Slashdot Mirror
APSL 1.1 Released
blaster writes "Apple has released version 1.1 of the APSL which has revisions to the notification and termination clauses. " Can we sic debian-legal on it? Hopefully, Apple has addressed all the concerns of
the community, but I am no lawyer, and that thing looks waaay too long.
Section 6 only says you can charge for distribution and stuff like that, so once again, although a bit more ponderous than the GPL, this sucker is a step in the right direction. Glad to see something good come of all the bitching and moaning that was done, besides embarassing all the self-proclaimed leaders of the Free Software community.
Hey. There was another thread here less than five hours ago. It's disapeared. I guess it wasn't generating the kind of lively debate that some folks had hoped for.
And it still isn't.
And...this is the best part...get this...there was a post in the original thread saying there wouldn't be a debate until the list of approved initials comment on it. That until BP or ESR or OSI or Debian tell folks what to think no one will know whether or not to love it or to hate it. And yet that's just what the repost says..."Hey, what does somebody else think of this?"
Without an "official" response from the approved list of "leaders" the discussion has been light, informative and intelligent.
I think there's a story in here about how sheep like many of the commentors here are. Without direction from above about how great or terrible this revised liscense is people are forced to think for themselves.
Well, I'm capable of making my own assessment. Thanks. Thinking for myself, coupled with context clues pretty much get me by. And here's what I've realized.
Linux/GNU and OpenSource and free software are about making your own way, the freedom to code to use, to speak, and to think without commercial constraint. What I've gathered so far is that the "leadership" within Linux is more involved in the politics than the ideals.
Well...Leadership Sucks. Apple has in my opinion set me free of concerns I had. Now I'm going to go code.
What a wonderful night.
That's exactly the problem. With a license that length, I'd have to hire a lawyer to figure out what exactly it says. The chances of me contributing code to a project that requires me to pay a lawyer in order to know what I'm contributing to are not very good.
I don't think many developers want to have to figure out a new license for *every* project they want to contribute to, so as more and more new licenses proliferate, the projects with established licenses that are already well-understood (GPL, BSD, Artistic License, etc.) will probably have an advantage.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
...you just need to be patient. This license does appear to address the major concerns that were raised with regard to version 1.0, but there are still smaller issues. Off the top of my head:
1) Cumbersome notification requirements. It has been pointed out that the notification requirement is an obstacle to rapid development-- the model of: "grab a bunch of code, combine it in nifty new ways, and hang it out on the net" becomes: "grab a bunch of code, combine it in nifty ways, check all licenses involved, fill out all necessary virtual paperwork, write all legally required documentation, and hang it out on the net." Much less appealing, but probably necessary for Large Corporate Entities.
2) Non-reciprocal notification requirements. You are required to notify Apple of your modifications, but Apple is not required to share them in turn with others. This violates the spirit, if not the letter of the DFSG/OSD
3) Disclosure required for *deployment*. While I can understand Apple's position here, I think that there are many instances in which a company might internally deploy modified code covered by GPL/XFree/other only so long as the license does not require them to disclose their modifications to any external party. Code covered by GPL/BSD/other licenses fits this requirement, while code covered by the APSL does not. While some might percieve this as making the APSL more open, others will percieve it as making the APSL less free. Both views have merit.
4) The new license has not been accompanied by any indication that Apple might be willing to shift code that they have not substantially altered back to its original BSD license, or in any other way acknowledge the contributors to the BSD project who did the bulk of the work behind the "Darwin" product. There is, by design, no legal obligation to do this, of course, but I think there is a strong moral obligation that has not been addressed.
There are other issues as well, and I encourage you to find them and bring them to light as you consider or debate the points enumerated above.
Say I write some code and release it under the GPL. Hundreds of people download it, modify it, and release their versions. Then, I'm informed that some lines of my code infringe on a patent. That's where the problem starts.
I'm no lawyer, but I believe that the patent holder could sue me, and the lawsuit could be stronger (for lack of a better word) because I allowed other people to use this patent-infringing code without any way for the patent holder to know who they are. With the APSL, I could then tell the patent holder, "Hey, it's not such a big deal, I know everyone who's using the code and I can tell them to wait."
If I ever release any code as "open source", I will definitely use the APSL instead of the GPL, because the APSL will protect me more in a legal battle.
--
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
Alan Cox and I are in Reykjavik, Iceland speaking at a Linux and Open Source conference. It's been an adventure. Pictures next week.
This version of the APSL looks much better. I've downloaded a copy and will go over it in detail, but from my first reading, the things I complained about (with Debian and SPI folks) seem to have been addressed. Thanks, Apple!
I'll be back on Sunday.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
Is it me, or are people being open-minded and giving Apple a chance? This is in sharp contrast to what I've been seeing in these Apple-related articles lately.
I'm sure a whole mob of people (anonymous cowards and non-cowards alike) will descend on this story with all sorts of Apple-hate postings, but it's nice to see that some of the people here are willing to recognize a good thing when they see it.
Good deal!
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
9.1 Infringement. If any portion of, or functionality implemented by, the Original Code
becomes the subject of a claim of infringement, Apple may, at its option: (a) attempt to
procure the rights necessary for Apple and You to continue using the Affected Original
Code; (b) modify the Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing; or (c)
suspend Your rights to use, reproduce, modify, sublicense and distribute the Affected
Original Code until a final determination of the claim is made by a court or
governmental administrative agency of competent jurisdiction and Apple lifts the
suspension as set forth below.
this means, in other words, that if someone claims that any part of the source infringes on his copyright or patents, then apple has the right to suspend your use of this piece of code. note that it is not necessary that this someone actually proves that the code infringes! all apple needs to take the code away from you is to find someone willing to CLAIM an infringement. then apple can suspend your rights until the case is settled, which can take a very long time, as we all know.
bye
schani
Word Counts
APSL 3231
GPL 2491
MPL 2909
NPL 3359
Judge licenses by content, not word count.
--"In dreams begin responsibilities" - Delmore Schwartz
So lets see how much of the initial furor over APSL 1.0 was just a whole bunch of people feeling threatened by a "closed" company stepping into their (not so) "open" territory or real concern that Apple didn't get it right the first time.
...
If you don't like APSL 1.1... tell Apple. they might just listen...
Here are the changes... go at it...
New Definitions:
"Affected Original Code": means only those specific portions of Original Code that allegedly infringe upon any party's intellectual
property rights or are otherwise the subject of a claim of infringement.
9.1 "Infringement"
Big changes here... (rightly so)
Basically instead of "terminating Your Rights to use the Affected Original Code" end-of-story...
They will "suspend your rights....until a final determination of the claim is made by a court or governmental administrative agency of competent jurisdiction and Apple lifts the suspension as set forth below." They clearly state that you can make any changes you wish to the code so that it no longer pisses Apple, or someone else, off.
They also clearly state that only the *portion* of the code is affected... all the code won't be yanked.
"If Apple suspends Your rights to Affected Original Code, nothing in this License shall be construed to restrict You, at Your option and subject to applicable law, from replacing the Affected Original Code with non-infringing code or independently negotiating for necessary rights from such third party.
It goes on... "Upon such final determination being made, if Apple
is legally able, without the payment of a fee or royalty, to resume use, reproduction, modification, sublicensing and distribution of the Affected Original Code, Apple will lift the suspension of rights to the Affected Original Code"
13 "Miscellaneous"
13.1 "Export Law Assurances" has been removed
Disclaimer: I'm one of the newer members of the OSI Board. I don't speak for them, at least right now I'm not.
After the APSL 1.0 situation, OSI started a mailing list to review licenses submitted to us for validation as Open Source. To subscribe, send mail to license-discuss-subscribe@opensource.org.
We had the chance to put OSI certification on the APSL 1.1 for their press release today; but because we weren't allowed to share the new license with license-discuss beforehand, we chose not to give it certification, even though we on the board were confident the new license would pass. But in the spirit of "all bugs are shallow given sufficient eyeballs", we thought it'd be best to see what the community thought of the proposed changes, specifically along the lines of conformance to the OSD.
Thanks,
Brian
I don't believe this provision is poorly worded (i.e. vague or ambiguous). The provision means what it says -- that if you file papers for a lawsuit with the clerk of a court stating a cause for patent infringement (that's what commence means under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), your APSL license is terminated automatically and without notice. Since there is no limitation in the clause that the infringement must be related to the termination, it is unlikely that a court would read that limitation into the provision.
On the other hand, as pointed out by others, it is clear that this doesn't mean that "Apple gets right to all my patents." This is not a unilateral "cross-license," which would actually prevent you from suing -- you are free to sue if you so choose, but part of the consequences are that you will lose APSL rights.
And yes, this could become a big deal if you make APSL code mission-critical. The question remains, which is the more valuable asset -- your right to sue apple for a patent, or the value of the code to your enterprise.
For the vast majority of hacker types, this is a non-issue. For the small number of hacker-inventors, there are options: (1) don't use the code, or don't use it in mission-critical applications; and (2) negotiate a separate deal with Apple, setting forth the reasons why you think they should give you the right to use the code for free while you are still suing their pants off.
A plausible argument of type two might be made. Absent such an argument, however, I see Apple's point well -- they see themselves giving away something valuable gratis, and expect a quid pro quo. If the quid is too much, don't take the quo.
This is a subtle and a clever question. I think the answer lends insight to the concern expressed earlier concerns that Apple is not required to republish changes. Consider:
If Apple were required to republish changes, then a user could turn APSL into GPL as follows:
(1) embed some GPL-ed code into a change;
(2) submit it, passing along the GPl-ed license in accordance with GPL; and
(3) apple publishes it.
Whoops, under GPL, the published software is now virused in, and itself now subject to GPL, which may mean that some of the greater restrictions of APSL no longer can apply.
I think that Apple was clearly alive to these concerns in drafting the license as they have.