User: Chip Salzenberg

One Question

On: Microsoft's New Audio Format Cracked

What was Microsoft thinking?!

And So It Begins

On: SGI to Dump NT Workstation Business, Move to Linux

Some have been predicting the end of proprietary Unixes as the inevitable result of Linux's path to World Domination.

Here it is, beginning already.

Won't we all be better off when the various Unix vendors are contributing to a shared code base? I know I will. :-)

Re: Remove moc? I don't think so.

On: KDE & GNOME Cooperate

That can't be right ... moc is a vital part of the Qt architecture. So as long as KDE is built on Qt, I don't see how you can get away from moc.

Unless, of course, Qt 2.0 is very different from Qt 1.x in this aspect....

Perl supports UTF-8, not limited to 16 bit chars

On: Microsoft Embraces and Extends Perl

Perl's new Unicode support -- which is already in the development sources -- is mostly in the form of support for UTF-8 encoding. The neat thing about UTF-8 is that it is NOT limited to 16-bit Unicode. It's an encoding-neutral way to put big (up to 40-some bit) characters into an otherwise ASCII byte stream.

So if Unicode grows beyond 16 bits -- which I'm sure it will -- Perl's UTF-8 support will already be there, ready to support it.

In other words: Don't Panic.

OSI has not endorsed it

On: Wired on Apple OSS License Revisions

As a board member of OSI, I'd know if OSI had endorsed the APSL 1.1.

We haven't. Not yet, anyway. We're still listening to public comments, such us on the <license-discuss@opensource.org> mailing list.

Rest of the article -- NOT OK!

On: Apple's Open Source Stew

SPI is not interested in fighting with OSI. The reporter took an opinion of a random Debian developer as SPI official opinion.

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

Who is really tearing this license open?

On: RMS on APSL

Easy: The person who pushes the "Accept" button on the publicsource.apple.com web site is tearing, er, clicking the license, thereby entering into a contractual relationship with (in this case) Apple.

And that person is therefore responsible for any failures to follow the license terms in the distribution of his copy of the licenced source.

Non-copyright-based licenses probably do not have much chance of success...

That's interesting speculation. I assume that you would post the legal reasoning or case law behind it, if you had any.

RMS missed the boat on copyright

On: RMS on APSL

Copyright is not relevant to the APSL.

The APSL is a shrinkwrap, er, clickwrap contract. By downloading the code under APSL terms, the downloader agrees to give up certain rights that would be givens under copyright law.

Since the APSL isn't a copyright-based license, "fair use" and other copyright-based concepts do not apply.

-- Chip Salzenberg, a director of OSI

It's got the ugly termination clause

On: Open Source Apple (part 2)

Apple's termination clause only applies to the specific code affected by a specific IP claim.

IBM and Sun pull whole products. Apple pulls a subroutine -- and replaces it.

So, something here is ugly, but it's not a termination clause...

Termination Clause is OK

On: Open Source Apple (part 2)

... because all it says is that only Affected Code may be withdrawn from use if there's an IP claim against it. Not all of Darwin.

Guess what -- that's what would happen anyway! Apple is just spelling out what others leave unsaid.

While Sun's and IBM's licenses threaten to pull entire products if there are IP claims against them, Apple's license doesn't. This is good.

The APSL is praiseworthy, and it is Open Source.

-- Chip Salzenberg, a Director of Open Source Initiative