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.
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
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.
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
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.
RMS has done the same. He has said exactly what he thinks should be changed for the APSL to be truly free.
---
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?
I believe A, that it is just an overcautious misstep, but I have to treat it as B. Apple is a corporation, it is responsible not to any ethical ideal, but to its shareholders. If a situation arises where its shareholders value is threatened, Apple will change its attitudes on a dime. The same cannot be said for its contracts.
Even if Apple has the most benign intentions with this contract, nobody can guarantee that it will stay benign. Look at, for example, Apple's attitudes towards the Mac clone market. They were strongly against the clone market for a long time, then they loosened up and gave clonemakers MacOS licenses, then they got scared and used the wording of their license contracts to kill the entire market.
Regardless of whether or not you think their changing attitude was good, it was a change of attitude which hurt some companies with bad contracts. Since there are no guarantees that something similar won't happen with the APSL, you have to assume they will try, and encourage them to make the license ironclad so they won't be legally able to get away with it.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
"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.
-------
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
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.