Agreed.
>The deception is the relevant issue. Apple >proclaims to be something that they are not.
Ok. Please describe how Apple is using deception. Please explain how Apple is calling this something it is not. As I understand it, the license is up on Apple's web site, and you must read and agree with it before DLing any source. Please explain what you mean.
Elwood
Apple is perfectly within its rights to say "This is our license, like it or don't use it" just like everyone else
You are undeniably correct. But the free software community has every right to say, 'These are our terms of membership -- you cannot abuse us'.
Apple seems to be making an honest attempt at an OpenSource OS
Releasing the already-free sub-components of an OS (does Darwin even boot?) under a non-free license does not count as 'an honest attempt' in my book. It counts as graft and manipulation -- nothing new to Apple, Inc.
hard-line whiners
I hope you're not referring to people who value freedom and community above all else.
Apple's lawyers prepared a license intended to make the source code to the OS portions of MacOS X available while still protecting Apple's business interests. Then they showed this license Eric Raymond and the rest of the Open Source folks (including his Board of Directors) who approved the license.
While I realize that its fashionable in the free software community to snipe at companies which maintain intellectual property rights, and rms pretty much just likes to piss on anyone who hold a copyright, the reality here is that if you're not happy with the license, you should bitch at Eric Raymond and Co., not at Apple.
Furthermore, I don't know how apple has "jumped the open source bandwagon" thing. Apple was funding Linux with MkLinux a long time before the other companies jumped the bandwagon.
Lastly, the open source and free software movement are going to be hurt by this. Imagine if Dell wanted to help linux/bsd/mach/[insert cool tech here] out by making a distro. They make it run for their boxes, but release the source so people could work on it. It will never happen because companies don't just invest in products if it doesn't make them money. I bet folks out there wish Compaq hired some people to work on Linux for Alpha instead of just funding another company. It won't happen. Compaq is going to want to see benefits other than the chance more people will buy their boxes.
These companies are used to selling software by giving free support. They aren't ready to give away free software and start charging for the support. Have patience. Rome wasn't built in a day. The 2.2 kernel took time. Commercial companies in harmony with oss and fsi will certainly not happen overnight.
Thank goodness for what you have.
Remy
http://www.mklinux.org
"Sadly, Apple jumped the gun."
Did they? I know of people who have been able to fix Linux drivers because of Apple's opened code.
Further, you act as though this is the final revision of the license. Bruce Perens has written that Apple seems to be listening to his suggestions - and that Apple seems to take his criticism seriously. He has written that he believes there will be at least another revision (version 1.1 of the APSL).
RMS is just a conceited ass - and his continued arrogance keeps making him more and more irrelevant in the community. He appears unwilling to work with Apple - how is this constructive for anyone? RMS's agenda is his ego, nothing more, nothing less.
Oddly, Apple opening up source has made some people in the open source community more angry than if Apple had not. The fear is based on FUD - because nobody knows what's gonna happen to their favorite OS.
-------
Laird Popkin wrote the following sensible bit:
As far as Apple's threatening to pull the code if there are any patent claims against it, this is an extreme reading of their license. Their license states:
9.1 Infringement. If any of the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement ("Affected Original Code"), Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (a) attempt to procure the rights necessary for You to continue using the Affected Original Code; (b) modify the Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing; or (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code, effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License.
This sounds pretty reasonable to me. Note that this is restricted to Affected Original Code. This means that if there's some code that is under dispute, apple could terminate your rights to that specific piece of code, but anyone who cared (including Apple) could negotiate the rights or work around the infringement. To be honest, I can't see Apple (or any other licensee) being able to offer more than this.
Compare this to the GPL:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Which is more extreme, since it says that if there's any reason, including allegation of patent infringement, you must refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. In Apple's license, only allegations of patent infringement can trigger action, and can only lead to removal of the specific code affected by the claim.
-------
http://www.mklinux.org
S.O.S. :-) :-)
Semi-Open Source
of course s.o.s. is better than the
previous situation with them which
was s.o.l.
If these yahoos really care about the free programming community they will release their silly little trademark to Stallman, the FSF or the LPF and dissappear into obscurity quietly, like so many others that have tried to cash in on the free programming community's popularity without actually contributing anything of value themselves.
http://www.mklinux.org
I might add that there are other licenses which even RMS accepted as Free Software which do require you to submit your changes back. I've heard this before in the argument, I still don't believe it, and won't until someone can name the licenses. Which licenses are you talking about?
Wonderful, "we need to stop bickering over what is and isn't open source" and then you go on to give your own definition that is at odds with that used by both the arguing parties, how are you different to any other bickerer?
Apple absolutely knows what open source is all about. If you want a good Apple open source OS, look no further than MkLinux.
The OS X/Darwin debacle has nothing to do with open source and everything to do with jumping on the current buzzword bandwagon. It's a boardroom bullet point, nothing more. The restrictive license is to ensure that nobody does anything meaningful with the code.
Not that the code is all that useful anyway. BSD source we have aplenty, and who wants a hacked up Mach 2.5, when you can get Mach 3 in MkLinux? That kernel is a carryover from NeXT, and is old news.
Don't get upset that Apple is issuing encumbered source code. Just pretend they never issued any source code at all and get on with life.
OSS as we know it does not work for the average Fortune 500 company. I think we should face that reality. Eventually this will change. It takes a lot of courage to free up any source, esp. when you have companies like MS that are making all their money by being closed. The paradigm must shift before wholesale changes will happen to the industry. People that constantly complain are not helping anybody out.
remy
http://www.mklinux.org
bravo
http://www.mklinux.org
I'm an OSI director, and webmaster@qmail.org. I can definitely say that qmail is not Open Source, and will not be until and unless Dan lets people distribute modified binaries.
-russ
What is anyone to do? It seems that if you get some sort of support/guidance from one of the Open Software 'personalities' you're gonna get cussed by one of the other 'personalities'. I think that Apple has made a (maybe partial) step in the right direction ... surely this is better than no step at all!
... I wish they would stop distracting the rest of us.
As for the 'Personalities'
I guess the kind of funny thing about the requirement of posting Modifications, given the complaints about it, is that the changes get directed to an open-subscription mailing list.
And the license terminates for Affected Original Code when a patent infringement suit is enacted against the Affected Original Code. IIRC, Apple replied to Bruce Perens that, yes, they didn't define that well.
Interesting clauses from the APSL:
1.3 "Deploy" means to use, sublicense or distribute Covered Code other than for Your internal research and development (R&D), and includes without limitation, any and all internal use or distribution of Covered Code within Your business or organization except for R&D use, as well as direct or indirect sublicensing or distribution of Covered Code by You to any third party in any form or manner.
and
From 12.2 [...] All sublicenses to the Covered Code which have been properly granted prior to termination shall survive any termination of this License. [...]
IANAL, but to me this reads the same as the GPL section 7, regarding conditions imposed on you that contradict the conditions of this License, which includes patent issues.
I guess the biggest problem that people are really having is the length and the legal-speak.
-Virgil
--
The Future: Some assembly required; batteries not included.
Apple didn't publicize with the license,
they publicized they are Open Source. Their
license says they arere not open source.
They publicized that they are open source when their license is in direct agreement. Is that
deceptive? You tell me.
The "open", referring to software has been in common use in the software industry long before it was assosiated with "Free" software.
No one can really claim Intellectual Property on "Open Software" any more than "Multimedia".
s/agreement/dissagreement
In the future, actually read a license before you comment on it. It's here -- http://www.publicsource.apple.com/apsl. html.
1) The APSL states that Apple may, at any time, revoke your license to use the software. So, if you are developer and have put hundreds of hours into making adjustments so that it fits your needs, you are suddenly without recourse, and your million dollar project is now DOA.
It states that, if Apple is faced with a patent violate lawsuit, they can revoke your license to only the affected portion of code, and they also give themselves the option to either write around the violation or obtain a license for the patent. They cannot revoke your license to the entire product under this clause. If they did not include this provision, they would be exposed to additional liability for providing that protected technology to the public. I think you'll find a similar provision in nearly all open source-ish licenses that corporations with actual legal departments might issue.
The complete termination clause states that (i) your license terminates if you violate the license and do not correct the situation 30 days after a you become aware of your own violation, (ii a) your license to only the affected code might terminate (as describe above) if an intellectual property claim is filed, (ii b) your license terminates if the law prohibits you from complying with the core sections of the license, or (c) your license terminates you file an intellectual property claim against Apple. None of these provisions except (c) are in any way unrealistic.
2) All changes that you make must be submitted to Apple.
You have to publish your changes under any other open-source license, as well. Apple requests that you notify them by using a simple form that they provide. Woe is me. You are free to fork the tree, you are simply asked to tell Apple about it.
3) and if Apple revokes your rights to the license, they get keep and use your modifications without compensating you.
I agree with your dissent on the core issue here, in that Apple's license grants inequal rights to Apple and to the licensees. However, I can also see the justification; Apple does utilize this same codebase for a commercial product that, while it includes this codebase, also includes additional code which is not covered by the APSL or any other public source license. (This is reasonable; expecting the entirety of Mac OS X Server to be available as a free download is currently unrealistic, given Apple's business model. Perhaps in time that will change, but it will be a very long time.)
- Mali
Perhaps this will get the BeOS people off their ass with respect to open source! Talk about being on a sinking ship! If Apple opened up the GUI, (even what they have been on the x86 side) me thinks this would be Microsoft Nightmare 2000!
They could be the Redhat of software, and the Sun of hardware.
This MacWeek Article says that 16,000 developers have agreed to the license in just one week. Also mentions there have been 100,000 downloads.
Obviously a lot of people aren't bothered by the license.
Anyone know if Bruce Perens has a middle name? That way we can have the easy short hand of B*P to go along with RMS and ESR. However, maybe BP isn't as important as ESR and RMS so he should only have two letters. Thus we could say ESR thinks this but RMS thinks that and BP is somewhere in the middle.
One problem, of course is that people might confuse BP for British Petrolium and that wouldn't be exactly fair to either of them (Bruce may be slick but is he really oily?).
Just Curious.
Apple will either get good raputation or will have a very bad impression to many people if it doesn't handle Darwin's Open source agreement right.
So the possiblity that apple will eventually get to an agreement that everybody agreeies (at least majority) is very high.
There are, what, 50,000,000 windows users? Obviously the licence doesn't both them.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Yes, we certainly are. Precisely what 'free software' or 'open source' means is what our community is founded upon.
First, I don't think Apple claimed that OS/X was Free in either the Beer or the Speech sense.
Second, can't you have one definition of "Linux has open source code" and Mr. Mac Developer over there have can have a different definition of "Darwin has open source code." If he's happy, does it really concern you?
(Also, do you have a link handy for the Alan Cox article? Thx.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
The OSD is the DFSG with Debian references removed. There are no substantive changes other than that.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
You also have the termination point wrong. There is no definition of Affected Original Code, an error Apple is willing to fix. Until they do, there's no reason it could not be taken as all code.
It's ironic how Apple supporters are more willing to dig in their heels than Apple is. Someone wrote me and said "it's wrong to be more royalist than the king". I agree.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
As far as I know, Apple isn't a democracy.
Does anyone else find it kind of amusing that Open Source is a registered trademark at all?
I mean, I understand, it's just kinda ironic. Heh.
\//
They are encouraged by prodding them along, the squeaky wheel gets the greese (or replaced). If people didn't make their dislikes about this license known, it would never be improved.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Actually, the APSL requires licensees to destroy the copies. See APSL 12.2: All sublicenses granted prior to termination shall survive any termination. And as part of Deploying the Covered Code is the permission to sublicense it. Which (IANAL) means that if you've gotten a second-hand (sublicensed) distribution, you don't have to destroy it. Same as the GPL, I'd say, but again, IANAL.
-Virgil
--
The Future: Some assembly required; batteries not included.
They're reaching out to their traditional base of Mac hackers and Mac software/hardware companies to try to make their new OS as popular and supported as possible.
I think that's true, and am amazed more people haven't perceived this. Of course they want - in the long run - to get the open source benefits, but in the first months just looking at the code will enormously benefit us Mac developers. It also will assure that the upper-level APIs will be cleaner and have no proprietary or hidden shortcuts into the kernel.
Second, can't you have one definition of "Linux has open source code" and Mr. Mac Developer over there have can have a different definition of "Darwin has open source code." If he's happy, does it really concern you?
As an Apple developer since 1984, I'm certainly happy that I now have source code of at least the low-level OS. I can't have, in the short, any wish to modify things or fix bugs. If there are egregious bugs I'll point them out since it's in my own interest to have them fixed. I won't have any exotic devices to hook up, or try to get it to run on an old Performa or whatever... so why should I mess with the kernel? I don't want any new command-line tool either, thank you.
And I don't care if BSD or Mach is already out in another form... I want the one that is running on my system without having to search all over, and hack pieces together.
What I want is being able to know what is happening in low-level detail while I'm debugging my applications. So that's it... all this philosophical/semantical stuff about "free this" or "open that", or who owns the trademark, doesn't concern me yet. Maybe next year... maybe never.
Yes, but even if only 3% of these people contribute, then that's nearly 500 more people than Apple had two weeks ago.
Bruce, do you really have to put a negative spin on everything?
I think the only way apple won't continue with Darwin is if people continue to badget them about it and complain.
remy
http://www.mklinux.org
Bruce Perens wrote : The rest of the article is OK, but why does the press take some constructive criticism and blow it up this way? The letter I wrote is very non-confrontational and welcoming in its tone.
/.ers.
I agree, Bruce is being the voice of reason in this debate... when the Netscape license came out people apparently were more willing to concede some point or other, but this raving about Apple's evil intentions is certainly hurting the community.
Hopefully Apple will listen more to Bruce, and not at all to
So much for free speech! It was nice while it lasted! Final Score: Moderators 27, Freedom 2
-ac
PS: Moderate This !!!
Should be the disclaimer on most mainstream news sources.
Actually, you are incorrect regarding the traademark license issue. Originally there were licenses, but eventually Apple bought rights to the Apple and Macintosh trademarks, not licenses, and also Macintosh Labs is not spelt the way you state - it's McIntosh Laboratories.
Sorry.
This comment calls RMS a "conceited ass". Yet is has a score of 2? The moderation guidelines clearly state that posts which call people names are meant to be moderated down, not up.
Seems some moderators have been voting, rather than playing by the rules. One has to wonder if someone called Linus a "concieted ass" how quickly the post would have plunged into the negatives.
Please moderators, a little objectivity would be nice.
"Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, liberal, fanatical, criminal." - Supertramp, The Logical So
The problem with stating that FSF is anti-IP is that FSF's best assurance that their software will remain free is the GPL, which in fact requires strong IP laws. If FSF was truely anti-IP they would release their code into the public domain rather than retaining copyrights to all their stuff.
I'm glad they're willing to clarify it, but they come close to a definition, probably one that would stand up in court.
If you parse that, it means Affected Original Code is any of the Original Code that becomes subject to a claim of patent infringement.
Another parsing: Affected Original Code is the part of the Original Code that is claimed to be infringing on a patent.
I think this coupled with their other public statements and willingness to clarify should reassure Slashdotters that they are covering their ass and not trying to weasel out at some future time.
I agree that it's not straightforward enough for a public license, but saying that they don't define it is misleading.
This implies either some sort of offical spokesperson for free software (when was the vote?) or that there is some Borg-like consensus among free software advocates. I don't think either is true.
Releasing the already-free sub-components of an OS (does Darwin even boot?) under a non-free license does not count as 'an honest attempt' in my book. It counts as graft and manipulation -- nothing new to Apple, Inc.
Graft:
1. Acquisition of money, position, etc., by dishonest or unjust means, as by actual theft or by taking advantage of a public office or any position of trust or employment to obtain fees, perquisites, profits on contracts, legislation, pay for work not done or service not performed, etc.; illegal or unfair practice for profit or personal advantage; also, anything thus gained. [Colloq.]
Cite a specific example of Apple engaging in this behavior. You can then talk to your local DA and bring Apple's executives up on criminal charges.
I hope you're not referring to people who value freedom and community above all else.
Apple already has a community: Mac users. We've been waiting for the chance to quickly fix bugs in the OS for years. I said this before and I'll say it again: Darwin isn't for Linux users! It is so the _Mac user community_ can benefit from an Open Source development model. Mac users are already tied to Apple, willingly. All of the "problems" in the license derive from the assumption that they don't want to be. Even Mac clone advocates (like me) still wanted the OS to come from Apple.
Griping by people who obviously don't like Apple and don't use Macs is irrelevant. Mac users in the know are ecstatic and that's what counts to Apple.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
I agree with you. What is important is what is considered open. If this license is considered to be as open as other GNU/Linux applications, this is a bad thing. Imagine Micro$oft releasing a similar license only to be able to slap the "Open Source" label on it.
PS If forced to choose sides, I would side with Bruce Perens NOT ESR! Admittedly, I don't know all the details, but there is something about ESR that makes me feel uneasy.
Yes, it's true that Apple fucked up the license. Who cares? Cut Apple some slack, give them a few weeks to fix it, and only then critisize.
This looks like the easiest way to scare away corporate support.
Proper articles should look be more like "Apple has a few flaws to work out in their license," not "Apple is selling a brass ring as gold"
Posted by Ryan Webb:
The Mach kernal that Apple released is in fact a modified version of the "free Mach" you speak of, providing numerous benfits to the Macintosh developer community. People are forgetting that this open source move was first and foremost for Macintosh developers, not *nix hackers. Apple could simply wait for "newer versions" of BSD from other communties and then use it if they wanted. They would still reap the benefits, just from a different community.
Linux Journal, Jan. 1999.
:(
So far as I can tell, it's not available online
~AC
The term Open Source is just information, and according to
Richard Stallman and others, no one can own information.
Once the term Open Source is out there, Apple can use it
any way they want, and since they are just using a copy, it
in no way damages Bruce Perens.
That is, unless RS is full of it, and property rights still exist,
and Linux and the Open Source community are sharing out
of a spirit of voluntary co-operation. In that case, Open
Source, the GPL, and Richard Stallman's and the rest of
the open source community's wishes would be protected
by law.
You're right in that the APSL addresses really targets existing MacOS developers rather than the GNU/Linux/BSD community.
However, it sets a dangerous precendent in that its quasi-"Open Source" banner may attract Mac expatriates now using free software (like myself) and existing GNU/Linux/BSD developers into spending considerable time and effort on MacOS X (which is not free and probably never will be).
The efforts to improve GNU-Linux-BSD are far from over - there are still too many unfinished projects. The GNU/Linux/BSD community should focus on completing and improving our already free software and ignore the populist marketing PR from Cupertino.
~AC
Calling somebody an ass (often used instead of jackass) ain't cussing.
I don't think it's that bad - no worse than calling somebody a jerk, and more descriptive.
Firstly, a trademark is not IP. This is a well beaten horse.
Secondly, the GPL is not based on IP. This is also a well beaten horse.
The GPL does depend heavily on copyrights, but only to PROTECT itself from copyright law itself.
Even your most rabidly hypothetical anti-IP FSF geek (who would demand that copyright law be eradicated at well) has a point: If there were no copyrights, there would no need for GPL in the first place.
If there were no copyrights we would be back to the problem of everyone taking 'public domain' source and turning it into commercial products - exactly what GPL is defending against. GPL does not defend against copyrights solely, but many other forms of commercial software distribution restrictions as well.
Commercial software products do not need copyright protection for companies to lock them up - look at the shrink wrap license - there are a million other strategies that can be used to get users to pay for software, including limited use contracts, hardware protection and all sorts of other licenses. Lotus was winning court cases against people copying their software based on unauthorized trademark duplication rather than going after copyright infringement because the penalties were much smaller for copyright infringement. All these strategies and more are used in countries where copyright and other IP laws are not taken seriously. Copyright laws are in fact one of the least intrusive ways for commercial software vendors to protect their IP.
The rabid anti IP geeks are wrong. Without IP laws we would have all sorts of other contractual agreements attached to commercial software, AND there would be no GPL to foster the development of Free Software.
Free software is free because it is protected by the copyrights assigned to it's authors and their license terms.
The only thing worse than bad press is no press, but right now I'd settle for no press.
-- Chip Salzenberg, speaking from (but not for) the OSI
IP laws being replaced by contractual arrangements are a good thing! Aside from political arguments, this would produce more flexibility, more competition, and more awareness in software licensing -- at least if clickwrap/shrinkwrap contracts are thrown out, as they should be. Then the license terms will actually be seen as something that is potentially variable or negotiable -- not something whose default has been established strongly in favor of the copyright owner by the law.
You forgot RMS!
ESR is the conceited ass.
I have no qualms about calling someone an ass, I don't consider it swearing or offensive.
BUT, it is clearly calling people names, which the moderation guidelines say should cause a comment to be moderated down.
I'm not saying the moderation guidelines are necessarily right, what I am saying is that guidelines are pointless if no one follows them.
It doesn't matter who gets called the ass, whether it be Bill Gates, RMS, Linus, the Pope, or my pet dog, it should be treated the same way. If people can't do that, then they should refrain from moderating at all.
"Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, liberal, fanatical, criminal." - Supertramp, The Logical So
But doesn't opening the bottom of the OS allow other people, like Be to utlize parts of it?
Be couldn't complain about being locked out of motherboard information if they can just download the code to drive it.
Just like I've seen it pointed out that the base os (Mach, etc) could be ported to other platforms. Especially other PowerPC motherboards. I would hope this fosters some more PowerPC hardware.
From what I understand, this all falls within the license. Apple closes Macintosh just to open it back up again. I for one can't wait to play with it. About time to get another Hard drive to put that on...
I love my computer -- You make me feel alright (Bad Religion)
However, it sets a dangerous precendent in that its quasi-"Open Source" banner may attract Mac expatriates now using free software (like myself) and existing GNU/Linux/BSD developers into spending considerable time and effort on MacOS X (which is not free and probably never will be).
If GNU/Linux/BSD can't compete with Mac OS X on a level playing field, it doesn't deserve to exist.
Why should I have sent it to RMS? He has never touched the Open Source certification mark, OSI, SPI and Bruce Perens all have. In addition, he is on public record as disliking the entire Open Source program, so I doubt he would fight to protect their trademark.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
So then, how do you feel about B*P?