Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix Businesses Apple

Apple Public Source License Now FSF Approved 378

Posted by timothy from the join-us-now-and-free-the-software dept.
BWJones writes "Apple has now made their public source license 2.0 free. From the release "The Darwin team at Apple is pleased to announce that version 2.0 of the Apple Public Source License has been certified as a 'Free Software License.' APSL 2.0 includes numerous changes and simplifications to make it even easier to use Apple Open Source software as part of your programs. To indicate acceptance of APSL 2.0, you can now use your new or existing "Apple ID", rather than having a separate Darwin account."" proclus adds "This is great news for Darwin-based free software projects like The GNU-Darwin Distribution and Fink. GNU-Darwin has had an ongoing discussion about this development, and annouced and end to our 'Free Darwin Campaign,' so long as Apple avoids DMCA-based legal action."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Public Source License Now FSF Approved More

Apple Public Source License Now FSF Approved

Comments Filter:

  • What are the motivations and implications? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mjmalone ( 677326 ) * on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @01:28PM (#6627355) Homepage
    Yay! now we have another license to rant about and compare with GPL/BSD!! But seriously, why does apple need a new free software license? Aren't the ones being used now sufficient?

    Licensees will now have the choice of providing source code to either just the users of the code or (as before) to the general public (Section 2.2(c)).

    What does this mean? Could one restrict who is allowed to use the code and thereby restrict who may view the source? In a commercial application this means that one could produce a program and then sell it and only allow purchasers to view the source, correct?

    • Long arm of open source community (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Doesn't_Comment_Code ( 692510 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @01:34PM (#6627409)
      This is one more feather in our collective cap. This means that in very recent history (less than a year) open source was significantly impacted every major player. Microsoft is keeping a close eye on us and implementing an open source lab. Big business companies like IBM and Oracle have jumped onboard. And now Apple is realizing that its better to go with it than fight it. This is great news. I could have dreamed of this five years ago, but I never would have bet on it.

      We are making history and leaving a big footprint. Little people influencing very large companies.

    • Re:What are the motivations and implications? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @01:35PM (#6627418) Homepage Journal
      Doesn't this mean that Apple 'Free Software' can mix with GNU 'Free Software' provided the proper attributions and such are given? I could see this as being a tremendous win for the Apple platform, assuming this really does mean that it gets access to the wealth of free code out there.

      • Re:What are the motivations and implications? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jdreed1024 ( 443938 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @01:44PM (#6627479)
        Doesn't this mean that Apple 'Free Software' can mix with GNU 'Free Software' provided the proper attributions and such are given?

        If you mean GPL'd software, no. According to this [fsf.org] page, the FSF still considers APSLv2 incompatible with the GPL. Though they don't explain why. At some point, I really like to see a comprehensive listing of why each of the free-but-not-GPL-compatible licenses are designated such. I mean, it's all well an good for the GPL to say "It's not ok to use this license", but I find such a statement annoying without at least a brief note along the lines of "it's incompatible because it prevents you from doing $foo, which is allowed under the GPL" Or something.

      • Re:What are the motivations and implications? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Zigg ( 64962 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @01:44PM (#6627484)

        No [gnu.org]; it's still GPL-incompatible. I am not convinced, however, that GPL-incompatibility is in any stretch a black mark on any license.

        GPL compatibility is like a one-way gift. You bow to the "all-GPL" crowd by allowing them to use your code on their terms, but they don't reciprocate by giving you the right to use their code on your terms.

      • Doesn't this mean that Apple 'Free Software' can mix with GNU 'Free Software' provided the proper attributions and such are given?

        I don't think so, no. According to the FSF, the APSL is free but not GPL-compatible. [gnu.org]

    • "Aren't the ones being used now sufficient?"

      If they don't do what Apple wants then they are not sufficient as far as Apple goes.

    • What does this mean? Could one restrict who is allowed to use the code and thereby restrict who may view the source? In a commercial application this means that one could produce a program and then sell it and only allow purchasers to view the source, correct?

      From what I read in the license, it seems like the end-users won't have their rights restricted, just like with the GPL. They may if they like distribute the files to the general public.
    • Yes, correct. The GPL works similarly in that regard. I think their definition of external deployment is different.

      I'm mildly disappointed that GPL coders won't be able to co-opt any of the code in Darwin under the APSL-2.0, but this is still a vast improvement.

      This is by design. It's the same "viral" aspect of the GPL, but it infects things for Apple rather than the GNU hippies. And Apple gets to use the infected stuff in closed-source products. That's why Apple needs a new free software license.

    • Re:External Deployment (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ShieldW0lf ( 601553 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @02:19PM (#6627741) Journal
      Licensees will only be required to release source code of Modifications they "Externally Deploy" (new Section 1.4, and Sections 2.1, 2.2). "External Deployment" is defined to cover the external distribution of APSL'ed code or use of APSL'ed code to provide a service (including content delivery) to a third party through electronic communication with that party.

      Don't know how I feel about this one...

      You can't run an application service provider program without releasing changes to all your clients, and possibly the public if your clients deal with the public?

      You can't run a b2b service without releasing all your changes to your distributors that use it and your clients that use it?

      This is very different from the "no black box public distribution" that I previously considered the GPL to represent.

      If I had a client who sold widgets, and he had to release all his source to clients who connected to his b2b setup, allowing them to leave him and then give all his internal systems to his competitor, even though he never distributed his software, I don't think he'd be wanting to buy anything I built.

      Could you insulate against this by putting a "dumb layer" between your apps? You could argue that ANY system that was interacted with by the public, however indirectly, required publication... in most businesses, this would eliminate the "internal deployment" angle almost totally, unless you had a typist carrying out your data-syncronisation work

  • GNU-Darwin is a misnomer (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The Kernel and the utilities can be FSF approved, but until glibc is ported to Darwin (and I suspect it never will) it should still be called Darwin.

  • That is so cool!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @01:33PM (#6627400)
    So where can I buy an Apple Open Source License, now that it is approved and all?

    BFD

  • GNU's Opinion (Score:5, Informative)

    by Coneasfast ( 690509 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @01:34PM (#6627404)
    GNU thinks its better than the first, they still dont like it (they are quite picky). Read here [gnu.org].
    • I read that. Is it possible for an organization to be more full of itself than the FSF?

      A quotation:

      "... we must remember that only part of Mac OS X is being released under the APSL. Even though the fatal flaws of the APSL were fixed, and even if the practical problems were addressed, that does no good for the other parts of Mac OS X whose source code is not being released at all. We must not judge all of a company by just part of what they do."

      The FSF reminds me more and more of a religion [slashdot.org] than of a sof

      • Re:GNU is not software, it's religion (Score:5, Funny)

        by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @02:19PM (#6627746) Journal
        What about the goverment of the United States?
      • Amen to that. I think it's very short-sighted for the free software community to constantly knock the Establishment Corporations when they try to incorporate free software ideas. I mean think about it - you won! They're adopting your methods and models! Complaining that they're not doing it completely because they haven't entirely abandoned other methods of software developmennt/distribution is ridiculous.

        If you think about it, a free software company which becomes a huge success might likely do so by a
        • Uh, I don't see what's the point in complaining about that.

          Deal with it, RMS is an idealist. A quite awesome one in fact. Seriously, how many people have whatever got him to practically replace Unix with something better (excluding the kernel) because of a printer driver?

          You may complain all you want, but FSF matches RMS' ideals. If you don't agree with such extreme idealism you can always start your own movement, although I doubt you're one of the very few capable of that.

          Yes, RMS sometimes looks too fa

    • Re:GNU's Opinion (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Llywelyn ( 531070 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @02:12PM (#6627680) Homepage
      >GNU thinks its better than the first, they still dont like it
      >(they are quite picky).

      My experience from reading GNU's work is that they aren't terribly fond of anything that isn't GNU.

      From that webpage:

      -------------
      The FSF now considers the APSL to be a free software license with three major practical problems, reminiscent of the NPL:

      *It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.

      *It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to your changes which Apple will not give you for its code.

      *It is incompatible with the GPL.
      -------------

      Let's go over these point by point.

      >*It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with
      >other files which may be entirely proprietary.

      So does BSD. This does not, in my book, qualify as a "major practical problem."

      >It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to
      >your changes which Apple will not give you for its code.

      Yes, it requires this. I'm not sure why this makes it "unfair" though: this seems like more of a "legal cover our asses" clause on Apple's part so that they can use the changes elsewhere.

      >It is incompatible with the GPL.

      Would someone look up the definition of "circular reasoning"?

      It seems, from everything I've seen come out of GNU, that they fit every definition of "Zealots". They almost seem to be *reaching* for something bad to say about the license simply because a proprietary software company is behind it.

      • GNU's not BSD either (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Outland Traveller ( 12138 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @02:52PM (#6627983)
        That's why it's called the FREE software foundation and not the Somewhat-Free, Mostly-Free, Free-This-One-Time, Momentarily-Free, or Free-Enough-So-Take-It-Or-Leave-It Foundation.

        One interesting thing about the GPL, is that it protects the software itself, not necessarily the authors. The FSF has come up with a unique and powerful mechanism for insuring that code and/or an application will *always* be freely distributable over its entire lifetime.

        It's perfectly reasonable for them to stand up for this important principle. Many times RMS and the FSF have pointed out flaws in only slightly more compromising licenses, and many times their warnings have turned out to be farsighted.

        We should all be thanking them for selflessly taking on the role of a watchdog. They serve the public good and have an excellent track record. You should really pick up a membership
        • Just like with the GPL, if you release code under a BSD license, it will always be freely distributable over its entire lifetime. However, unlike the GPL, code released under a BSD license can be used freely by anybody for any purpose. The biggest difference is that someone can add their code to BSD code and do whatever the hell they want, while under the GPL they must GPL their new code.

          That's why it's called the FREE software foundation and not the Somewhat-Free, Mostly-Free, Free-This-One-Time, Momenta

        • Re:GNU's not BSD either (Score:5, Insightful)

          by rhadamanthus ( 200665 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @03:19PM (#6628176)
          It's perfectly reasonable for them to stand up for this important principle.

          I would agree with you, but the problem is that they never grant the same courtesy to anyone else.

          Apple does not want to release their code under the GPL. It's perfectly reasonable for them to stand up for this important principle. However, Stallman and the other FSF "advocates" don't want to hear that. Ever. It drives me nuts to hear such blatant hypocrisy from someone who is so often touted as being "revolutionary". More like elitist and closed-minded if you ask me.

          ---rhad

      • Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by extrasolar ( 28341 )

        You just have to keep in mind that the GNU people have their own goals, which you may or may not agree with, and they are looking at these new licenses from the perspective of their own goals.

        Your goals are obviously different from their goals. The practical problems they list are problems in achieving their goals. If you had practical problems achieving your own goals, you would be less likely to use their license and software too.

        You have to also remember that the GNU people are not just looking at th

    • it seems that anything less-free then the GPL is simply not free enough to them... it is sad, really.

      • Re:GNU's Opinion (Score:3, Insightful)

        by __past__ ( 542467 )
        What's more sad is that anything more free than the GPL is also not good for them.

  • transplanting? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SHEENmaster ( 581283 ) <travis&utk,edu> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @01:35PM (#6627415) Homepage Journal
    Does this mean that it's possible(legal) to transplant Darwin's SMP capabilities into OpenBSD's PowerPC port? Firewire support? Cheapass-iBook-winmodem support?
    • Even if it is legal to to port Darwin's SMP code to OpenBSD PPC, I don't see it happening. FreeBSD SMP code has been floating around (albeit not PPC), but that has not been incorporated into any OpenBSD archs yet. I think this is due to the intense scrutiny that such a major portion of code would require to meet the OpenBSD quality standards, and nobody seems to have the time.

      As for Firewire and winmodem support, I think there is a much better chance there as it isn't nearly as big of an undertaking. I hav

    • Re:transplanting? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @01:49PM (#6627527) Journal
      Sure, you could rerelease BSD-licensed code under the APSL-2.0, probably, and thus you could combine code from Darwin and OpenBSD.

      You'd definitely have to use the APSL-2.0 for the resulting product.

      But the architectures of the two systems are different enough that you aren't going to be able to plug in the SMP support. Or most drivers. Darwin uses a unique kernel and driver architecture.
    • possible(legal) to transplant Darwin's SMP capabilities into OpenBSD

      No. However, you could transplant the entirety of OpenBSD into Darwin. The resulting code would require ASPL.

      BSDL is a universal donor; you can take from it as much as you want. GPL is a "copyleft"; it intentionally prevents your ability to take code to other licenses. ASPL is not terribly different from LGPL; the code itself must remain within the license but it can link to other code (free or proprietary).

  • Apple is giving people what they want (Score:5, Insightful)

    by groove10 ( 266295 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @01:35PM (#6627417) Homepage
    Apple is trying to please both crowds and is doing a pretty good job of it.

    They are giving end-users the software and hardware that fits their needs, such as the iMusic software and the introduction of the G5. at the same time, they are not forgetting the *NIX and open source base of their current OS. Actions such as this one and the continued "giving back" of code to OSS projects exemplify this trend.

    Apple seems to have its head on straight and although I don't use their products, I support them and their continued sucess. A computer monoculture is a bad thing.

    Now, I might actually buy a Mac laptop if they didn't cost so damn much!
    • check out the ibooks, they are much less expensive than you think. start at $1000 with dvd rom drive, cost around $1400 with dvd rom & cdrw. I agree the powerbooks are expensive, but I think that feature-for-feature, the ibooks can price compete with any x86 laptop, and will generally have longer battery life.

      • check out the ibooks, they are much less expensive than you think. start at $1000 with dvd rom drive, cost around $1400 with dvd rom & cdrw.

        The $999 dollar ibook only has cdrom, not dvd.
      • "I agree the powerbooks are expensive, but I think that feature-for-feature, the ibooks can price compete with any x86 laptop." As are the PowerBooks. With PC desktops, you can less more and therefore pay less, but they are NOT less expensive than Macs of equal specs. The same is true for Apple's laptops.
      • The problem with the apple iBook for $1,299.00 is that is is a VERY low spec machine. A 900 Mhz G3 is a dog compared to a G4 and especially the nice G5's and is horrid compared to any $1,299 X86 laptop. I have never owned a mac and don't plan on it unless Apple gets smart REALLY lowers the prices. I love Linux and use it exclusively, howver I would also LOVE to use a Mac. It is just that I will not pay such high prices to have a pretty computer. If Apple would really drop those prices, they could easil
        • Ummmn, you've never owned a Mac, and yet you claim the iBook is a dog?

          Okaaaaayy.

          My 700 mhz iBook was very comparable in actual performance to the laptops of the time, and at 900 mhz, it's kept pace. The battery life, size and weight of an iBook set the standards for years in the industry. If you like a space heater in you lap, by all means, get an X86. If you want to work for an afternoon without stopping to hunt for an electrical outlet, get an iBook.

          "Give me a 1Ghz+ G4 with 512MB, 40GB+ hard drive with a

        • "(I'd still stick to Linx though I could also have a nice Mac)."

          Aside from the slight typographical error, you should be aware that these are NOT mutually exclusive goals. Please look here [osxgnu.org] for more information.

        • Apple is no monopoly and never will be. It is simply one of many alternatives, and, in my opinion, the strongest contender for the best overall computing experience.

          Many open-source zealots (Gnu, FSF) seem to have issues with an operating system that possesses any proprietary code. That is just silly because they are alienating themselves from the one corporation that is increasing open-source-related and UNIX mindshare. Apple proudly advertises that the core underpinnings of their operating system is p

      • I've had two iBooks in the last yearish. I liked them very much. I primarly bought Apple hardware for OS X, but I was plesantly suprised by the nifty little things Apple puts into their hardware. For instance the magnetic display latch, the autosensing ethernet, and targeted FireWire disc mode. Battery life(after my defective one was replaced) was great too.

        That said after having two of them die on me in a year period I don't know that I will ever buy another Apple product, and that sucks because I really

    • Re:Apple is giving people what they want (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Until you buy their products don't even attempt to say you support them. Mindshare is nice but Apple's never had a problem with that - it's always been marketshare. So, you go support your Dells, or if you roll your own computer, your Nvidias and ATIs, all of which "support" open source in a half-assed way because they're cheaper. Do yourself a favour and go price an iBook and factor in an aftermarket 512MB stick of RAM. Then, without looking at specifications, go test one out first-hand and compare it to a

    • Re:Apple is giving people what they want (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eclectic4 ( 665330 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @01:48PM (#6627517)
      Along with what everyone else has said, I will say that it's not that Apple's products are too expensive, it's that Apple doesn't sell cheaper computers. Theres a huge difference there.
      • Along with what everyone else has said, I will say that it's not that Apple's products are too expensive, it's that Apple doesn't sell cheaper computers. Theres a huge difference there.

        Not quite, apple's systems are still more expensive than a similar PC system, for example:

        Here [apple.com] is an apple system.

        and Here [dell.com] is a similar spec PC system.

        Note how the PC system is cheaper, has a faster processor (even taking in the fact that mac cpus are faster) and more memory.

        This is what people are talking about.
    • cost too much? $799 for an iBook with OS X. What's expensive about that? Get a used WallStreet for cheap and install OS X. It's not like you have to use a new machine for the OS to run.
    • Now, I might actually buy a Mac laptop if they didn't cost so damn much!

      Actually, try pricing them out. Often they are cheaper than other Wintel products and when they are slightly more expensive, the price of admission is well worth it. For example, I'm getting emails here while folks on Slashdot are hitting my workstation server pretty frequently. At the same time, The Clash is cranking on iTunes while I am working on a manuscript in Word and creating figures for that manuscript in Photoshop and doin

  • good news! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @01:39PM (#6627442)
    Well, I actually I wonder like a previous poster WHY every company needs to have their own license when GPL and BSD (or Apache perhaps) seem to cover the bases and you can always say "modified GPL", i.e. GPL + trademark restriction.

    But on the whole this is great to hear, because I consider the FSF stamp of approval to mean "this license has no hidden traps". I.e., no weird venue change clauses, or ejection seats (if you get sued, your license terminates, if you have patents your license terminates, if you "use" the software the wrong way your license terminates) or other stupidity.

    Sometimes free software folks think that these little details don't matter, but of course if you ever have to go to court, EVERY detail matters, and you agree to them!

    I really don't have time to read all these stupid licenses, but when I see FSF-approved I feel a little more at ease.

    • Re:good news! (Score:3, Informative)

      by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 )
      They need their own license so that they can guarantee that they can use any improvement it ever sees in their own closed-source product.

      They also want others to be able to link to it without using the APSL, because that will allow driver developers to use it with fewer barriers.

      It's almost the same as the NPL, but they need to make a new copy of it so that rights cede to Apple rather than Netscape.

  • Typical (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Bungi ( 221687 ) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @01:41PM (#6627463) Homepage
    And GNU's response to this? "It's not free enough", which means "it's not the GPL, therefore it sucks".

    Maybe one of these days RMS will learn to appreciate the jumps and hoops companies who sell software for a living go through to do these types of things, instead of just dismissing them with "they're evil, proprietary and you shouldn't use them". Life is so much simpler when you don't have shareholders, boards of directors, lawyers and... well, money.

    • Maybe it's because, surprise, they honestly don't think it's quite good enough?

      It's not compatible with the GPL, which prevents all the GPLed projects from using it, which is a valid concern for most FOSS developers.

      Seriously, you're just running your mouth about things you seem to know very little about, as you are wont to do when the discussion has anything to do with the FSF. Shut up. Prick.

      Heh, I'm just fuckin' with ya :)

    • Re:Typical (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kevin DeGraaf ( 220791 )
      And GNU's response to this? "It's not free enough", which means "it's not the GPL, therefore it sucks". Maybe one of these days RMS will learn to [blah blah blah]

      Bullshit. Free software is what it is today precisely because of RMS's 100% no-compromises attitude.
    • They say it's "Not free enough" to APPLY TO YOUR OWN SOFTWARE. They don't say it's "not free enough" for any other purpose. They say it's fine to use.

      They'd like it to be GPL compatible. If it were, then we could combine it with all this other software. There would be a giant tangible benefit to GPL compatibility. The APSL does not have this characteristic, and that's too bad. The FSF laments the lack. Give them a fucking break.

  • What about MSFT? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Eric_Cartman_South_P ( 594330 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @02:04PM (#6627626)
    How many FSF approved licenses does Microsoft have? I'd guess the answer is zero.

  • Right direction. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gregarican ( 694358 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @02:24PM (#6627778) Homepage
    As much as some PC enthuisiasts bash Apple, I like the direction they are heading. Anyone who goes into an Apple store and doesn't come away impressed with something is fooling themselves. They are sincerely trying to be innovative, inventive, and creative in engineering aesthetically-pleasing, user-friendly, and functional hardware and software. Micro$loth OTOH is simply repacking the same crap with new window dressing and new subscription schemes to keep revenue coming in.

    Personally I find most of Apple stuff a bit pricey but like where they are going. This FSF move is another step in the right direction.

    Hopefully some of these players can continue allying themselves to take down the many-headed hydra that is Micro$loth. Novell adopted some Java angles with Netware 5, and recently added Linux services to their support suite. Maybe Apple can be added to the picture to cover desktop OS, server OS, desktop hardware, desktop software, *NIX services, etc.

    I know Apple hasn't been a collaboration proponent in the past but the sum of all parts could be a force to be reckoned with.

  • well how about releasing some software under it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by asv108 ( 141455 ) <asvNO@SPAMivoss.com> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @02:28PM (#6627803) Homepage Journal
    Darwin is great and all, but many of us already have a kernel [kernel.org] to use. Apple may say they embrace open source but when are they going to release code to some of the various software that makes OSX unique? When they decided to use KHTML for Safari, I thought they would at least release the source code for Safari and not just the changes to KHTML.. Its not like Safari is innovative or anything, we already have better open source browsers, but releasing the source code would of been a nice gesture.

    • Re:well how about releasing some software under it (Score:5, Funny)

      by Graymalkin ( 13732 ) * on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @02:40PM (#6627893)
      Linux Whiner Translate-O-Matic:

      Darwin is great and all, but many of us already have a kernel to use. Apple may say they embrace open source but when are they going to release code to some of the various software that makes OSX unique?

      Wow I sure do like all the nifty features of OSX. I don't understand the fact that giving away the very technology that draws in customers, thus commoditizing the product, would be a stupid business move.

      When they decided to use KHTML for Safari, I thought they would at least release the source code for Safari and not just the changes to KHTML.. Its not like Safari is innovative or anything, we already have better open source browsers, but releasing the source code would of been a nice gesture.

      Apple should give away any and all software that draws customers to their platform. That way they no longer have to bother with selling hardware of any sort. Since their software should all be open source they can just make money selling advertisements. I'm sure they could make a couple hundred dollars a month at least. That's way more than my mom gives me!

      • typical /. troll form (Score:3, Insightful)

        by asv108 ( 141455 )
        This is hardly a whine, I'm simply stating that Apple uses Open source for PR, and does not have commitment to open source software or ideology. Your post is a typical defensive, brainless mac zealot comeback, packed in the "translator fashion" for easy mod points. Instead of replying to my actual post, you decide to resort to stereotypical assertions and personal attacks.

        • Re:typical /. troll form (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Graymalkin ( 13732 ) * on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @03:34PM (#6628303)
          Chin up buckeroo. The "open source" ideology is one that is software centric rather than author centric. The GPL compatible licenses the FSF fully approves are designed to provide as much movability for the software without giving the author much in the way of recompense outside of community recognition. Information may want to be free but rent and stockholders want to be paid.

          You're whining because you're inately jealous of what Apple's been able to do with Free code they've used in their products or based their products off of. Apple's taken a bunch of technologies and standards that have been floating in Limbo waiting for someone to actually do something useful and made a good product out of it. Now you want them to release all of their implementations so the next version of Linux can offer all of the features without any of the development time or cost. That is plainly stupid.

          Take Redevous (zeroconf/service discovery). Apple took a languishing technology and turned it into a huge feature in their OS. They've also released enough documentation and code for Rendevous to make it simplistic for any developer to work their own implementation of it. If Linux developers hopped on the good foot they could have all the Rendevous functionality they wanted and be entirely compatible with all the services Apple's working with.

          Not everyone can make money selling advertisements on their website, ergo they need to sell software or even hardware. To do so you need something your competition doesn't. Apple's in a good position because they've made themselves extremely compatible with the competition and provide incentives for using their products. You can use KHTML all you want in Konq or some other browser. In OSX you can use Konq if you want but they're offering Safari. Anybody can use CUPS for printing, Apple stuck Print Center on top of it and is offering that as an incentive to use their products.

          Stop your whining about Apple using OS for PR benefits only. They've put some good money into GCC, CUPS, KHTML, and making OSX fully compatible with FreeBSD. Go check your kernel compile and stop whining about Apple's use of software.
    • "Its not like Safari is innovative or anything" Its not? What about Safari's SnapBack feature? Safari's bookmark manager is also an innovative feature. When first run, Safari automatically imports your IE bookmarks. That's pretty innovative if you ask me.
    • They released their webcore library, man. That's pretty much everything safari is, save for a lot of boring user interface code. Since webcore is just a ObjC wrapper to KHTML, this is no big deal.

      However, it's interesting to note that Apple did relase somehthing to the community, and I have yet to see anyone pick up on it. Apple'a "snapback" mode... This is a really useful, I daresay innovative, feature for a web browser. I use it all the time on slashdot. Especially when you have gestural input, either vi
    • Ok, they didn't release the entire safari app as open source, but there is:

      There's other stuff too, although some of it is Mac OS X specific implementations of various other stuff (GCC, Kerberos, CUPS, etc.). My point is that by looking only at those high-profile projects, you're missing a few other interesting things (particularly, IMHO, the Darwin Streaming Server, a free, op

      • Rendezvous (zeroconfig)
        WebCore (khtml)

        I'm not talking about standards, protocols, etc, or re branded open source projects+changes. It would be interesting to see Apple release the full source code to some of its desktop applications. I am perfectly aware of why Apple needs to keep much of its software closed source, but it would be interesting to see Apple make good on its "embracing of open source" instead of releasing tidbits for PR purposes.

    • sheesh (Score:3, Informative)

      by Doktor Memory ( 237313 )
      When they decided to use KHTML for Safari, I thought they would at least release the source code for Safari and not just the changes to KHTML..

      Would it have killed you to spend 0.12 seconds on google before opening your mouth?

      http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/webc o re /

      That's every part of safari that matters, right there, for your FSF-approved open source development pleasure. No, the shiny front-end isn't included, but that's not going to bother too many coders considering that you can write

  • good (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dh003i ( 203189 ) <dh003i@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @02:43PM (#6627915) Homepage Journal
    This goes to show that the efforts of RMS have in fact been fruitful. He's constructive criticism has helped Apple to make a better license.

    It's called progress. It's still not compatable with the GPL, but it is now Free Software according to the FSD.

  • FSF' response to APSL 2.0 (Score:5, Informative)

    by dh003i ( 203189 ) <dh003i@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @02:55PM (#6628002) Homepage Journal
    Here is what the FSF has said about the APSL. Unlike what most people here seem to think, I don't think it's overly critical. I think it's just practical and honest.

    The Apple Public Source License (APSL) version 2.0 qualifies as a free software license. Apple's lawyers worked with the FSF to produce a license that would qualify. The problems previously described on this page are still potential issues for other possible licenses, but they do not apply to version 2.0 of the APSL. We encourage everyone who uses any version of Apple Software under the APSL to use the terms of version 2.0 rather than that of any earlier license.


    In version 2.0 of the APSL, the definition of "Externally Deployed" has been narrowed in a way that is appropriate for the respect of users' freedoms. It has always been the position of FSF that the freedom of Free Software is primarily for the users of that software. Technologies, like web applications, are changing the way that users interact with software. The APSL 2.0, like the Affero GPL, seeks to defend the freedom of those who use software in these novel ways, without unduly hindering the users' privacy nor freedom to use the software.


    The FSF now considers the APSL to be a free software license with three major practical problems, reminiscent of the NPL:

    • It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.
    • It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to your changes which Apple will not give you for its code.
    • It is incompatible with the GPL.

    For this reason, we recommend you do not release new software using this license, even though it is ok to use and improve software which other people release under this license.


    Aside from this, we must remember that only part of Mac OS X is being released under the APSL. Even though the fatal flaws of the APSL were fixed, and even if the practical problems were addressed, that does no good for the other parts of Mac OS X whose source code is not being released at all. We must not judge all of a company by just part of what they do.

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close