What restrictions is Apple placing by means of license / copyright? The provisioning file operates off the binary its a statement of fact of the binary's checksum.
I understand how they could do it. The problem is a fully locked down computer is much less useful than an unlocked down one.
For example to maintain security they don't allow interpreters. That kills VBA which is needed or office. It kills Applescript which their general end users do use and take advantage of.
Signing code is complex, which makes the compile -> test -> debug cycle hard. For iOS that isn't a huge problem because you can run emulators on OSX, so you don't sign until late alpha / early beta? But what do you emulate OSX on?
The whole basis of not having problems with their Unix layer is macports / fink which are compiling apps all the time.
I hate to tell you this but Apple does give you that option. You can get the right to sign keys for up to 99 iphones / ipads with the iOS SDK. iTunes is the interface and the only interface. You have to provision the device and application first.
This already exists pretty much exactly like you want.
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
No the Linux kernel does not single license their code! That is not true. Section 9 of the GPL appears in the COPYING file of the Linux kernel. You could tomorrow fork the kernel and relicense your version under GPLv3. Linus has chosen not to move his kernel to v3 but that's all that's happened.
The only thing special about the Linux license is a specific comment that userspace linking with the kernel does not invoke the derived work clause.
I think that by now we've accumulated enough Real World evidence about how the GPL has utterly failed in its lofty goals of virally forcing everyone to merge code with the FSF and other projects.
I don't see that. I see steady progress for the GPL. When the GPL came out in 1984 virtually all free software was under MIT/BSD style licenses. It wasn't until 1990 that there was a core of support around the GPL at all. Linus was part of that core and his Minix replacement kernel was a definite second fiddle to the Free386 BSD kernel. There were a few tools available in 1990.
By 1995 you had the LAMP stack and that was GPLed. GCC was GPLed. By 2000 you had the creation of a GPLed desktop environment (KDE). Today you have JBOSS, MySQL, and many of the crucial components of operating systems under the GPL.
Then why wasn't OpenStep successful? Steve Jobs tried that approach.
As far as generic hardware support, they could never have gotten the drivers to work. Microsoft spends a fortune (multiple billions per year) to support buggy hardware as well as they do and that's with full vendor support. Supporting generic hardware is really really hard. Windows users have outrageous expectations due to Microsoft.
Well I'm an exception, Unix user since 1988: AIX, IRIX, SunOS, Solaris and SCO. And DOS user before that. I always have a terminal open in OSX. No question Linux has better open source stuff, but Darwinports is usable. And the desktop productivity stuff is better. A middle ground like parent said.
That's not the case at all. They are fully comptable, and the conjoined work becomes GPLv3. The GPLv3 is actually more compatible with other licenses than the GPLv2.
Reread my comment. Those were moves made during the 1997-2004 period when Apple was having a rough time. They were wonderful for open source. They did close Darwin for example.
Yep that's a good example. And if that happened to enough codecs you would end up having to create a whole module architecture to keep it separate and likely LGPL that architecture. Which of course given GPLed codecs and a LGPL module architecture would make it easy for someone to take those whole layers and add them to a GPLed application....
That's how it is supposed to work. You are just in an early phase.
Not really. Their developer licenses (Microsoft QBasic, Visual Basic, C/C++, etc...) were for many years far more open than other company's. Their OS licenses were pretty open. The degree to which Macros + VBA + Active X allows you to transform Office is pretty open.
They ain't open source but they aren't the worst around. Most companies have gotten more open because of companies like Microsoft. Sorry to say nice stuff about Bill but it's true.
Yes the FSF has been trying the top-down approach for 30 years and has met with tremendous success. Virtually every goal for free software set in the 1980 and 1990s has been met.
Why can't you distribute GNU Go? You have to offer to distribute source code, for whatever you do. So you distribute the entire XCode project on your website. What's the problem?
The license is explicit about the form you need to supply it in. The form you were using internally. Apple didn't do that and didn't want to do that for secrecy reasons so they had to negotiate a license exemption. Happens all the time with commercial licenses.
Then you would distribute under something like the MIT license and as long as you were the primary everything would be cool. Once people started contributing their contributions would like be GPLed and very quickly you would end up with a GPLed encumbered code base so you might was well GPL the whole thing.
That romantic ideal has been realized time after time after time. Lots of companies that would rather not have met with FOSS terms have done so to save money.
They contributed code to the Samba project with the understanding it would be distributed under the GPL2, standard. They've licensed the Samba team under the GPL2. The Samba team is perfectly within their rights.
Slashdot Mirror
What restrictions is Apple placing by means of license / copyright? The provisioning file operates off the binary its a statement of fact of the binary's checksum.
I understand how they could do it. The problem is a fully locked down computer is much less useful than an unlocked down one.
For example to maintain security they don't allow interpreters. That kills VBA which is needed or office. It kills Applescript which their general end users do use and take advantage of.
Signing code is complex, which makes the compile -> test -> debug cycle hard. For iOS that isn't a huge problem because you can run emulators on OSX, so you don't sign until late alpha / early beta? But what do you emulate OSX on?
The whole basis of not having problems with their Unix layer is macports / fink which are compiling apps all the time.
I don't see it.
Every author included that statement its section 9 of the GPLv2. The options under the GPL are
X or later
X or another GPL license
Read the context we aren't disagreeing you are agreeing with me.
I hate to tell you this but Apple does give you that option. You can get the right to sign keys for up to 99 iphones / ipads with the iOS SDK. iTunes is the interface and the only interface. You have to provision the device and application first.
This already exists pretty much exactly like you want.
Well you are already at 5. I've been doing the GPL vs. BSD stuff, but this should be the lead comment since it clearly explains the why.
That's not what it says
No the Linux kernel does not single license their code! That is not true. Section 9 of the GPL appears in the COPYING file of the Linux kernel. You could tomorrow fork the kernel and relicense your version under GPLv3. Linus has chosen not to move his kernel to v3 but that's all that's happened.
The only thing special about the Linux license is a specific comment that userspace linking with the kernel does not invoke the derived work clause.
See section 9 of the GPL.
I don't see that. I see steady progress for the GPL. When the GPL came out in 1984 virtually all free software was under MIT/BSD style licenses. It wasn't until 1990 that there was a core of support around the GPL at all. Linus was part of that core and his Minix replacement kernel was a definite second fiddle to the Free386 BSD kernel. There were a few tools available in 1990.
By 1995 you had the LAMP stack and that was GPLed. GCC was GPLed.
By 2000 you had the creation of a GPLed desktop environment (KDE).
Today you have JBOSS, MySQL, and many of the crucial components of operating systems under the GPL.
Where do you see failure. As for Linux not in other areas your first example was financial: http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/new-york-stock-exchange-moves-to-linux.html
Then why wasn't OpenStep successful? Steve Jobs tried that approach.
As far as generic hardware support, they could never have gotten the drivers to work. Microsoft spends a fortune (multiple billions per year) to support buggy hardware as well as they do and that's with full vendor support. Supporting generic hardware is really really hard. Windows users have outrageous expectations due to Microsoft.
mount works just open up a terminal. You are still on a Unix.
No question Apple almost died. It was a very sick company when Steve Jobs came back and it took years to turn it around.
Well I'm an exception, Unix user since 1988: AIX, IRIX, SunOS, Solaris and SCO. And DOS user before that. I always have a terminal open in OSX. No question Linux has better open source stuff, but Darwinports is usable. And the desktop productivity stuff is better. A middle ground like parent said.
That's not the case at all. They are fully comptable, and the conjoined work becomes GPLv3. The GPLv3 is actually more compatible with other licenses than the GPLv2.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png
Reread my comment. Those were moves made during the 1997-2004 period when Apple was having a rough time. They were wonderful for open source. They did close Darwin for example.
Yep that's a good example. And if that happened to enough codecs you would end up having to create a whole module architecture to keep it separate and likely LGPL that architecture. Which of course given GPLed codecs and a LGPL module architecture would make it easy for someone to take those whole layers and add them to a GPLed application....
That's how it is supposed to work. You are just in an early phase.
Not really. Their developer licenses (Microsoft QBasic, Visual Basic, C/C++, etc...) were for many years far more open than other company's. Their OS licenses were pretty open. The degree to which Macros + VBA + Active X allows you to transform Office is pretty open.
They ain't open source but they aren't the worst around. Most companies have gotten more open because of companies like Microsoft. Sorry to say nice stuff about Bill but it's true.
Yes the FSF has been trying the top-down approach for 30 years and has met with tremendous success. Virtually every goal for free software set in the 1980 and 1990s has been met.
Why can't you distribute GNU Go? You have to offer to distribute source code, for whatever you do. So you distribute the entire XCode project on your website. What's the problem?
The license is explicit about the form you need to supply it in. The form you were using internally. Apple didn't do that and didn't want to do that for secrecy reasons so they had to negotiate a license exemption. Happens all the time with commercial licenses.
Then you would distribute under something like the MIT license and as long as you were the primary everything would be cool. Once people started contributing their contributions would like be GPLed and very quickly you would end up with a GPLed encumbered code base so you might was well GPL the whole thing.
Actually it does apply to LGPL code. LGPL code just removes the linking restrictions.
That romantic ideal has been realized time after time after time. Lots of companies that would rather not have met with FOSS terms have done so to save money.
They contributed code to the Samba project with the understanding it would be distributed under the GPL2, standard. They've licensed the Samba team under the GPL2. The Samba team is perfectly within their rights.