Slashdot Mirror
Apple responds to APSL issues
heretic writes "Here's a techweb article on Apple's response to the criticism they've drawn on their source license for Darwin. Personally, I hope they fix at least the cancellation clause. "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
He doesn't. Go to www.uspto.gov and search for it. You will find that it has been applied for (NOT granted) by Software in the Public Interest (SPI). Additionally, you'll note a company called Open Source Solutions with a similar REGISTERED trademark that is likely to dispute SPI's claim to "Open Source".
So "Open Source" is not yet a registered trademark or certification mark at all, much less owned by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) or Eric Raymond.
Of coure there is still the dispute between SPI and the OSI. I am very disappointed in SPI's failure to say anything further on this. They soliticed input from the free software community with a deadline of 12/31. However, no decision was ever put out and the community feedback was never published as they claimed it would be. I emailed them about it in late January and they said they were running a bit behind. More than a bit I would guess.
I wasn't aware of the extent of ESR's involvement in the creation of the APSL. I find it very disappointing that Apple reserves the right to revoke a developer's license at any time. That makes it pretty scary to devote your time to a project only to find out that Apple changed its mind after six months of work. One of the reasons why I'm willing to hack on GPL'ed software is my assurance that no one can take my rights away with respect to that software and my changes.
Oh, well. I wasn't planning on fooling with Apple's source anyway, but this is still quite a mark against their license.
Of course, I'll stick with the GPL for most everything I write.
Apple has made a tremendous step toward legitimizing the Open Source movement in the minds of major businesses and enterprise shops in its decision to open the lower layers of its next-generation operating system.
At the same time, it provides a core OS for free for the tinkerer, and I believe that at least those tinkerers who have come onto the Darwin mailing lists will not only add value to the Darwin environment but perhaps bring some of Apple's technology back to Linux.
Yes, the license is written in such a way that it is hard to understand and can be misconstrued. Bruce Perens has said many times now that he and others are working with Apple to help them revise the license to better support Open Source's ideology.
This company- which has endured tremendous abuse on the Slashdot forums- witness the transition of the most popular argument from "Apple is overpriced" to "Apple is closed and proprietary" (so are IBM and Sun, for most of their stuff) to "Apple's license is evil and a threat to our freedoms"- has made an offer of great import to the Open Source community... "Here. Here is the source code to everything that makes our OS run. You can use the technology for your purposes and we get some of your innovations and bug fixes too."
Of course they keep the top layer. This is a company that NEEDS to make money in order to survive. Unlike a band of programmers unified only by their passion for the project- with no corporate expenses to pay- Apple must pay for its very survival. And it does so by maintaining control of the GUI and high-level layers of the OS. That's why the argument "I'll think they're serious about Open Source when they give away the entire source for the Mac OS" doesn't fly.
Apple has made great strides- perhaps they still have a distance to come, but I don't see why they need to be continually attacked for their efforts.
I do understand, however, the viewpoint of the GNU people, whose very purpose is the same as the ant-establishmentarians from the 60s- to provide a radical counterpart to the closed corporate culture that prevails. They embrace an extreme that substitutes the cry "freedom of code" for "free love."
Apple, by its very nature, can not be Free Software because they need to retain some control over the code they release. Unlike a lone programmer, Apple has billions in assets to lose over a patent lawsuit.
But the company can, and is trying to embrace the ideals of Open Source. I think, despite the initial stumblings, that Apple will continue to refine its license and move closer toward those ideals.
Let's wait and see. Perhaps Apple is making an effort to break from its past mistakes. Based on its performance and actions in the past year, I'd bet they really are trying.
I find it very disappointing that Apple reserves the right to revoke a developer's license at any time. That makes it pretty scary to devote your time to a project only to find out that Apple changed its mind after six months of work.
For crying out loud, read the license, people! Apple can't do that!!! If you'll look at the license, the only time Apple can terminate a license is if it has evidence that a developer has violated a patent (might I add that if they didn't do this they would be breaking the law), and they can only terminate the license to that developer (plus remove that bit of code, which was illegal to add to the codebase anyway.).
OK, I suppose I've sort of got a vested interest in this if you want to call it that. I do use Apple hardware for personal use. Boycotting is absolutely the wrong thing to do if you ever want to see mainstream companies start to embrace Open Source or GPL or any other similar license. I'm not saying that you've got to accept what their license offers, or contribute to it or sing songs of apple pie and motherhood about it. A few companies are taking their first baby steps towards free software. Yes, they are doing it because they see the possibility of some tangible benefit. They owe that to their employees, stock holders and customers.
Rather than boycott support the efforts of people like Bruce Perens in getting Apple (and other companies) to change the offensive parts of their license agreements. This is new to them, its new to the corporate lawyers. It's even new to the traditional Open Source community. Apple, Netscape, Sun, IBM and all the other companies that are taking their first steps towards open source face difficulties different from what a lone coder or an unassociated group of coders face. They can be sued by a variety of entities: stock holders; customers; competition.
The license will change and for the better. I'm sure of it. Or Apple's open source will fade away into obscurity. I'm sure of that too. The open source community needs examples of companies making a success at open source. It doesn't need examples of companies that either got out of open source because of boycotts or law suits or went under because they went open source. It will happen eventually of course, failures happen, but right now everybody needs some success stories.
Leave the boycotts for televangelists and their campaign against childrens TV shows or uneducated house wives and prime time TV.
If SPI is not acting, it is probably because they want to think and discuss for a long time before they do anything. They are certainly aware of what is going on. I, however, do not speak for them.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
There will be lots of specious patent suits, that is the nature of the U.S. software patent system. Some future Apple management could decide to fold up its tents for any one of these suits. We want to get good wording now so that this could never happen.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
16000 approvals of the license means that people clicked through the license page on the way to downloading the software to get a look at it. It doesn't mean that many of those 16000 people would contribute their own work on the software, given the current license. But it's a good thing to say at the stockholders meeting where nobody understands this anyway.
Apple is still listening to comment on the APSL and does not intend to leave it at 1.0 forever, although Avi might not be aware of that.
So far, CMP has done two of the worst stories on this topic, and they don't write back when I write them.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
...is on Apple's Public Source list so he's helping from the inside. He posts frequently and there's a good conversation going on about the various contentions brought up here and others /. may not have considered. And it's refreshingly free of A.C.'s :-) Even with mod's I still see the occasional lame A.C. post here. On the maillist there are people you can recognize from the community and names you can associate projects with. I'm glad I joined it.
This is a grave threat to the OSS movement. One of it's central tenets isn't the mere release of source code to the public - but the rights to contribute to the source ->AND- make use of that code in a useful way independently of the creators, and without many restrictions.
Apple's license must be repealed or boycotted immediately. They have capitalized on a personality dispute to call this "open source" - we need to hold to our definition of it, and reject apple's interpretation. Eric, you're wrong - Debian and RMS, whom both authored the definition(s) of open source both agree this is not open source.
I urge everyone to boycott Apple's license. It does not meet the *community's* definition of what open source is. We need to signal that to them politely, but firmly.
And let's hope nobody else tries this for a long time after that...
--
The GNU people unfortunatly don't look at things this way. Most of them can't seem to understand why the GPL can't be used for everything.
The whole Troll Tech/QT thing taught me how unreasonable they could be. Troll was semi-open source. These people treated it as though it came from Bill Gates himself.
So Troll went back and came up with a new license that RMS himself said was acceptable. And I STILL see many of these people complain about how awful the Troll's QPL is. Troll tried to do the right thing, and for that they get so much hate thrown there way it's unbelievable.
Now apparently it's Apples turn.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I think it will be very difficult to get a license without the termination clause past company lawyers.
I can't blame them for having it. It's very specific as to what can cause Apple to terminate there are three conditions. 1) User fails to comply (reasonable) 2 & 3) User engages in patent or copyright infringement, and Apple cannot secure the necessary rights. (If Apple has liability, then this is necessary)
The license doesn't say that Apple can revoke the license at any time for any reason.
I suspect that the GPL could be struck down in court because it doesn't offer a reasonable way out, but I'm not a lawyer.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
First the APSL should be, at this time, considered a rough alpha cut at best. It would be foolish to believe that Apple would not make amends to at least fix some of the "wording" issues that ESR has pointed out.(then we'll determine the degree, if any, of ESR's duplicity)
But what of the perspective you describe? How much money does Apple make off its Operating System divsion. I'd be mighty surprised if they made a profit on upgrades that is significant in comparison to profits on hardware sales. In their case, the OS is included as part of the cost of manufacturing. Contrast that with Microsoft, who makes a profit on every systems sold by other people.
So, how does keeping the higher-level parts of their operating system proprietary keep them alive? You say it is because having the higher-level portions on only one platform force users to buy their hardware to get the Mac interface.
Let's do a mind experiment:
Suppose Apple releases all of _their_ code under the GPL License. Company A does what Apple fears most-ports the whole shebang to x86. Now, since the code is under the GPL, the features of the new port will be folded main tree.
Now we have competition independent of software ( any software written for the Mac can now be targeted at either platform). As the companies rush to improve their support for the latest hardware technologies, drivers and new features to support the hardware are incorporated into MacOS. Both platforms, Mac-i386 and Mac-PPC benefit. Any software written for MacOS runs on both sets of hardware.
The result? Consumer choice and higher quality software, as well as programmer freedom.
What does Apple live off of by not exposing the upper levels of its software? Control and monopoly over a customer desiring their interface.
I know I must sound like a Stallmanista right now, but look at what differentiates Apple from a PC vendor. Different hardware, an easy interface, and , most of all, brand recognition. Freeing the higher levels of their OS deprives them of none of those, and will eventually result in a higher quality OS that Apple can use to trump Microsoft's PC lackeys with.
I'm a little confused by this:
:)
SPI still owns the Open Source trademark. Ask the USPTO.
(I'm assuming that you're referring to the United States Patent and Trademark Office?...I've never actually heard of such a place (what being Canadian), but it's the only expansion that made sense in this context
I was under the impression that you (Bruce) had handed over ownership of the trademark to Eric. On the front page of the opensource.org website, there's the following paragraph:
---
The phrase `open source' has been registered as a certification mark. You can examine the Open Source Definition that sets the conditions for use of this mark. You can read about software that qualifies and our branding program.
---
Yet on this page of the SPI website, it appears that the trademark ownership is still in dispute.
Should the resolution of this dispute be of fairly high priority? I mean, yeah, the APSL is being disputed, but if it -weren't- being disputed, would Eric be able to officially dub it "open source" if the OSI doesn't own/control the trademark?
Why hasn't this been resolved? The SPI page is dated Nov 24 1998. What's the current status of the dispute? Who is actually officially and legally in control of the mark?
- deb
There is a lot of talk happening (usually voiced by critics of the whole free/open source thing) about the forking of code and how the various versions of Linux (etc) are a bad thing that will lead to a fracturing of the movement. I, personally, don't know if this is true, but it is something to keep our collective eye on.
What worries me is that the Free Software and Open Source movements are going to be more damaged by license forking. The GPL made this whole thing possible. Will the introduction of all these new licenses (NPL, MPL, QPL, APSL, NCL, etc.) end up muddying the waters and diluting the power and meaning of the movement? If every corporation who jumps into the frey is allowed to introduce their own customized version of an "open source" license, will the One True License (GPL) get lost in the background while various factions bicker about the validity of each new corporate open source license to be issued?
Obviously it's a major victory that corporations are beginning to embrace the idea of open source. But what happens when they begin to "embrace and extend" (see Halloween Docs I & II)? The APSL scares me a little because (if I understand it correctly), Apple has built into the APSL the provision that they can revoke anyone's license at any time. This feels like an "extension" to me.
If Apple can build this into their "open source" license, chances are the next corporation will do the same, and so on and so forth.
Now, granted, if programmers don't like the terms of the license, they don't have to work on the code. The community is going to "vote with their feet", as it were, on each license that comes out.
But will dubbing each of these licenses "open source" not possibly dilute the meaning of the term?
If the trademark is in dispute (between the OSI and the SPI and, possibly, the Open Source Solutions people) and if it's possible that the meaning of the term is going to be diluted...well...
Maybe we need a different term that -isn't- being disputed, and maybe we need to formulate an extremely rigorous set of conditions under which that term can be used. When someone wants refer to a license using the term, it has to be discussed not only amongst the higher ups of a single organization, but discussed and debated and argued in an open forum by the members of this community.
Or something.
I'm just concerned that:
a) the term "open source" ends up becoming nothing but another bit of marketing-speak
b) the term "open source" ends up being a commonly used term over which the community has no control (in terms of the ownership disputes)
c) newcomers and the press get confused about what the free software/open source movement is really all about.
- deb
It seems unfortunate to me that, at this point, ESR's role seems primarily to welcome people into the community without ensuring that they fully understand what works and what doesn't.
It's attractive to try to get commercial organizations to buy into open source, but if the licenses have serious problems, I'm not clear we're really getting them to buy in at all.
I think it's pretty obvious that this is just the first version of the license, and that Apple is aware that everyone has a lot of concerns. The GPL didn't develop overnight, and I don't expect that the APSL should either. Give them a little time to update it and work on it. If in 3-6 months the main concerns haven't been met, then there's a problem, but after only a few weeks it's too soon to say that things are set in stone.
-- sudo.ca
It's my opinion that this ongoing debate about "open source" vs. "free software" is pointless. (Yeah, that'll draw flames-- but I can take it.)
Hear me out. The issue is, and always has been, the question of what rights the owner of a packet of software should be recognized to have. The GPL and other OSD licenses are all about protecting the rights of the owners of the software they cover-- they are not about protecting the software itself. The APSL is no exception.
We have this nomenclature that promotes a certain kind of muddle-headed thinking about what makes the GPL and its ilk into a special class of software license. We're using terms like "open source" and "free software" to describe the effect of the license on the software. We should instead be using terminology that describes the effect the license has on the owners and the users.
What are these licenses designed to do? They're trying to ensure that the users of the software are also basically the owners. To do that, they have to play crazy games with copyright and software licensing law that were designed for the completely opposite purpose. For example... I use emacs, the copyright for which is asserted by the Free Software Foundation. Do I have a claim of ownership? Or does the license merely extend to me all the privileges as a user that I might want out of ownership? The latter, I think.
There has been a lot of noise from various sources about termination clauses, especially in the APSL-- though it should be noted again that the GPL has a [different] termination clause of its own. Why do these licenses have termination clauses? Because the owners of the software are trying to protect their rights and limit their liabilities in the face of patent dispute.
You'd think we'd all recognize that for the prudence it is. Some of us are radical enough to cast suspicion on the patent process itself as the source of this problem-- but there's a thorny issue there. The legal tradition of patent protection for software is a long and well-established one, i.e. it goes back hundreds of years.
Attacking it is almost like attacking the notion of private real estate. Here is a sharp stick. Go poke Mr. Cyclops in the eye and call him "One Eye"-- I will wait for you here.
We have to muddle through this problem the best we can, but it would help if we all tried to remember whose rights we're trying to protect with these nifty licenses-- including the APSL: users.
If Apple wasn't at all interested in using its ownership of some of the code in Darwin to help protect the rights of users to read and modify the code they are using, then I submit you would have seen a very different license agreement for acquiring the source code.
And we wouldn't see leading lights in the "open source" movement taking any notice of it whatsoever, let alone quibbling in public over whether the termination clause grants too much control to an allegedly capricious and malevolent profit-driven enterprise.
jhw
First of all, let me look at the termination issue:
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.
However, nowhere is Affected Original Code defined in the license. Theoretically, then, if somepone sued Apple over some part of the ELisp parser in Emacs, Apple could claim that this affects the entire Original Code and thus cancel your license for the entire Darwin project! Not cool at all.
Now for the other question, namely "Is it Open Source?" I'll go line by line straight from the Open Source Definition:
1. Free Redistribution
The license may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
True, by section 4. "You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code not covered..."
2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of downloading the source code, without charge, via the Internet. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
Probably false, as obfuscated source code is not expressly forbidden by the APSL. This is potentially a major oversight. I would assume that notifying Apple where your source code is would satisfy the "well-publicized" section of the definition.
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
True. By definition of "Modifications" and section 4, modifications and derived works are allowed. In Section 2,
(b) include a copy of this License with every copy of Source Code of Covered Code and documentation You distribute, and You may not offer or impose any terms on such Source Code that alter or restrict this License or the recipients' rights hereunder, except as permitted under Section 6;
means not only that you "may" but you MUST use the same license, except you can charge for support and the like.
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code.
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
True; it allows both modified source code and object code distributions as long as the source code is freely available and you tell Apple where your source code is. The APSL prohibits you from calling your modifications "Apple Darwin" but you can call it "Bob's Darwin".
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups.
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
True, as there's no explicit language saying this and I believe cdrom.com and other ftp sites that still accept incoming files have enough FTP space to host the modified source code.
6. 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor.
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Although there is the following clause:
You acknowledge that the Original Code is not intended for use in the operation of nuclear facilities, aircraft navigation, communication systems, or air traffic control machines in which case the failure of the Original Code could lead to death, personal injury, or severe physical or environmental damage.
This does not expressly prohibit you, only strongly discourages you, from using the Code in such a stupid way.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product.
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.
This is true; nothing prevents you from using only one file or program from Darwin.
9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software.
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
True; the license says in Section 4 " In each such instance, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code or any portion thereof." So other software distributed with Darwin can have any license whatsoever.
So going real strictly by the definition, the APSL is NOT open source because it allows obfuscated source code in the Modifications. Other than that, Apple is right about the License being Open Source.
However, as this shows quite clearly, the Open Source definition DOES NOT guarantee "free software". In order for this to be free software, for starters the termination clause must be eliminated. The trouble with patent infringements is that the parties are usully gagged from talking about the specifics of the suit, especially if there never is a trial. That means that Apple wouldn't be able to tell us what portions of the code would be affected, and hence would just say, "The APSL has been revoked for all Darwin source code due to patent litigation. NEENER NEENER NEENER!!!" Modifying it to say that only each file that contains Affected Source Code, or each function or object, is both impractical because then the project won't work, and can be easily gotten around by Apple by claiming that all files, or functions. or objects contain Affected Original Code(tm) and must be disposed of.
Other things that would make this free software would be forcing Apple to use the same terms as anyone else for this software and eliminating the requirement that Apple be notified when the software is deployed.
So, to sum up:
BUG REPORT: APSL
OVERVIEW: The APSL contains 2 potentially serious bugs. First of all, the APSL does not prohibit licensees from writing modifications as deliberately obfuscated source code. This results in compromising the openness of the source code.
The second bug is that the APSL contains a termination clause. This termination clause allows Apple to terminate the license for portions of the code if a patent infringement lawsuit concerning the Affected Original Code(tm) has been brought against Apple. In certain circumstances, (like Apple feels like it), this can result in the termination of the license for the entire Source Code, regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit.
WORKAROUNDS: None.
FIX: Substitute software covered by the GPL, BSD-style, or X-style licenses for software covered by the APSL. If a suitable replacement cannot be found, write a clone of the APSLed program that is covered by one of these licenses.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
First of all, this is not a grave threat to the OSS movement. At the worst, nobody will use Apple's code. What this would result in would simply be a percieved failure of corporate value from open source licensing. If Apple bows out of the open source game, the only people who are hurt are the people who agreed with Apple's licence and worked on the code.
Having said that, I think that with some cooperation and thought, Apple could actually be a boon to the OSS movement. If they are willing to change their license to reflect the reasonable desires of the community, a great amount of credibility would be given to the concept of open source.
I'm not talking about Bruce Perens or any of the others who have been using their reasoning skills on this issue. I think that the people doing the damage to the OSS movement right now are the zealots. Zealots on any side of an issue generally hurt the cause they're intending to help. The open source movement doesn't need more zealots.
Just a thought
obscure images/cDc obscure@cultdeadcow.com www.cultdeadcow.com
I'm amazed at how many people in the smiling, benevolent Linux "community" of which you speak seem to get so pissed off when the new kids come play in the sandbox and ask to use the toys a bit differently than you do. I'm also amazed at how the words "open source" can be so rigid.
Bruce, I've disagreed with many of your comments, but here I have to agree with everything you've said. In my comments, I have emphasized again and again that this /is/ a first version of the license. If people will give Apple a chance to update it, they may (Notice I say /May/) be pleasantly surprised.
/hard/ look, and almost certainly change some of the problems.
I have been accused by many people of 'owning stock in Apple' or 'thinking they can do no wrong'. This is not true. I am simply an optimist who happens to prefer this OS and this company. Despite what many people say, this company cares about their users. They design an OS that works as smoothly as possible, and require the least hassle to learn. Is this a bad thing? No. I choose to feel that they will do the same thing with this license. If the community will present well reasoned, politely phrased objections, Apple will give it a good
--
Matthew Walker
My DNA is Y2K compliant
Matthew Walker
http://www.tweeterdiet.com/ - My Diet Tracking Tool