Emulation is just fine for me, as long as no NDAs were broken to create the emulator. Even though I'm no fan of NDAs in general, you have to play by the laws still (or try civil disobedience and wind up in jail).
I wonder if (a) the emulator would play genuine Japanese imports as well (imports != warez) or if it's US-only and (b) if the graphics would be bug-for-bug compatible or the ugly polygon distortion found in every Playstation racing game ever made would be fixed.
I probably wouldn't pay for the emulator though. I'd much rather see a Free Software version. That way if it sucks I could chuck it or try to fix it -- either way all I would lose is time. (A lot more time for the latter...)
Ha. Here we have to take circuit analysis regardless of whether we're doing Computer Engineering or Electrical Engineering! That means an entire semester wasted analyzing non-DC circuits, when the time could be better spent playing Xpilot... er... admin'ing my very own Solaris/X86 box. oops:) The other black mark is that all courses are done in Java now, when 1% of all applications are actually written in it! Unfortunately the "useful" alternative would have been C++^H^H^HVisual C++...:(
What I really want to do is design an OS that will blow Microsoft out of the water. Of course learning how the CPU decodes a machine-language instruction through a microprogram has little to do with this (too low level). Neither does anything having to do with Java (too high level). Methinks I should have been a Computer Scientist, but there probably isn't a scholarship for those. I won my engineering scholarship in a contest, so now I can't change without it costing my parents an extra $7000 a year. Of course, then I would have had to put up with JavaStations (yes, WE'RE the ones that bought them) instead of NT workstations but at least you can use GoJoe (an EXTREMELY slow X-server) to get to the Solaris server.
Oh yeah, we're a Type I school because all anyone does is drink and the physics and chemistry departments suck. Guess that explains why I'm less than satisfied here. It was cheap and close -- exactly the wrong criteria for choosing a college. I've probably learned more useful things from running Linux & the BSDs & Solaris (not all at the same time) on my home computer and from trying to get Wine running on Solaris than from going to class. Sigh.
Someone needs to whack ESR with the Clue Hammer(tm) real soon now. We can't have a "leader" that responds to criticism with even ugly character defamation, let alone what looks like the threat of violence.
I don't really care how many lines of code ESR has done in his life, that doesn't make him qualified to be the "leader" (read: dictator) of the Open Source movement. Really, I don't see what programming experience has to do with it at all. I bet all that coding made him less social in fact. He sure does act like he's 31337 or something.
I'm sure this isn't helping Bruce get any of his work (whatever that may be) done. Bruce has better things to do then worry about when ESR will decide to flame him again. Once again, Bruce doesn't deserve this kind of treatment, even through private e-mail. I guess I'd have to support him on making the threat public, if only because I feel the public has the right to know about our leaders' behavior.
What we need is a leader who isn't afraid to take suggestions and can disagree with them courteously (unless they're truly insane and stupid), and is a PHB type who can explain to other PHBs all the advantages of OSS so that it actually sounds attractive, yet has enough guts to stand up against perversions of Open Source.
bah... that's WHERE DO YOU WANT TO GO TOMORROW enclosed in the H1 tag... the posting mechanism ate it even though I had it set to "Plain Old Text"...:-/
VA Research? Nah... We have a thing called Free Speech over here in the States.
Frankly, I can't believe that linux.de actually complied. Over here, you can't sue for parody (well, maybe you can sue, but you can't win). Things must be different in Germany, though.
It's real sad to see that Microsoft's scare tactics actually worked in this case...:(
I'd suggest everyone put WHERE DO YOU WANT TO GO TOMORROW??? on their web page as a protest. Yes, even if you're in Germany. Let's see what Microsoft has to say about that!
Yikes. FreeBSD has more than twice the average uptime of its nearest competitor, Linux (117 vs. 50 days).
Linux, though, has the record for longest uptime ever (730 days, 14:16 minutes and counting) So much for commercial Unices being better (though no one has a BSDI box).
This is exactly the clauses that I think Bruce should put in the Open Source Definition. Instead they end up in the FSF's definition (explanation?) of Free Software.
On the one hand, this is good, because they're finally putting down in writing what was all but obvious in the definition of Free Software, so that now no one can exploit those loopholes.
The problem with this is that no major company claims that their software is Free Software! They all claim that it is Open Source, implying that the license follows the Open Source Definition. That, folks, has not changed one bit.
This seems to me only to deepen the split between the Free Software and Open Source camps. Although in theory they are supposed to mean the same thing, in practice Free Software is much more idealistic and restrictive, while Open Source seems much more attractive to software companies because you can, relatively speaking, get away with licensing murder and still call your software Open Source, as IBM and Apple have proved. Never mind what the community says, those two companies are (ab)using the term, and that's about the end of it.
This certainly seems bad for the whole movement. I just hope it's the Slashdot goggles that are making it seem 100 times as bad as it really is. Anxiously awaiting replies from ESR and bruce....
So what you're saying is that on a HUGE portion of the things the "normal" consumer cares about (Quake and Microsoft products) the Pentium !!! is faster.
Oh well, just gimmie my K7 (unless Mac OS X is scheduled to take over the consumer market by then).
All DEs suck in one way or another
on
CDE vs Gnome
·
· Score: 1
Gnome -- 100% free. KDE -- kinda sorta free (not available for commercial use) CDE -- NOT FREE AT ALL
Ah well, Even though I like CDE best, I have to disqualify it for moral reasons.
I don't care for KDE's window styles and the fact that portions resemble Windows too much. Plus it just seems too noisy in general.
Gnome -- ARGH! You have to install 60 million other packages first, and even then the big foot wouldn't show up on the panel for me!
What's left? GNUSTEP? Two words -- NO APPLICATIONS! Plus it's not really a Desktop Environment yet...
First of all, I'd like to say that a lot of this article does make some sense, i.e. the parts about how we should show some decorum on a public forum, if only because it's true.
That bit about Perens, Jackson, Akkerman, and RMS "throwing bombs"... do I smell smoke? The rest of the article is about how we should NOT flame, and then what does he do?
You gotta love his revisionist history bit about Bruce pushing the APSL into the spotlight. Need I remind him that Apple and OSI went first in claiming that the APSL was Open Source with capital letters? Bruce was pointing out specific areas in which the APSL failed to comply with the OSD. And if you read SI's response, they only successfully refute the one where Apple goes belly-up, thus you can't publish your changes to them. As for the termination clause, what if Apple can't tell the developers which sections of the code are infringing??????? They could potentially decide to pull all the code so as not to reveal the specific code under litigation.
Bruce and I have talked right here on Slashdot, and I see nothing that deserves ESR's treatment of him in his article. Bruce is nice and terse, doesn't use loads of confusing technospeak, and DOESN'T FLAME IF SOMEONE DISAGREES WITH HIM! Ironically I was on ESR's side in those debates on the grounds that the OSD is too wide open for interpretation:-/
As for RMS... He wasn't even talking about the APSL being Open Source, he was talking about it being a Free Software License, two (unfortunately) different terms! Plus RMS wasn't flaming him either... he was actually being rational about it!
One word about the flames on Slashdot... That's what Commander Taco put "comment threshold" for. If you want to, you could read only the 3,4,and 5 star comments (though then you wouldn't see any of mine, I've never gotten above 2) and see what the intelligent people think.
Finally, I expect a "leader" to respond to any kind of criticism, friendly or hostile, in an intelligent manner. Instead ESR takes this opportunity to bash Bruce and RMS like, he says, many did to him. And even though he makes decent points about how we shouldn't flame, he does it in such a way that he doesn't sound much better than the flamers, though He hasn't used the f-word yet. Indeed, after reading through his articles, I wonder if his maturity level is really all that far above the "Slashdot kiddies". Granted, I actually enjoy reading the comments when trolls come up -- must be ESR has no sense of humor.
In conclusion, I bet ESR will think this is just another flame from a "Slashdot kiddie." Fine. I really don't care. ESR has like 0 credibility left for me after those two articles. "Ooh, I'm getting backlash from everybody now that Bruce has dragged the APSL into the spotlight!!! It's just too much! Guess I'll retire now -- Sorry, just kidding! I'm only going on vacation to practice my shooting so I can kill all the Slashdot kiddies that disagree with me!"
OK, I made that last part up, but that's about the tone of this last article. I hope he's feeling better after that vacation of his, because we need a united front before the rest of the world starts laughing at us (again)... I can hear it already... the only part of his article that I liked, BTW, although I'm sure he wants it on his terms.
After (finally) finding the OSI's response to the APSL not being Open Source, I see the difference for him, at least. In Jikes, the whole license can be cancelled if any part can possibly be the subject of infringement. In the APSL, (supposedly) only the part of the code that is directly affected by the license can be withdrawn.
Neither of which is real great. I agree that either the Open Source designation or the termination clause should be removed ASAP, or at the very minimum a clause stating what "Affected Original Code" does and does _not_ include.
Unfortunately, usually companies are advised not to (read can't) talk about infringement suits during the trial, which includes exactly what the Affected Original Code is! Big problem.
I guess all I have left to say is that, ESR's latest comments notwithstanding, I think you did the right thing by going public and saying that the APSL was not Open Source. I mean, OSI and Apple went first and claimed that it was, so that kind of opens the door for public criticism.
These are people who want a computer to be a toaster. Plug it in, and it works. When something doesn't work with their system, they flip out.
Then I guess pretty much all the computers made in the 80s were toasters then, becasue most of those you just plugged in, turned on, and they worked. Maybe you had to program them, but then again I've used the Apple//e and all you had to do is have a disk in the drive when you turned it on. Even with the Commodore 64 for most things all you had to do was type LOAD "*",8,1 and you were in business. There was nothing to fix either. If it broke, you had to take it to your local computer repair shop, where they figured out which chip was bad and replaced it. Yes, Virginia, at one time you could plug a computer in and it would work. Strangely enough, that was about the same time you could go to Service Merchandise and choose from several computers that looked AND ACTED different! Unfortunately, times change, and so far, not for the better.
So what happened? Simply put, computers got more complex, so that even if the UI appears the same, the innards aren't always. As a result there's more work for the user to do, especially if the user has to configure the system manually as is the case with Linux, as for most distributions (I don't know about Red Hat) stuff like the sound isn't configured at install time. And when the user learns that he has to recompile the kernel to get sound, it's kind of understandable that they would prefer a system that comes already configured.
It's also true, though, that people should read the HOWTOs, as they contain just about everything there is to know about anything you would ever want to use your system for, broken up neatly by category. That's how I learned Linux.
Damnit, the new SGI logo RULEZ...
on
Tuesday Quickies
·
· Score: 0
or not.
Too bad approximately 56,399,949,929,191,214,218 people have said it already. In Southerner's talk, though, that theyre thang's UGGGG-LEEEEE!
Better buy yours now before they start actually MAKING their systems with that logo on them...
This is ONE way to get the Open Source community unified. Unfortunately it is far from the ideal and definitely not what I had in mind.
I guarantee that this is a direct result of the flak he's been getting from the APSL. To his credit, the only part of Bruce's Open Source Definition that the APSL violates is the discrimination part, and even that's questionable given that the license is developed in the USA where export regulations are taken for granted. Other than that, the APSL does nothing else that the OSD SAYS it forbids it to do.
And there the problem starts. Bruce now says that his OSD implies that the license can never be terminated, and thus the APSL is not Open Source. And Eric? To my knowledge he has made no rebuttal to that. Insteads he just quits because the majority agree with Bruce. RMS doesn't really count because he was talking about the stronger concept of Free Software, and to my knowledge software can be Open Source without being Free.
Maybe I'm off base on this though. Did Bruce and Eric agree on the Jinks license, which has exactly the same problem (but _lacks_ a few others that aren't necessarily Open-Source related)? I can't find anything appropriate on Dejanews about it:(
Hardly. The way they are defining "open source" makes the APSL look like the BSD license by comparison.
According to the article, you would be able to look at the source, but you can't redistribute it at any price. This would be the biggest abuse of the term ever.
BTW, I wouldn't be surprised to see SGI's Origin 2000 for sale in your local Best Buy before Windows becomes Open Source by Bruce Peren's standards.
Although it happened after I replaced Linux with Solaris (let's just say I was having other problems and I want to get my $20 worth out of Solaris.) But maybe not -- I don't think Lynx and Netscape^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCommunicator share the same cookie jar, do they?
First of all, if the license terminates, it no longer applies. Instead, the null license, containing "All rights reserved", takes over. At that point, and not before, I would consider the license no longer being Open Source. In case you're wondering, yes, I feel the Jinks license is Open Source as well _according_to_the_current_definition_, though neither is Free Software.
Being there by implication may as well be not being there at all as far as I'm concerned. The fact is, the OSD does not contain the words "The license must not contain a clause that would allow the licensor to terminate said license arbitrarily." or a similar phrase. Come to think of it, the OSD does not even guarantee that the license allows the software to be distributed by itself! Rule 1 only guarantees distribution with an aggregation of programs from other sources, i.e. a package. Rule 8 guarantees that the program will not be restricted to distribution with a specific other program. Therefore, I could write a license that says, "You may not redistribute the Software unless a Compiler is included in the distribution.", where Compiler is defined such that any one will do, and then claim that my license is Open Source according to the OSD! And indeed, it does follow all equirements as listed for Open Source software. Clearly it is not, though, according to the spirit of Open Source.
This sort of ambiguity can ruin a software developer's day. Suppose that a developer was developing a compiler for a large computer company that wanted a single compiler for both its Minina 31 and WhizBang 666 based systems. The requirements state that it must produce machine code for both systems. So months later the developers deliver the finished compiler and the client finds out that even though the WhizBang 666 is supposed to be 3 times as fast as the Minima 31, code made with this compiler runs about the same on both systems. A heated conversation follows.
"Why is code compiled with your cmpiler so slow on the WhizBang 666?" "It runs, correct?" "Your compiler is supposed to optimize code for the WhizBang 666 so that it runs as fast as possible!" "Well, that was never stated as a requirement." "No but it was implied by saying that the compiler should produce code for both CPUs. See you in court for breach of contract."
Seems we have a similar situation here with Apple and Eric Raymond being the developers, the OSD being the requirements, and the Open Source Community the client. No lawsuits, but plenty of anger and disappointment from the clients.
May I suggest the following changes: 1. Amend Rule 1 to read "giving away the software by itself or as a component of an aggregate software distribution... other than as required or allowed elsewhere in this Definition."
2. Add rule 11: "License must not terminate." The license must not contain a clause that allows said license to be terminated for all licensees at the licensor's discretion.
With these amendments, both loopholes I mentioned are closed AND the APSL is definitely NOT open source because it violates both section 1 with its requirement that Apple be notified when the Software is made available and section 11. This also reinforces the fact that you have declared Jinks not open source.
Finally, it is sad to see the split between you and Eric Raymond, both high-ranking and highly respected members of the Open Source Initiative, the organization advocating this definition of Open Source. If you two can't agree on whether the ASPL is Open Source, what hope is there for the future of Open Source? I feel this can only lead to further abuses of Open Source (the ideal), eventually rendering the label meaningless. The two of you need to get on the same page and take a stand against this.
I was going to say something about how enforceable the termination clause is, but i'm much less sure of that than this.
I don't see how the tests would fail. If the license terminates, there no longer is a license - - pure and simple. The OSD does not say anything about terminating licenses. It does not require that the license be valid for eternity.
I still say that the OSD is simply not strong enough and is in fact the reason Open Source != Free Software.
I'm going strictly by the letter of the OSD here, which is probably what Apple and the Open Source Initiative did as well. The fact remains that the APSL contains esentially nothing explicitly forbidden by the OSD. I say again: Termination is NOT forbidden by the OSD. If anyone can read the OSD and point to the line that forbids termination , I'll retract my claim.
I'm not saying that the APSL is any good; I'm saying that the APSL is compatible with the letter of the OSD, but that alone does not make an acceptable license. There are too many other problems with the APSL that the OSD does not address.
Yes, but if your license to the Covered Code gets revoked, and you have built your software package around the Covered Code, your software package has just had its guts ripped out of it. Now you have to re-implement all those sections that depended on the Covered Code.
Not an enviable position to be in. Good thing that, even though Apple thinks I accepted the license because I had to to see what they were offering, I will not be using any of their code anytime soon.
Without an OS, GNU's software is useless. It doesn't matter if GNU is responsible for all of the utilities that are used under Linux, the fact is that without a core OS, all those GNU utilities can do is look pretty on their install medium. There's no system without the core.
And if you have the Linux kernel siting on a disk by itself -- what then? You have a box that spits out a few messages about what hardware is on the system and then just sits there, executing the idle process. Not much more useful than the GNU utilities by themselves.
To have a fully functional interactive system you need the kernel, plus some type of command interpreter, plus some commands to run. GNU software currently provides the latter two. You could also write your own or steal some from BSD, and there's no guarantee that the systems would be compatible at all. In fact, you don't _have_ to follow any UNIX format at all! Once the program being called init starts, anything can happen.
In fact, Solaris^H^H^H^H^H^H^HSunOS has 3 versions of certain tools! There is Sun's own version, an X/Open compliant version, and optionally a BSD compatible version, all of which act differently (grep takes totally different parameters depending on which you use!) The ones you use by default depends on whether/usr/bin,/usr/xpg4/bin, or/usr/ucb comes first in your PATH. I guess going by the same naming convention as GNU/Linux SunOS would be BSD/XOpen/Sun/SysVR4, but that's impossible to market;-)
Also, by your logic, Mac OS X server should be called Mach because it uses the Mach kernel.
So I maintain that GNU/Linux is the `technically' correct term for the full system. However, there is no other alternative that also uses the Linux kernel, so the two are de facto equivalent.
The article makes it sound like RMS was yelling "CALL IT GNU/LINUX OR DIE!" at anyone who called it Linux. I'm pretty sure he wan't that impolite, though I've never met him in person.
Anyway, GNU/Linux is technically correct, if only for the reason that a large group of us could take the code for the FreeBSD utils that aren't already GNU utils, do a TON of porting work, and have your very own BSD/Linux system, thanks to the freeness ofthe BSD license. At present, EVERY part of the basic Linux system is a GNU project, so GNU/Linux and Linux may as well be the same. I think RMS just wants credit where credit is due. Too bad it makes the name of the operating system harder to say;-)
Besides, his response to the APSL shows he CAN be rational.
I would have to agree that Slashdot users can be arrogant (even though the article doesn't even mention Slashdot!). Too many times have I seen someone saying something pro-Microsoft, followed by a gazillion Linux fanatics saying that there's no way in hell that what that person said is true, because Micro$loth sucks and the almighty Free Software rulez!
Need I remind you that Slashdot is "News for Nerds", not "The Pro-Linux Anti-Micros~1 Capital of the World!"
BTW, I have no favorite OS anymore. Windows sucks because it crashes way too often and takes too much HD space. (GNU/)Linux sucks because only one company has freely (as in beer) available 3-D video drivers for it. The BSDs suck because that company doesn't make drivers for them. Solaris sucks because it's slow plus has the problems of (GNU/)Linux*10 and Windows combined, at least on my x86 machine. Other "research" OSes don't compile, so they suck. MacOS sucks because you can't get real deep into the hardware and a "bus error" resets the machine automatically (is this still true?) I wish we still had the diversity in computers we had in the eighties... thanks to Microsoft, any computer store need only have one computer on display because they all work the same. There is no consumer choice anymore.
OK, sorry, that was off topic, but I needed to get that out.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
Emulation is just fine for me, as long as no NDAs were broken to create the emulator. Even though I'm no fan of NDAs in general, you have to play by the laws still (or try civil disobedience and wind up in jail).
I wonder if (a) the emulator would play genuine Japanese imports as well (imports != warez) or if it's US-only and (b) if the graphics would be bug-for-bug compatible or the ugly polygon distortion found in every Playstation racing game ever made would be fixed.
I probably wouldn't pay for the emulator though. I'd much rather see a Free Software version. That way if it sucks I could chuck it or try to fix it -- either way all I would lose is time. (A lot more time for the latter...)
I noticed that when some guy put it in in a comment and I went to check it out. I didn't go any farther though.
Ha. Here we have to take circuit analysis regardless of whether we're doing Computer Engineering or Electrical Engineering! That means an entire semester wasted analyzing non-DC circuits, when the time could be better spent playing Xpilot... er... admin'ing my very own Solaris/X86 box. oops :) The other black mark is that all courses are done in Java now, when 1% of all applications are actually written in it! Unfortunately the "useful" alternative would have been C++^H^H^HVisual C++... :(
What I really want to do is design an OS that will blow Microsoft out of the water. Of course learning how the CPU decodes a machine-language instruction through a microprogram has little to do with this (too low level). Neither does anything having to do with Java (too high level). Methinks I should have been a Computer Scientist, but there probably isn't a scholarship for those. I won my engineering scholarship in a contest, so now I can't change without it costing my parents an extra $7000 a year. Of course, then I would have had to put up with JavaStations (yes, WE'RE the ones that bought them) instead of NT workstations but at least you can use GoJoe (an EXTREMELY slow X-server) to get to the Solaris server.
Oh yeah, we're a Type I school because all anyone does is drink and the physics and chemistry departments suck. Guess that explains why I'm less than satisfied here. It was cheap and close -- exactly the wrong criteria for choosing a college. I've probably learned more useful things from running Linux & the BSDs & Solaris (not all at the same time) on my home computer and from trying to get Wine running on Solaris than from going to class. Sigh.
Someone needs to whack ESR with the Clue Hammer(tm) real soon now. We can't have a "leader" that responds to criticism with even ugly character defamation, let alone what looks like the threat of violence.
I don't really care how many lines of code ESR has done in his life, that doesn't make him qualified to be the "leader" (read: dictator) of the Open Source movement. Really, I don't see what programming experience has to do with it at all. I bet all that coding made him less social in fact. He sure does act like he's 31337 or something.
I'm sure this isn't helping Bruce get any of his work (whatever that may be) done. Bruce has better things to do then worry about when ESR will decide to flame him again. Once again, Bruce doesn't deserve this kind of treatment, even through private e-mail. I guess I'd have to support him on making the threat public, if only because I feel the public has the right to know about our leaders' behavior.
What we need is a leader who isn't afraid to take suggestions and can disagree with them courteously (unless they're truly insane and stupid), and is a PHB type who can explain to other PHBs all the advantages of OSS so that it actually sounds attractive, yet has enough guts to stand up against perversions of Open Source.
So, any takers?
bah... that's WHERE DO YOU WANT TO GO TOMORROW enclosed in the H1 tag... the posting mechanism ate it even though I had it set to "Plain Old Text"... :-/
VA Research? Nah... We have a thing called Free Speech over here in the States.
:(
Frankly, I can't believe that linux.de actually complied. Over here, you can't sue for parody (well, maybe you can sue, but you can't win). Things must be different in Germany, though.
It's real sad to see that Microsoft's scare tactics actually worked in this case...
I'd suggest everyone put
WHERE DO YOU WANT TO GO TOMORROW???
on their web page as a protest. Yes, even if you're in Germany. Let's see what Microsoft has to say about that!
Yikes. FreeBSD has more than twice the average uptime of its nearest competitor, Linux (117 vs. 50 days).
Linux, though, has the record for longest uptime ever (730 days, 14:16 minutes and counting)
So much for commercial Unices being better (though no one has a BSDI box).
I meant as in visual layout. WAY too many panels. :-)
Once you switch into x-server mode, you don't see the debuggging messages
According to the OS scanner at mailsearch.particle.net, they're running their server on AIX 4.
:(
So either their server is badly misconfigured, old hardware, or AIX just plain sucks for Web serving.
Of course, that might be inaccurate -- Netcraft can't ger the OS type
This is exactly the clauses that I think Bruce should put in the Open Source Definition. Instead they end up in the FSF's definition (explanation?) of Free Software.
On the one hand, this is good, because they're finally putting down in writing what was all but obvious in the definition of Free Software, so that now no one can exploit those loopholes.
The problem with this is that no major company claims that their software is Free Software! They all claim that it is Open Source, implying that the license follows the Open Source Definition. That, folks, has not changed one bit.
This seems to me only to deepen the split between the Free Software and Open Source camps. Although in theory they are supposed to mean the same thing, in practice Free Software is much more idealistic and restrictive, while Open Source seems much more attractive to software companies because you can, relatively speaking, get away with licensing murder and still call your software Open Source, as IBM and Apple have proved. Never mind what the community says, those two companies are (ab)using the term, and that's about the end of it.
This certainly seems bad for the whole movement. I just hope it's the Slashdot goggles that are making it seem 100 times as bad as it really is. Anxiously awaiting replies from ESR and bruce....
So what you're saying is that on a HUGE portion of the things the "normal" consumer cares about (Quake and Microsoft products) the Pentium !!! is faster.
Oh well, just gimmie my K7 (unless Mac OS X is scheduled to take over the consumer market by then).
Gnome -- 100% free.
KDE -- kinda sorta free (not available for commercial use)
CDE -- NOT FREE AT ALL
Ah well, Even though I like CDE best, I have to disqualify it for moral reasons.
I don't care for KDE's window styles and the fact that portions resemble Windows too much. Plus it just seems too noisy in general.
Gnome -- ARGH! You have to install 60 million other packages first, and even then the big foot wouldn't show up on the panel for me!
What's left? GNUSTEP? Two words -- NO APPLICATIONS! Plus it's not really a Desktop Environment yet...
First of all, I'd like to say that a lot of this article does make some sense, i.e. the parts about how we should show some decorum on a public forum, if only because it's true.
:-/
That bit about Perens, Jackson, Akkerman, and RMS "throwing bombs"... do I smell smoke? The rest of the article is about how we should NOT flame, and then what does he do?
You gotta love his revisionist history bit about Bruce pushing the APSL into the spotlight. Need I remind him that Apple and OSI went first in claiming that the APSL was Open Source with capital letters? Bruce was pointing out specific areas in which the APSL failed to comply with the OSD. And if you read SI's response, they only successfully refute the one where Apple goes belly-up, thus you can't publish your changes to them. As for the termination clause, what if Apple can't tell the developers which sections of the code are infringing??????? They could potentially decide to pull all the code so as not to reveal the specific code under litigation.
Bruce and I have talked right here on Slashdot, and I see nothing that deserves ESR's treatment of him in his article. Bruce is nice and terse, doesn't use loads of confusing technospeak, and DOESN'T FLAME IF SOMEONE DISAGREES WITH HIM! Ironically I was on ESR's side in those debates on the grounds that the OSD is too wide open for interpretation
As for RMS... He wasn't even talking about the APSL being Open Source, he was talking about it being a Free Software License, two (unfortunately) different terms! Plus RMS wasn't flaming him either... he was actually being rational about it!
One word about the flames on Slashdot... That's what Commander Taco put "comment threshold" for. If you want to, you could read only the 3,4,and 5 star comments (though then you wouldn't see any of mine, I've never gotten above 2) and see what the intelligent people think.
Finally, I expect a "leader" to respond to any kind of criticism, friendly or hostile, in an intelligent manner. Instead ESR takes this opportunity to bash Bruce and RMS like, he says, many did to him. And even though he makes decent points about how we shouldn't flame, he does it in such a way that he doesn't sound much better than the flamers, though He hasn't used the f-word yet. Indeed, after reading through his articles, I wonder if his maturity level is really all that far above the "Slashdot kiddies". Granted, I actually enjoy reading the comments when trolls come up -- must be ESR has no sense of humor.
In conclusion, I bet ESR will think this is just another flame from a "Slashdot kiddie." Fine. I really don't care. ESR has like 0 credibility left for me after those two articles. "Ooh, I'm getting backlash from everybody now that Bruce has dragged the APSL into the spotlight!!! It's just too much! Guess I'll retire now -- Sorry, just kidding! I'm only going on vacation to practice my shooting so I can kill all the Slashdot kiddies that disagree with me!"
OK, I made that last part up, but that's about the tone of this last article. I hope he's feeling better after that vacation of his, because we need a united front before the rest of the world starts laughing at us (again)... I can hear it already... the only part of his article that I liked, BTW, although I'm sure he wants it on his terms.
Jinks, Jikes, yikes!! (sorry)
After (finally) finding the OSI's response to the APSL not being Open Source, I see the difference for him, at least. In Jikes, the whole license can be cancelled if any part can possibly be the subject of infringement. In the APSL, (supposedly) only the part of the code that is directly affected by the license can be withdrawn.
Neither of which is real great. I agree that either the Open Source designation or the termination clause should be removed ASAP, or at the very minimum a clause stating what "Affected Original Code" does and does _not_ include.
Unfortunately, usually companies are advised not to (read can't) talk about infringement suits during the trial, which includes exactly what the Affected Original Code is! Big problem.
I guess all I have left to say is that, ESR's latest comments notwithstanding, I think you did the right thing by going public and saying that the APSL was not Open Source. I mean, OSI and Apple went first and claimed that it was, so that kind of opens the door for public criticism.
These are people who want a computer to be a toaster. Plug it in, and it works. When something doesn't work with their system, they flip out.
//e and all you had to do is have a disk in the drive when you turned it on. Even with the Commodore 64 for most things all you had to do was type LOAD "*",8,1 and you were in business. There was nothing to fix either. If it broke, you had to take it to your local computer repair shop, where they figured out which chip was bad and replaced it. Yes, Virginia, at one time you could plug a computer in and it would work. Strangely enough, that was about the same time you could go to Service Merchandise and choose from several computers that looked AND ACTED different! Unfortunately, times change, and so far, not for the better.
Then I guess pretty much all the computers made in the 80s were toasters then, becasue most of those you just plugged in, turned on, and they worked. Maybe you had to program them, but then again I've used the Apple
So what happened? Simply put, computers got more complex, so that even if the UI appears the same, the innards aren't always. As a result there's more work for the user to do, especially if the user has to configure the system manually as is the case with Linux, as for most distributions (I don't know about Red Hat) stuff like the sound isn't configured at install time. And when the user learns that he has to recompile the kernel to get sound, it's kind of understandable that they would prefer a system that comes already configured.
It's also true, though, that people should read the HOWTOs, as they contain just about everything there is to know about anything you would ever want to use your system for, broken up neatly by category. That's how I learned Linux.
or not.
Too bad approximately 56,399,949,929,191,214,218 people have said it already. In Southerner's talk, though, that theyre thang's UGGGG-LEEEEE!
Better buy yours now before they start actually MAKING their systems with that logo on them...
This is ONE way to get the Open Source community unified. Unfortunately it is far from the ideal and definitely not what I had in mind.
:(
I guarantee that this is a direct result of the flak he's been getting from the APSL. To his credit, the only part of Bruce's Open Source Definition that the APSL violates is the discrimination part, and even that's questionable given that the license is developed in the USA where export regulations are taken for granted. Other than that, the APSL does nothing else that the OSD SAYS it forbids it to do.
And there the problem starts. Bruce now says that his OSD implies that the license can never be terminated, and thus the APSL is not Open Source.
And Eric? To my knowledge he has made no rebuttal to that. Insteads he just quits because the majority agree with Bruce. RMS doesn't really count because he was talking about the stronger concept of Free Software, and to my knowledge software can be Open Source without being Free.
Maybe I'm off base on this though. Did Bruce and Eric agree on the Jinks license, which has exactly the same problem (but _lacks_ a few others that aren't necessarily Open-Source related)? I can't find anything appropriate on Dejanews about it
Hardly. The way they are defining "open source" makes the APSL look like the BSD license by comparison.
According to the article, you would be able to look at the source, but you can't redistribute it at any price. This would be the biggest abuse of the term ever.
BTW, I wouldn't be surprised to see SGI's Origin 2000 for sale in your local Best Buy before Windows becomes Open Source by Bruce Peren's standards.
I guess because I can login again!
Although it happened after I replaced Linux with Solaris (let's just say I was having other problems and I want to get my $20 worth out of Solaris.) But maybe not -- I don't think Lynx and Netscape^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCommunicator share the same cookie jar, do they?
First of all, if the license terminates, it no longer applies. Instead, the null license, containing "All rights reserved", takes over. At that point, and not before, I would consider the license no longer being Open Source. In case you're wondering, yes, I feel the Jinks license is Open Source as well _according_to_the_current_definition_, though neither is Free Software.
Being there by implication may as well be not being there at all as far as I'm concerned. The fact is, the OSD does not contain the words "The license must not contain a clause that would allow the licensor to terminate said license arbitrarily." or a similar phrase. Come to think of it, the OSD does not even guarantee that the license allows the software to be distributed by itself! Rule 1 only guarantees distribution with an aggregation of programs from other sources, i.e. a package. Rule 8 guarantees that the program will not be restricted to distribution with a specific other program. Therefore, I could write a license that says, "You may not redistribute the Software unless a Compiler is included in the distribution.", where Compiler is defined such that any one will do, and then claim that my license is Open Source according to the OSD! And indeed, it does follow all equirements as listed for Open Source software. Clearly it is not, though, according to the spirit of Open Source.
This sort of ambiguity can ruin a software developer's day. Suppose that a developer was developing a compiler for a large computer company that wanted a single compiler for both its Minina 31 and WhizBang 666 based systems. The requirements state that it must produce machine code for both systems. So months later the developers deliver the finished compiler and the client finds out that even though the WhizBang 666 is supposed to be 3 times as fast as the Minima 31, code made with this compiler runs about the same on both systems. A heated conversation follows.
"Why is code compiled with your cmpiler so slow on the WhizBang 666?"
"It runs, correct?"
"Your compiler is supposed to optimize code for the WhizBang 666 so that it runs as fast as possible!"
"Well, that was never stated as a requirement."
"No but it was implied by saying that the compiler should produce code for both CPUs. See you in court for breach of contract."
Seems we have a similar situation here with Apple and Eric Raymond being the developers, the OSD being the requirements, and the Open Source Community the client. No lawsuits, but plenty of anger and disappointment from the clients.
May I suggest the following changes:
1. Amend Rule 1 to read "giving away the software by itself or as a component of an aggregate software distribution... other than as required or allowed elsewhere in this Definition."
2. Add rule 11: "License must not terminate." The license must not contain a clause that allows said license to be terminated for all licensees at the licensor's discretion.
With these amendments, both loopholes I mentioned are closed AND the APSL is definitely NOT open source because it violates both section 1 with its requirement that Apple be notified when the Software is made available and section 11. This also reinforces the fact that you have declared Jinks not open source.
Finally, it is sad to see the split between you and Eric Raymond, both high-ranking and highly respected members of the Open Source Initiative, the organization advocating this definition of Open Source. If you two can't agree on whether the ASPL is Open Source, what hope is there for the future of Open Source? I feel this can only lead to further abuses of Open Source (the ideal), eventually rendering the label meaningless. The two of you need to get on the same page and take a stand against this.
I was going to say something about how enforceable the termination clause is, but i'm much less sure of that than this.
I don't see how the tests would fail. If the license terminates, there no longer is a license - - pure and simple. The OSD does not say anything about terminating licenses. It does not require that the license be valid for eternity.
I still say that the OSD is simply not strong enough and is in fact the reason Open Source != Free Software.
I'm going strictly by the letter of the OSD here, which is probably what Apple and the Open Source Initiative did as well. The fact remains that the APSL contains esentially nothing explicitly forbidden by the OSD. I say again: Termination is NOT forbidden by the OSD. If anyone can read the OSD and point to the line that forbids termination , I'll retract my claim.
I'm not saying that the APSL is any good; I'm saying that the APSL is compatible with the letter of the OSD, but that alone does not make an acceptable license. There are too many other problems with the APSL that the OSD does not address.
Yes, but if your license to the Covered Code gets revoked, and you have built your software package around the Covered Code, your software package has just had its guts ripped out of it. Now you have to re-implement all those sections that depended on the Covered Code.
Not an enviable position to be in. Good thing that, even though Apple thinks I accepted the license because I had to to see what they were offering, I will not be using any of their code anytime soon.
And if you have the Linux kernel siting on a disk by itself -- what then? You have a box that spits out a few messages about what hardware is on the system and then just sits there, executing the idle process. Not much more useful than the GNU utilities by themselves.
To have a fully functional interactive system you need the kernel, plus some type of command interpreter, plus some commands to run. GNU software currently provides the latter two. You could also write your own or steal some from BSD, and there's no guarantee that the systems would be compatible at all. In fact, you don't _have_ to follow any UNIX format at all! Once the program being called init starts, anything can happen.
In fact, Solaris^H^H^H^H^H^H^HSunOS has 3 versions of certain tools! There is Sun's own version, an X/Open compliant version, and optionally a BSD compatible version, all of which act differently (grep takes totally different parameters depending on which you use!) The ones you use by default depends on whether
Also, by your logic, Mac OS X server should be called Mach because it uses the Mach kernel.
So I maintain that GNU/Linux is the `technically' correct term for the full system. However, there is no other alternative that also uses the Linux kernel, so the two are de facto equivalent.
The article makes it sound like RMS was yelling "CALL IT GNU/LINUX OR DIE!" at anyone who called it Linux. I'm pretty sure he wan't that impolite, though I've never met him in person.
;-)
Anyway, GNU/Linux is technically correct, if only for the reason that a large group of us could take the code for the FreeBSD utils that aren't already GNU utils, do a TON of porting work, and have your very own BSD/Linux system, thanks to the freeness ofthe BSD license. At present, EVERY part of the basic Linux system is a GNU project, so GNU/Linux and Linux may as well be the same. I think RMS just wants credit where credit is due. Too bad it makes the name of the operating system harder to say
Besides, his response to the APSL shows he CAN be rational.
I would have to agree that Slashdot users can be arrogant (even though the article doesn't even mention Slashdot!). Too many times have I seen someone saying something pro-Microsoft, followed by a gazillion Linux fanatics saying that there's no way in hell that what that person said is true, because Micro$loth sucks and the almighty Free Software rulez!
Need I remind you that Slashdot is "News for Nerds", not "The Pro-Linux Anti-Micros~1 Capital of the World!"
BTW, I have no favorite OS anymore. Windows sucks because it crashes way too often and takes too much HD space. (GNU/)Linux sucks because only one company has freely (as in beer) available 3-D video drivers for it. The BSDs suck because that company doesn't make drivers for them. Solaris sucks because it's slow plus has the problems of (GNU/)Linux*10 and Windows combined, at least on my x86 machine. Other "research" OSes don't compile, so they suck. MacOS sucks because you can't get real deep into the hardware and a "bus error" resets the machine automatically (is this still true?) I wish we still had the diversity in computers we had in the eighties... thanks to Microsoft, any computer store need only have one computer on display because they all work the same. There is no consumer choice anymore.
OK, sorry, that was off topic, but I needed to get that out.
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.