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.
...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.
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.
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