Very well put, AC! This is what I've been saying all along. Apple may not be perfect, but this is definately a step in the right direction. We should encourage them to continue in this direction. I have personally written Apple and stated this to them as well.
That article was quite interesting, IMHO. It strikes me as almost comical in several places though. I mean, why are people who are fanatical about having everything public and un-controlled as far as software goes arguing over which of the various groups 'owns' the name Open Source? Is this really necessary, or is this a symptom of the beginning of the breakup of the various Open Source movements? Will they begin fighting among themselves, and forget that they have a common goal?
If this happens, it could have serious implications for the community as a whole. I feel that if they do begin infighting, they will make themselves much more vulnerable to folks like Microsoft. Let's think about that for a while folks. It's rather sobering. Is this a big enough deal to cause Open Source Civil War? I think not.
I think I've made my point, and I'll stop this spam fest now. I hope my comments will be taken seriously, as I meant them no other way.
Thank you for your time. -- Matthew Walker My DNA is Y2K compliant
Re: I'm so ashamed--still ashamed.
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
wahay, I'm with you all the way. I've only been reading/. for a week or so now(Started when the APSL came out), and I'm very nearly ready to give up. I came here cause I'd heard that lots of good discussion went on, and that they carried the best news in the business. The tone of the replys to any article about the APSL is..well, scathing. I have seen a few positive comments, and I've made a few of my own, but the over all tone is very harsh.
I wish to restate what I've said in previous comments... This is a/GOOD/ thing, people. Apple is giving OSS a try. I don't know how many of you have read the FSF's definition of 'Free Software', but this passes the definition, with flying colors. So it's not GPL. What'd you expect? Stars strung like pearls on a string for you to wear as a necklace? Get a/clue!/ Apple is a company, and they aren't going to jump into this head first. If we support them, they'll be much more likely to take the next step.
I hope my tone hasn't been too harsh for certain moderators, but I'm getting fed up with the users of/. and I think my comment is rather mild compared to some. -- Matthew Walker My DNA is Y2K compliant
Sounds to me like the license is for the most part a good one. *I thought that already* Once again, I feel quite strongly that we should support Apple in this as much as possible. If we do that, they will gain confidence, and their products will improve.
Now, let's stop arguing about nitpicky little details in the license. According to a preliminary definition I got from Perrens, any code that has been altered is 'sublicensed' so that it is immune to the Termination. So, go start grabbing the source code and making modifications.:) -- Matthew Walker My DNA is Y2K compliant
That termination clause is mostly straight forward, but if you read section 12.2, it makes a comment about 'sublicenses'. What exactly are these, and how do they apply in this case. I'm new to the OSS community, so I'm not clear, but on reading the earlier definitions, it makes it sound like what this means is: Anything that qualifies as a 'sublicense' is totally immune from being Terminated. So all we need to do is figure out how to get everything sublicensed.
If someone could offer a definition of exactly what a sublicense is, it would be appreciated. In the meantime, I think this is a/workable/ license. Let's help Apple along here, so that they're encouraged to continue in this direction. I'm an eternal optimist, and I want to see Apple move forward with this. Let's help them. -- Matthew Walker My DNA is Y2K compliant
The license is a fair and equitable one, and it meets the OSD requirments.
Indeed it is, and the 'Terminiation Clause' that everyone was so upset about is just a statement of what is inherent in/any/ code. All it says is that if some code they release turns out to violate a copyright, they have to close it back up. The way I read it, they can/not/ close this code up if it doesn't meet that clause. So rejoice: This code is here to stay.
Their actions increase the freedom of Mac developers to improve their platform.
Indeed it does! Apple will even incorporate changes we make to the kernel code into their shipping version, if they feel it improves the product. And this will definately allow developers to fine tune their applications. They can now see exactly what low-level calls will be doing, which means that they will know what situations to look out for.
If all the reports of the high web server speeds on Macs are true, this is truely awesome. We'll have access to some of the most efficient network code there is. We'll also get to see the base that X server will need to run off of, if you want to kill the Mac Finder, and run an X Server instead. Does that make all you Mac Haters happy? You can have the high speed/and/ your X.
Matthew Walker -- My DNA is Y2K Compliant -- Matthew Walker My DNA is Y2K compliant
It appears I'm actually taking a middle ground here. I've been a Mac follower for years, however, unlike a lot of Mac followers, I also love Linux. I intend to have both, as soon as I can afford it. Now, on to the meat of my comment.
As a programmer, I am ecstatic at the prospect of seeing/any/ source code from any level of MacOS. I do wish they would release the GUI code, but that's a bit much to hope for at this point.
Now, I can see why a lot of people are skeptical. But whether or not this is a brainshare grab, shouldn't we be glad to get something? This is a first step, and if we (programmers) are supportive, Apple is much more likely to continue in this direction. True, Apple will die, if no one works for them. But does that mean they're bad? Linux would die, if no one programmed for it.
So, I hold a lot of hope for the future. I hope some of the rest of you will join me in that.
Matthew Walker --My DNA is Y2K Compliant -- Matthew Walker My DNA is Y2K compliant
Slashdot Mirror
Hear Hear!!!!
Very well put, AC! This is what I've been saying all along. Apple may not be perfect, but this is definately a step in the right direction. We should encourage them to continue in this direction. I have personally written Apple and stated this to them as well.
That article was quite interesting, IMHO. It strikes me as almost comical in several places though. I mean, why are people who are fanatical about having everything public and un-controlled as far as software goes arguing over which of the various groups 'owns' the name Open Source? Is this really necessary, or is this a symptom of the beginning of the breakup of the various Open Source movements? Will they begin fighting among themselves, and forget that they have a common goal?
If this happens, it could have serious implications for the community as a whole. I feel that if they do begin infighting, they will make themselves much more vulnerable to folks like Microsoft. Let's think about that for a while folks. It's rather sobering. Is this a big enough deal to cause Open Source Civil War? I think not.
I think I've made my point, and I'll stop this spam fest now. I hope my comments will be taken seriously, as I meant them no other way.
Thank you for your time.
--
Matthew Walker
My DNA is Y2K compliant
wahay, I'm with you all the way. I've only been reading /. for a week or so now(Started when the APSL came out), and I'm very nearly ready to give up. I came here cause I'd heard that lots of good discussion went on, and that they carried the best news in the business. The tone of the replys to any article about the APSL is..well, scathing. I have seen a few positive comments, and I've made a few of my own, but the over all tone is very harsh.
/GOOD/ thing, people. Apple is giving OSS a try. I don't know how many of you have read the FSF's definition of 'Free Software', but this passes the definition, with flying colors. So it's not GPL. What'd you expect? Stars strung like pearls on a string for you to wear as a necklace? Get a /clue!/ Apple is a company, and they aren't going to jump into this head first. If we support them, they'll be much more likely to take the next step.
/. and I think my comment is rather mild compared to some.
I wish to restate what I've said in previous comments... This is a
I hope my tone hasn't been too harsh for certain moderators, but I'm getting fed up with the users of
--
Matthew Walker
My DNA is Y2K compliant
Sounds to me like the license is for the most part a good one. *I thought that already* Once again, I feel quite strongly that we should support Apple in this as much as possible. If we do that, they will gain confidence, and their products will improve.
:)
Now, let's stop arguing about nitpicky little details in the license. According to a preliminary definition I got from Perrens, any code that has been altered is 'sublicensed' so that it is immune to the Termination. So, go start grabbing the source code and making modifications.
--
Matthew Walker
My DNA is Y2K compliant
That termination clause is mostly straight forward, but if you read section 12.2, it makes a comment about 'sublicenses'. What exactly are these, and how do they apply in this case. I'm new to the OSS community, so I'm not clear, but on reading the earlier definitions, it makes it sound like what this means is: Anything that qualifies as a 'sublicense' is totally immune from being Terminated. So all we need to do is figure out how to get everything sublicensed.
/workable/ license. Let's help Apple along here, so that they're encouraged to continue in this direction. I'm an eternal optimist, and I want to see Apple move forward with this. Let's help them.
If someone could offer a definition of exactly what a sublicense is, it would be appreciated. In the meantime, I think this is a
--
Matthew Walker
My DNA is Y2K compliant
The license is a fair and equitable one, and it meets the OSD requirments.
/any/ code. All it says is that if some code they release turns out to violate a copyright, they have to close it back up. The way I read it, they can /not/ close this code up if it doesn't meet that clause. So rejoice: This code is here to stay.
/and/ your X.
Indeed it is, and the 'Terminiation Clause' that everyone was so upset about is just a statement of what is inherent in
Their actions increase the freedom of Mac developers to improve their platform.
Indeed it does! Apple will even incorporate changes we make to the kernel code into their shipping version, if they feel it improves the product. And this will definately allow developers to fine tune their applications. They can now see exactly what low-level calls will be doing, which means that they will know what situations to look out for.
If all the reports of the high web server speeds on Macs are true, this is truely awesome. We'll have access to some of the most efficient network code there is. We'll also get to see the base that X server will need to run off of, if you want to kill the Mac Finder, and run an X Server instead. Does that make all you Mac Haters happy? You can have the high speed
Matthew Walker
-- My DNA is Y2K Compliant
--
Matthew Walker
My DNA is Y2K compliant
It appears I'm actually taking a middle ground here. I've been a Mac follower for years, however, unlike a lot of Mac followers, I also love Linux. I intend to have both, as soon as I can afford it. Now, on to the meat of my comment.
/any/ source code from any level of MacOS. I do wish they would release the GUI code, but that's a bit much to hope for at this point.
As a programmer, I am ecstatic at the prospect of seeing
Now, I can see why a lot of people are skeptical. But whether or not this is a brainshare grab, shouldn't we be glad to get something? This is a first step, and if we (programmers) are supportive, Apple is much more likely to continue in this direction. True, Apple will die, if no one works for them. But does that mean they're bad? Linux would die, if no one programmed for it.
So, I hold a lot of hope for the future. I hope some of the rest of you will join me in that.
Matthew Walker
--My DNA is Y2K Compliant
--
Matthew Walker
My DNA is Y2K compliant