Actually they can't change the license. You should read the license before making such moronic statements 7. Versions of the License. Apple may publish revised and/or new versions of this License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number. Once Original Code has been published under a particular version of this License, You may continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such Original Code under the terms of any subsequent version of this License published by Apple. No one other than Apple has the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered Code created under this License.
If you have a problem reading, let me paraphrase. If Apple changes the License, any code that had been published under and earlier license is still covered under that earier license. That includes all modifications made by the community because of
2.1 You may use, copy, modify and distribute Original Code, with or without Modifications, solely for Your internal research and development, provided that You must in each instance: (a) retain and reproduce in all copies of Original Code the copyright and other proprietary notices and disclaimers of Apple as they appear in the Original Code, and keep intact all notices in the Original Code that refer to this License; (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; and (c) completely and accurately document all Modifications that you have made and the date of each such Modification, designate the version of the Original Code you used, prominently include a file carrying such information with the Modifications, and duplicate the notice in Exhibit A in each file of the Source Code of all such Modifications.
You can't use the GPL'd code either, it would be breaking a patent. if anyone makes a claim against Apple, they have the option to, on a whim, invalidate all of their userbase only for the Affected code. You update and everything is hunky dory.
Read the fucking license. Apple simply whats to be notified of changes. You can modify the code and redistribute it all you want. Just don't put in infringeable code or you loose the license on the infringeable code. You don't break a patent, you have NO problem.
there is a similer clause in the GPL. Apple will only terminate the Affected code. Thus if your code is not infringing then the license for your code will not be terminated.
In fact you couldn't legally copy RedHat 4 as it came on disk as it had MetroX on it. Darwin is not MacOSX, Apple has given us something great. which we can make much better. They think that the OS is a better Value with their (Proprietary) UI, you don't like it, then don't buy it. But what they gave us is free.
Read the CMU license before using buzzwords
on
Response to the APSL
·
· Score: 1
Come on think before you speak. How much money and Man months has Apple and Next put into this stuff? Have you even read the source?
The code is not free, and it was very appropriate of Bruce to point this out.
That is utter bullshit!
The code is free and Apple is free to protect themselves, their employees and shareholders from liability. Bruces problem with 2.2 was very nit picky, he simply wants clarification should Apple have an unhealthy demise, and his problem with 9.1 seems to be a non issue, since removing the Affected code is the last resort for an infringemnt claim according to Apple's license
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.
It seems that the spirt of the license is that workarounds, and deals would be the first wave of correction. Also he seems to have missed the term Affected which implies Lines of code
Verse 7 of the GPL 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances. It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice. This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.
According to the GPL all that is needed for termination distrubution is an allegation of infringement or any other reason
8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
I put forth this last bit to show everyone that even in the GPL there IS an owner of the code, the original copyright holder, whoever that may be.
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.
If I were a large multi billion dollar company that employed thousands of people, and I was releasing large portions of code I would certainly want to protect myself from liabilty that said code could inflict. Anybody who thinks that Apple is being a jerk for doing so needs to think about the janitors that Apple employs, they too have to eat.
according to Alexa www.omnigroup.com has 1483 Alexa visits www.apple.com has 160790 Alexa visits I can understand needing more power than a G3 to run Apple's site
What is RedHat, but a for profit company. What about all the for profit companies who use gcc, apache, gzip, etc. Apple and Netscape have decided that there is no reason to keep that part of their code propriatary, lets support them on this, the more code that is freed the better we all are.
1.3 "Deploy" means to use, sublicense or distribute Covered Code other than for Your internal research and development (R&D), and includes without limitation, any and all internal use or distribution of Covered Code within Your business or organization except for R&D use, as well as direct or indirect sublicensing or distribution of Covered Code by You to any third party in any form or manner.
Supporting and making it run are two different things. I have read that it will run on every PCI PowerPC, just don't annoy Apple with bugs if you don't have a current machine.
Everyone who adds source to any gnu tools, FreeBSD, the Linux kernel, etc, is working for a bunch of for profits (RedHat, SuSE, Sun, HP, etc) for no pay.
They pulled the licencing only on the ROMS, that was the only part of the machine that the Clone Manufatures needed. The future version of the Mac OS puts the ROM in RAM, and puts it all on the CDROM which is the OS. The clones can reappear, and then Apple can have all of the Hardware incompatibilty issues that x86 has now. When you build your Linux kernel how many chipset bugfixes do you have options for. When I build LinuxPPC there are none.
posting on slashdot or doing nothing doesn't get stuff fixed. You have the source, read it, it is probably the file sg.c, look at differences between 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, if you can, fix it, if you can't do that, then write the guy whos email address is in sg.c. according to/usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/sg.c that is Lawrence Foard (entropy@world.std.com)
Slashdot Mirror
Only if your code infringes on a patent
Actually they can't change the license. You should read the license before making such moronic statements
7. Versions of the License. Apple may publish revised and/or new versions of this License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number. Once Original Code has been published under a particular version of this License, You may continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such Original Code under the terms of any subsequent version of this License published by Apple. No one other than Apple has the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered Code created under this License.
If you have a problem reading, let me paraphrase. If Apple changes the License, any code that had been published under and earlier license is still covered under that earier license. That includes all modifications made by the community because of
2.1 You may use, copy, modify and distribute Original Code, with or without Modifications, solely for Your internal research and development, provided that You must in each instance: (a) retain and reproduce in all copies of Original Code the copyright and other proprietary notices and disclaimers of Apple as they appear in the Original Code, and keep intact all notices in the Original Code that refer to this License; (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; and (c) completely and accurately document all Modifications that you have made and the date of each such Modification, designate the version of the Original Code you used, prominently include a file carrying such information with the Modifications, and duplicate the notice in Exhibit A in each file of the Source Code of all such Modifications.
You can't use the GPL'd code either, it would be breaking a patent.
if anyone makes a claim against Apple, they have the option to, on a whim, invalidate all of their userbase
only for the Affected code. You update and everything is hunky dory.
Read the fucking license. Apple simply whats to be notified of changes. You can modify the code and redistribute it all you want. Just don't put in infringeable code or you loose the license on the infringeable code. You don't break a patent, you have NO problem.
Spell out what portions of the Open Source Definition it breaks. I have looked at both and found NO such clear violation.
What portions of the Open Source Definition does it break?
there is a similer clause in the GPL. Apple will only terminate the Affected code. Thus if your code is not infringing then the license for your code will not be terminated.
In fact you couldn't legally copy RedHat 4 as it came on disk as it had MetroX on it. Darwin is not MacOSX, Apple has given us something great. which we can make much better. They think that the OS is a better Value with their (Proprietary) UI, you don't like it, then don't buy it. But what they gave us is free.
Come on think before you speak. How much money and Man months has Apple and Next put into this stuff? Have you even read the source?
The code is not free, and it was very appropriate of Bruce to point this out.
That is utter bullshit!
The code is free and Apple is free to protect themselves, their employees and shareholders from liability. Bruces problem with 2.2 was very nit picky, he simply wants clarification should Apple have an unhealthy demise, and his problem with 9.1 seems to be a non issue, since removing the Affected code is the last resort for an infringemnt claim according to Apple's license
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.
It seems that the spirt of the license is that workarounds, and deals would be the first wave of correction. Also he seems to have missed the term Affected which implies Lines of code
Verse 7 of the GPL
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances. It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice. This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.
According to the GPL all that is needed for termination distrubution is an allegation of infringement or any other reason
8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
I put forth this last bit to show everyone that even in the GPL there IS an owner of the code, the original copyright holder, whoever that may be.
Dude, this is getting pretty bad, you should make some sort of Hitler Steve Jobs, your slant is becomming very transparent.
I can get a G3 400 for $1500 too, but it is not a complete server system. Use your brain, that is what its there for.
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.
If I were a large multi billion dollar company that employed thousands of people, and I was releasing large portions of code I would certainly want to protect myself from liabilty that said code could inflict. Anybody who thinks that Apple is being a jerk for doing so needs to think about the janitors that Apple employs, they too have to eat.
That portion of the Licence seems very liberal
Oh you mean apple is going to not require licence fees for the portions of its patented QT software that make it into MPEG-4?
If Apple owned the Sorenson Patent they might
according to Alexa www.omnigroup.com has 1483 Alexa visits www.apple.com has 160790 Alexa visits I can understand needing more power than a G3 to run Apple's site
They were the ones that did MKLinux at least 2 years ago
What is RedHat, but a for profit company. What about all the for profit companies who use gcc, apache, gzip, etc. Apple and Netscape have decided that there is no reason to keep that part of their code propriatary, lets support them on this, the more code that is freed the better we all are.
Check your facts, there is $250 educational version, and you are only paying for the GUI, the OS is open. Very much like buying CDE from Metrolink
It is open so there will be a binary distrubution in no time at all
They can get Multiple Processor boxes for Solaris, they can't get production boxes for their own server OS yet.
1.3 "Deploy" means to use, sublicense or distribute Covered Code other than for Your internal research and development (R&D), and includes without limitation, any and all internal use or distribution of Covered Code within Your business or organization except for R&D use, as well as direct or indirect sublicensing or distribution of Covered Code by You to any third party in any form or manner.
Supporting and making it run are two different things. I have read that it will run on every PCI PowerPC, just don't annoy Apple with bugs if you don't have a current machine.
Last time I check you needed binaries to install Linux or any OS
Everyone who adds source to any gnu tools, FreeBSD, the Linux kernel, etc, is working for a bunch of for profits (RedHat, SuSE, Sun, HP, etc) for no pay.
They pulled the licencing only on the ROMS, that was the only part of the machine that the Clone Manufatures needed. The future version of the Mac OS puts the ROM in RAM, and puts it all on the CDROM which is the OS. The clones can reappear, and then Apple can have all of the Hardware incompatibilty issues that x86 has now. When you build your Linux kernel how many chipset bugfixes do you have options for. When I build LinuxPPC there are none.
posting on slashdot or doing nothing doesn't get stuff fixed. You have the source, read it, it is probably the file sg.c, look at differences between 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, if you can, fix it, if you can't do that, then write the guy whos email address is in sg.c. according to /usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/sg.c that is Lawrence Foard (entropy@world.std.com)