iCommune Retools Itself as Standalone Open Source App

Doctor Beavis writes "As noted previously, Apple ordered developer James Speth to return his iTunes software developer kit and to stop distributing the iCommune plug-in for iTunes. Today, CNET has a story with further details and developments. Speth said that he will honor Apple's request to stop distributing his software, but he will build the same features into a standalone application. The next version of iCommune will work with iTunes and potentially other digital music players and will use Rendezvous, Apple's implementation of a protocol for automatic discovery of network-connected devices. Speth also said that the new version will be Open Source under the GPL."

language / platform?

The iCommune page says it will not depend on any Apple proprietary interfaces or libraries, and it mentions CPAN. So does this mean it will be in Perl and usable with any kind of Unix?

Re:language / platform?

No, it is written in C, perhaps with some AppleScript. There is a third-party indexer on that page, written in Perl. iCommune never actually serves the MP3s, it just writes an index of the MP3s and configures Apache to serve them; so a third-party indexer can write the index, and a user can configure his own Apache server, without needing iCommune to do it. In this way you can either avoid having iCommune do it on your Mac OS X box for some reason, or have some non-Mac OS X box (e.g., Linux) act as server. iCommune came with a Python indexer, but I wanted one in Perl (easier to add to it and modify it, for me), so I wrote that one.

This sounds nice...

but as we have leared with AIM, SMB, and plenty of other proprietary protocols, or even proprietary implementations of open protocols (think M$)... what happens when the protocol provider changes the rules?

Re:This sounds nice...

Your concern would make sense if the application were implementing the Rendezvous interface raw, but it's not, anymore than Mozilla implements its own TCP/IP stack. Jaguar provides a very nice set of classes to establish and manage Rendezvous services, and I'm sure that the new version of iCommune, just like the old version and like all Rendezvous-enabled apps, will make use of Apple's frameworks. So even if Apple completely overhauled their IETF-standard protocol (bloody unlikely) they'd have to also completely overhaul the Rendezvous portion of Cocoa and not document the changes in their SDK. I think that iCommune is safe.

Not fair

Apple took a bunch of BSD code and other Open Source utilities and added a few layers on top and called it a genuine Apple product. They are now making millions of dollars a year.

Some little programmer comes along and tries to share music with fellow Apple users, and Apple sends their suit-clad lawyers after him, threatening to ruin him and take all he's got.

Hey Apple, do you only embrace Open Source when it involves your developers stealing code from other projects?

Ten bucks says Apple releases their own P2P audio sharing utility in like 2 weeks using this guy's old code.

Re:Not fair

XDarwin is open source. Aqua is not.

So, their window manager is not, that doesn't mean the OS isn't.

Safari's core is open source. The layout is not. Hmm... I notice a pattern.

Apple "steals" code from Open source projects who agree to these terms, make the backend better, leave that open, but makes their interface closed (and much better)

Now this guy used the iTools SDK, develops something the terms said he couldn't, and he's the hero? Apple obeys the terms of the license, this guy didn't.

It's not also about competition, I refer you to the case of X11 on OS X.

Mod parent up!

Slashdot readers have a habit of forgetting details of an issue if the details are inconvenient:

[quote]
Now this guy used the iTools SDK, develops something the terms said he couldn't, and he's the hero? Apple obeys the terms of the license, this guy didn't.
[/quote]

He violated the terms of using Apple's SDK! Or cource Apple's going to be be angry.

Re:Not fair

BSD code is BSD licensed. Anyone can take it, use it, even make proprietary products out of it. This is not only fair, it's encouraged. Why do you think Apple chose BSD over, say, Linux?

I think you're mixing up BSD licensing and GPL licensing. The two are definitely not the same. Apple is in violation of nothing, not even simple courtesy. If folks object to their BSD-licensed code being used in proprietary products, they should consider not using the BSD license.

(By the way, the base for their operating system is "Darwin". It's freely available for anyone who wants it: http://developer.apple.com/darwin)

Re:Not fair

Ten bucks says Apple releases their own P2P audio sharing utility in like 2 weeks using this guy's old code.

Well, I doubt they'll use his code (they aren't that stupid, only Micro$oft has balls that big!), but Steve did demonstrate the same functionality when he introduced Rendezvous, so it's likely that the feature has been planned for a future version of iTunes for quite some time. This guy just beat Apple to the punch.

But I don't think that's why Apple has gone all swarm-of-lawyers on this poor guy, tho.

Remember the hubbub over "Rip. Mix. Burn."? Apple is walking a tightrope right now with the RIAA, trying to allow their users to make maximum use of their legally-owned music with a minimum of RIAA-mandated cruft, while also avoiding the RIAA's crosshairs. Allowing this third-part developer to mod iTunes just might upset the balance, and get Apple in serious hot water.

So, yes, you'll see this functionality in the next rev of iTunes. But you can be sure, too, that it'll have some limitations built in (like the iPod's one-way syncing) to keep the RIAA stormtroopers out of the yard.

Re:Not fair

Apple took a bunch of BSD code and other Open Source utilities and added a few layers on top and called it a genuine Apple product. They are now making millions of dollars a year.

Um, that's exactly what the BSD license allows you to do.

Hey Apple, do you only embrace Open Source when it involves your developers stealing code from other projects?

Utilizing BSD licensed code in commercial apps is not stealing. Not even close.

Ten bucks says Apple releases their own P2P audio sharing utility in like 2 weeks using this guy's old code.

Now this I agree with.

iCommune should be a Linux app anyway

cause it's GPL and it has the word "commune" (think communism) built right into it! :P

I think Apple has trademarked the letter i, i(TM)f I'm not mistaken.

If you want to keep it on the Mac call it iFacist or something.

It just goes to prove...

...most open source projects are created out of love, but many more, out of spite.

What did it do?

I looked at the webpage, but it doesn't say. Can anyone tell me what iCommune did?

Offtopic: Anyone have any good suggestions for a linux mp3 player? Looking for one that is easy for my wife to use, but lets you search for different songs. (not xmms)

I wish Apple Would Shut me Down...

Man, getting Apple to shut you down, only to then recover is like the best thing that can happen as a developer. I wish they'd do it to me. All this publicity...

Re:I wish Apple Would Shut me Down...

It's easy.

Just write some software for OS/X.

It's a rare enough occurance that publicity is guaranteed.

interesting

Seems like yet another case of a company not realizing exactly what it's unleashed until it's too late. Fortunately, in this case we will all reap the benefits.

I'm perhaps a little worried about the naming choice, as "iCommune" is not exactly the best retort to the people who complain about the Marxist philosophy of Open Source, but I think the paradigms and conceptual leaps here will prove longer lived than the name.

Now we may gain the power to unite again under one crown, as in the days of old.

Depending on the SDK lisence....

... Apple might be able to block him from developing any such thing. After all, he has been "contaminated" by getting access to the SDK, which may arguably give him an unfair advantage into developing an iTunes compatible standalone app...

But then, Apple would never sink to using such underhanded tactics.... Would they?

Apple had to stop iCommune, for legal reasons.

Apple gives it users unprecedented freedom to rip, mix, burn. You are FREE to do whatever you want with YOUR CDs that you PURCHASE. Ripping MP3s from another Mac OS X box with iCommune is no different than using XNap, LimeWire, Kazaa, or other P2P file sharing software. The music industry already hates Apple for what it allows its users to do, and Apple has to draw the line between personal freedom and breaking the law.

READ THIS LAW:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.226 5.ENR:

and story here on CNet:

http://news.com.com/2010-1071-982121.html?tag=fd_n c_1

and tell me this guy is not allowing millions of people to break the law. Don't get me wrong, the music industry charges way too much for music and other video content, but when MY freedom is threatened with a law and I hear that the Feds are going after the little guys now (200+songs downloaded), I'd think twice, and then again about sharing P2P in the future.

Here comes some good OSS publicity

I think that the iCommune peeps should have given up while they were only marginally behind. They produced some extension to Apple's product, and Apple deemed it to be illegal so they sent a C+D and asked for their SDK back.

So the iCommune peeps decide that they're going to rewrite some software to do the same thing (give or take some added extras), release it under the same name only this time it'll be GPL'd. So the headlines in the popular techpress go from Apple tells author of small software plug-in to stop distributing to GNU Public software breaks Apple copyright, violates trademark.

This won't be good for FS/OSS publicity as the public will perceive GPL authors (they read:entire OSS lot) as a group of lawbreaking Communist zealots who flout C+D notices issued by hard-working companies just trynig to make a buck in today's world. Remember: the clueless person on the street doesn't see the problem with laws like the DMCA; they think it's just protection (try and explain to someone that it nearly made the marker pen an illegal tool).

BTW does no-one read my journal?

Re:Here comes some good OSS publicity

Apple had an easy ability to complain about iCommune before: it directly interfaced with iTunes using an SDK for which the developer had to agree to additional licensing restrictions (that said the SDK was to be used only to interface to MP3 players). So Apple could legitimately complain that the author of iCommune was breaking the rules under which Apple had provided that SDK and order him to quit producing it. This new version, however, either works by talking to iTunes via AppleScript--which requires no one to sign any SDK except the generic one for the developer tools; that's the whole nature of how AppleScript works--or else, accesses the MP3s directly (which is very easy; they're kept extremely organized automatically in ~/Music/iTunes/iTunes Music as plain, unencrypted MP3 files, ready to share). Because neither of these violate any extra license agreement, Apple will not be able to stop iCommune this time.

The RIAA of course probably could and probably will, but that's a different issue entirely.

Re:Here comes some good OSS publicity

I think that the iCommune peeps should have given up while they were only marginally behind. They produced some extension to Apple's product, and Apple deemed it to be illegal so they sent a C+D and asked for their SDK back.

There's a rather large difference between something that's illegal and a violation of a contract (which is civil, BTW). However, you've missed that difference. Apple was right to take away his SDK, because he was producing software that they deemed violated his license agreement -- and they had every right to do so. However, they have no say in the legality of a developer's software.

So the iCommune peeps decide that they're going to rewrite some software to do the same thing (give or take some added extras), release it under the same name only this time it'll be GPL'd. So the headlines in the popular techpress go from Apple tells author of small software plug-in to stop distributing to GNU Public software breaks Apple copyright, violates trademark.

Wrong again. As long as the software doesn't use copyrighted code (which I assume is the case, otherwise he'd have to be an idiot to be publicizing this), he's not violated anything. It also does not violate a trademark -- or do you think iApple igets irights ito ieverything ithat ibegins iwith ithe iletter i'I'? Moreover, he is not breaking the terms of his SDK any longer, as the contract is broken and no longer has any binding force on him. Apple doesn't have any legal say in what people develop independently (though they can make their lives difficult, of course.)

This won't be good for FS/OSS publicity as the public will perceive GPL authors (they read:entire OSS lot) as a group of lawbreaking Communist zealots who flout C+D notices issued by hard-working companies just trynig to make a buck in today's world.

Actually, your post does less good, because you're spreading a lot of unnecessary FUD. Your painted picture of 'Communist zealots' versus 'hard-working companies' is touching, but hardly appropriate (and generally untrue, from my experience.) And for crying out loud, have you forgotten that this plugin has potential LEGAL uses for users, like sharing files on a home network without digging through shared folders and bothering with re-importing?

Remember: the clueless person on the street doesn't see the problem with laws like the DMCA; they think it's just protection (try and explain to someone that it nearly made the marker pen an illegal tool).

Remember: the clueless poster that equates innovation with infringement doesn't see the problem with the entertainment industry's rhetoric; they think it's just protection (try and explain to someone that it's illegal to share MP3s, yet companies encouraged us to share audio tapes ten years ago.)

Free Software Rendezvous/ZeroConf implementation?

Anybody working on one? If we can find a good way to add support to GNUstep, I bet we could port this app fairly easily. (If it's a Cocoa app, natch.)

Jim Speth works for Apple!

I know because I used to hang work with his ex-roommate and hung out with them occasionally. He was always working on easy ways to share music over HTTP. I find it funny that they took away his developer kit, he probably gets it comped to him since he is an Apple employee. Hell of a nice guy and a great programmer to boot.

Dan Shahin
Hijinx Comics [wackyhijinx.com]
The World's Greatest Comic Book Store!

Can you really blame them?

It seems to me that Apple was just trying to protect their own flank in this one. I mean, they're already getting flack from the dark side for strongly supporting a format which allows easy copying of copyrighted material, and now a guy comes along and takes one of their programs and turns it into something where the blatant purpose is simply copying music. Of course they came down on him, because they don't want to get hit themselves. It's not their responsibility when a person writes a third-party trading app and makes it run on OS X, but when their own programs are being used for the purpose, their butts are in the bulls-eye. Frankly, I think they've been doing a very good job of supporting the free music movement, but I certainly don't expect them to become the new champions. After all, they are a company, and their biggest responsiblity has to be to their investors. Law-suits cause stock prices to drop. Pure and simple.

a bunch of whiners...

...the guy violated the license for the SDK, and they put a halt to his charade, boo hoo... I dont' feel bad for him at all, now he has to write the way he should have in the 1st place... as for Open Source, Apple has steadily been comitting the new code back as per the licensing it agreed to... KHTML is bound to be tons better because of this, as well as BSD itself..

wow. he did what he was supposed to...

why does he get an article for this.

the guy violates terms of agreement to iTools, is ordered to back off, decides to push his code into stand-alone functionality and gets more coverage as it seems he was "forced" to do this ?

what the hell does he get such coverage for? the app he made while cool is hardly worth all this attention. The app he's creating to be independant of iTools is no more special, and he is only doing what he was supposed to in the first place, write an app that doesnt violate the Terms Of Agreement he signed, and make it work as best as he can.

Of course the real issue is everyone wants to make apple look like the bad guy that forced this developer to rework his entire code base, and to withdraw an existing product from the market place only because apple legal had a hard-on for him. Come on, he was promoting illicit use of apple's freely distributed product. And he was specificly asked NOT to do that. He doesnt deserve all this undo attention.

--Enter The Sig--

Hey, waitaminnit...

How do they know he returned his original iTunes SDK, and not a copy?

And the wonder ...

why they have no market share.

You must not download iCommune.

You should especially not download it from here [everythingmac.org].

Better use GPL

Speth also said that the new version will be Open Source under the GPL

Why not GPL from the first place?

It's simple: BSD encourage the hijacking of your code, GPL protects your code from being hijacked. BSD protects anarchy and doing whatever everyone wants. GPL protects users that in future the [GPL] code they decided to use will stay GPL and thus free and available for further using.

Why not GPL from the first place?

What Is This "License" Of Which You Shriek?

Could someone post or provide a pointer to the alleged "license" that allegedly constrains the use of the iTunes SDK? Is this a legitimate contract that must be entered into and signed before you get your hands on the SDK, or is it yet another one of those worthless "shrinkwrap licenses"?

Schwab

FWIW...

Everything Mac [everythingmac.org] still has the OLD version (iTunes plugin) mirrored right here (iCommune.tgz) [everythingmac.org].

Another case of a creator not seeing bars...

I think we've all seen it in various scripts and plots of movies and novels: A genius or otherwise intelligent individual has a great idea and a certain leaning towards a particular goal. However, they are so enamoured by the lab, the people, or perhaps even the very materials that he works with that he forgets that he had agreed to certain rules.

While iCommune isn't being taken over, the ideas and goals that the coder had were not compatible with the "rules" that the SDK imposed. Perhaps he is in the clear, but that would require legal recourse.

But the thing is... Apple is in it for the money, no matter how pretty the products are or how flowery the company's leader's words are. Some things which they think they can allow into the wild, they release the code for. Some things which they think they would like to keep for themselves, they hold back. That's their right and perogative.

I would presume the coder liked the Apple look and feel. That he probably owned an Apple and supports the Apple community spirit. And in his enthusiasm in exploring ideas and writing code, ultimately slipped past the boundaries of the base he has picked to write and develop that program on.

Apple and he did the right thing. He returning their SDK and starting from scratch and going under the GPL.

All in all... there's nothing wrong with writing programs for the Apple platform. But then again, it's a case of "live and learn" and as the case turns out... "Coder beware..."

itunes 4

A lot of people have pointed out that Apple is about to release their own P2P program. This will not be exactly the same as iCommune. The plugin allows you to copy music over the network; the rendezvous-enabled iTunes will only stream it.

Never made sense

Apple shutting down a popular mac-only file sharing service? This from the company that gave us the phrase "Rip, Mix, Burn"?

Sounds like someone's lawyers are once again stupidly overzealous.

Glad to hear they went OS... The best way to avoid legal prosecution since 1995!

What did Apple really do?

Honestly, what did Apple really do to this guy? Sure, he has to return the SDK, but that just means that, in the future, he'll be unable to refer to it--if his code is well-documented (or, perhaps, when his code becomes well-documented between now and the time he returns the iSDK ;-)), then it won't be an issue.

As for the order to stop distributing, that shouldn't hurt too much either. In a couple of weeks, "a friend of his" could "write a similar thing". Or the source might "find its way onto a public server". Apple could have done a lot worse than a cease-and-desist style ultimatum, with the legions of lawyers at their command, so I think this represents a measure of compassion towards Mac developers.

As for those of you pre-flaming Apple for the possibility that Apple developers will use iCommune code in the potentially file-sharing-enabled "iTunes x", isn't that what Open Source and Free Software are supposed to be about?

Re:Another bite of the sour apple.

The original version of this was developed using an SDK (software development kit) for iTunes. The SDK provided an interface to an Apple Proprietary API. As I understand it, the API was intended (and licensed) only to be used to provide support for new hardware, not new software. He used them to provide software support and was thus in violation of the license on the SDK.

Both AppleEvents and Rendezvous have published API's that don't have (to my knowledge) restrictions on their use.

It is you.

iCommune violated the terms of the SDK, plain and simple. Apple was well within their rights to tell them to C&D both with the BSD license, and their license on the SDK.

Re:Good move

I agree. I'm a big Mac fan and like to read Apple news, but this is hardly front page information. There is an Apple section for things like this. The front page Apple news ought to be the things that are interesting to people beyond the Mac community. I have to think that this news isn't even a big deal to most Mac users, themselves.

Oh well.