Apple Changes the APSL Rules

aitikin writes "Apple recently changed their license for the OS X kernel. According to semthex's post, Apple has reworded the APSL to prevent him and others from open sourcing the kernel hacking under the APSL: 'This file contains Original Code and/or Modifications of Original Code as defined in and that are subject to the Apple Public Source License Version 2.0 (the 'License'). You may not use this file except in compliance with the License. The rights granted to you under the License may not be used to create, or enable the creation or redistribution of, unlawful or unlicensed copies of an Apple operating system, or to circumvent, violate, or enable the circumvention or violation of, any terms of an Apple operating system software license agreement.'"

"Operating system"

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I suppose if you stretch the meaning of the words "operating system" like you stretched your mom's belly in the womb, you could somehow come to the conclusion that Apple is trying to restrict you from developing and releasing your little application. If you read it like a normal human being who's stretching your mom's baby hole, you'd understand that Apple doesn't want you to release the suite of open applications as a whole.

I am disturbed to see that people would jump so hard on this non-issue.

Re:"Operating system"

[bhima]

I wouldn't exactly call this a non issue but basically you are right I can still develop my little application and I can still screw around with the OS just like I have been. I suppose I won't be able to go out and buy a dual socket motherboard and two of Intel's new quad core chips and gobs of memory and expect to easily or legitimately run Mac OS on it. But I'm fairly sure that does not impinge on my liberty or my human rights.

Nice bad analogy... btw.

Re:

[xenocide2]

The silly thing is that anybody interested in using Apple's source to remove copy protection from OSX won't be bothered by the small hurdle of violating a license agreement. But AFAIK, XNU is the OSX kernel, and there is source code available. I have no idea how hard you'd have to stretch your personal concept of "Operating System" to where running traditional OSX binaries on a modified / recompiled version of the XNU, but for me, at least, that's really where the OS is at. Not a collection of software, but

Re:

[bhima]

You are absolutely right but the vast majority of the people interested in modifying XNU want to do so in order to run MAC OS on white box hardware.

How many people do you know of that are using XNU in some innovative and interesting way that is eliminated by this new license agreement... so far I'm counting 1 and he's pretty questionable.

Re:

[xenocide2]

How many people do you know of that are using XNU in some innovative and interesting way that is eliminated by this new license agreement... so far I'm counting 1 and he's pretty questionable.

Unless you count running OSX on a laptop you already own as interesting... ;)

Re:

[bhima]

Actually, unless you yourself modified the code, I'd call it lame: anyone can follow a described path.
Additionally Apple already makes laptops... so running OS X on a some random laptop is bland.

All you did is save some money, that's hardly unique or interesting.

Do something that Apple hasn't thought of, one that's worth commenting on, otherwise you are doing nothing more interesting than I am... and I'm using my my Apple to watch my fish. Fuck, that's like watching paint dry!

Some ideas:

ZFS for Mac OS
USB

Re:

[xenocide2]

A combination of Waacom Tablet & Apple MacBook for a tablet (I'd pay for that!)
I haven't tried it, partly because I don't own a valid copy of OSX, but one could probably throw OSX on a tablet PC like my Toshiba Tecra; Linux mostly works, I don't see why it would be a challenge to get OSX to cooperate.

Apple isn't restricting my creativity; I primarily use Linux, if only because I find "only saving myself some money" worthwhile and interesting. They're certainly restricting the creativity of people who wa

Re:

[mollymoo]

They're certainly restricting the creativity of people who want to legally do things like put OSX on a tablet PC.

Putting OS X on a tablet PC or any non-Apple hardware was and always has been against the terms of the license for OS X and thus illegal. The only thing they are stopping you doing is hacking the kernel to make it run on non-Apple hardware - something you could previously write and release the code to do, but you have never legally been able to actually test that code by running OS X on non-A

The mind buggles

[Medievalist]

You analogy leaves me breathless, like a glass eel.

Re:

[kypper]

Insight mixed with yo' mamma jokes. Who knew?

Re:

[Afecks]

What the hell kind of analogy is that? Womb? Baby hole? This is insightful?

/head asplodes

Re:"Operating system"

[drinkypoo]

Indeed. I fail to see how this affects anyone's kernel hacking, unless of course they were hacking in such a way that it enabled the violation of other Apple licenses, and they intended to release it. If thats what this guy was doing, all I can say is tough shit, hippy.

Once you pay for a product, according to first sale law, you are permitted to make modifications to it.

The DMCA prohibits most reverse engineering, except that which is done for the purposes of interoperability. While this does not involve reverse engineering (the code is provided) I feel that this indicates a legal attitude that interoperability is valuable and protected.

Making the software run on hardware not approved by Apple is an interoperability issue.

Running the software on non-Apple hardware is a violation of the license.

A kernel patch that would allow the software to run on non-Apple hardware would seem to provide only interoperability, and would seem to be valid under first sale law, which protects your rights to make modifications to things which you have purchased.

Apple is both relying on the legal validity of a shrink-wrap license which you do not sign, AND doing all they can to take away your first sale rights.

Apple is seeking to separate you from your rights. This is wrong no matter what you say about it. Apple is also strengthening the validity of the shrinkwrap license if they pull this off, which benefits no user.

If you accept this kind of behavior from Apple, they will continue to step on your rights.

Re:

[BoomerSooner]

Jesus where are mod points when i need them! KUDOS Mr. MakesSense!

Re:

[aristotle-dude]

"Once you pay for a product, according to first sale law, you are permitted to make modifications to it.

Yes, if you buy a product, you can make modifications to it but it does not give you the right of sale of copies of either the modified product or original. In the case of software, you are not purchasing a product but rather a license to use the software. It does not matter whether you received it as physical media or a download.

Apple is both relying on the legal validity of a shrink-wrap license whi

Re:"Operating system"

[drinkypoo]

Let me make this clear. You do not purchase the product but rather a license to use the software.

Let me make this clear. That is far from a given and it can be argued either way in court. Please read this wikipedia bit on The first-sale doctrine and computer software [wikipedia.org] before you come on like a hard-on again - while I am not a lawyer, clearly you are not either, and you should be sure you know what you're talking about before you open your big fat mouth. To wit, from the linked page:

Federal district courts in California and Texas have issued decisions applying the doctrine of first sale for bundled computer software in Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) even if the software contains a EULA prohibiting resale. In the Softman case, after purchasing bundled software (A box containing many programs that are also available individually) from Adobe Systems, Softman unbundled it and then resold the component programs. The court ruled that Softman could resell the bundled software, no matter what the EULA stipulates, because Softman had never assented to the EULA. Specifically, the ruling decreed that software purchases be treated as sales transactions, rather than explicit license agreements. In other words, the court ruling argued that California consumers should have the same rights they would enjoy under existing copyright legislation when buying a CD or a book.

In a more recent case involving software EULA's and first-sale rights [Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004)][2], the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued a ruling which appears to contradict the position of the district courts in California and Texas. The first sale reasoning of the Softman court was challenged, with the court ruling "The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement." In addition, the court found the plaintiff's EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because "The defendants .. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and Terms of Use by clicking 'I Agree' and 'Agree.'" This runs counter to Softman v. Adobe. The difference in these rulings has yet to be resolved by a higher court.

Or, as I said, it could be seen either way. It has not yet been resolved, so this falls into the area of legal ambiguity.

Ultimately, as Greg Graffin says in the song he wrote for the punk band he's fronted since the eighties, Bad Religion, entitled "YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT":

You are the government.
You are jurisprudence.
You are the volition.
You are juridiction.
And I make a difference too.

You are clearly purchasing a product when you buy software, especially if you are given the physical media. Outside of copyright law, you have the right to do anything you like with the physical media. When I buy a magazine, I am not interested in the physical magazine so much as the data, yet I can do anything I like with either one so long as I am not violating copyright law.

How is software any different? I have purchased a physical copy of the media; the law says that so long as I transfer it and any copies, it is irrelevant whether it is software, music, or a book; I may sell it to another.

If you think that's it's okay that this is the way the system works, then that's fine. Live within its confines and, as it closes on you, reflect that YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT.

I think if there's one thing we can do to bring about societal change, it should be to inform all citizens that, as potential jurors, they can vote "not guilty" not only if they feel that a person did not violate the letter of the law, but also if they feel they

Re:

[mr_matticus]

Actually, if you'd noticed the nuances of those decisions, you'd see that it applies to resale of software--something which is ostensibly permitted by the purchase of a license. HOWEVER, modification of that software has not been questioned in either case cited by Wikipedia. In any event, most Wikipedia editors are decidedly biased in this issue, and the wording is left ambiguous so people like you, never having read the actual decisions or worked on this issue professionally, misinterpret the decisions o

Re:

[Spock the Baptist]

"As for your little jury tirade, it's a misdirected and inaccurate rant. Jurors are empowered to decide the facts of a case; they are bound by Jury Instructions or Special Jury Instructions, which are written by lawyers and signed by judges as court orders. There are specific guiding questions in those instructions, and an impaneled jury is NOT empowered to make any quality judgments about the law not included in those instructions. To do so, or to incite others to follow suit, is then a violation of court

Re:

[mr_matticus]

Please read more carefully. Juries are not empowered to make decisions on the validity of the law as a general statement. Jury nullification only applies to the case at hand. Their opinions on the law do not impact the law itself, only whether the person was acting appropriate, irrespective of the law.

Re:

[mr_matticus]

Yes. That supports exactly what I said. Juries do not have the right to make moral judgments on the law as a whole; they are empowered only as to determine the case before them. Their decision may reflect an opinion on the law, but to describe that position as a determination of the law itself would be a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. In the practice of making a determination, a jury considers the law as it applies to the questions of fact before them. A jury is not a protest or a rally and it is

Re:

[drinkypoo]

Dude, I stopped reading after the first paragraph. Learn to express yourself more concise and post links instead of long quotes. Copyright exists in order to prove an incentive for people to create new content.

Short-term copyright existed in order to provide an incentive for people to create new content.

Our current long-term system of copyright is the result of legislation purchased by big media; the latest extension was a clear and obvious conflict of interest, being pushed as it was by Sonny Bono.

Re:

[Baricom]

Dude, I stopped reading after the first paragraph. Learn to express yourself more concisely and post links instead of long quotes. Copyright exists in order to provide an incentive for people to create new content.

If you were to create something creative, would you not expect people to respect your copyright?

1. Before criticizing people for being long-winded, please consider not making two English errors in four sentences.
2. Copyright is a lease. The public, which owns the idea, grants the creator a right, for

Re:

[mrchaotica]

Dude, way to make yourself look like an asshole by completely failing to address his arguments and criticizing his presentation instead. Apparantly, you have no actual rebuttal, and therfore you've lost. Just be a man and admit it instead of whining next time!

Re:

[NemosomeN]

This doesn't stop you from making OSX run on stock hardware, it just says that if you want to do that, you can't use their source. This basically says you have to reverse engineer in a clean room for it to be legal. This makes things very complicated, since almost anyone who cares enough to reverse engineer is going to have a hard time not being tainted. (Having seen old code wouldn't make you "tainted" though). This would be akin to ReactOS having to stay clear of the Win 2k source that is floating arou

Re:

[drinkypoo]

Even if you are correct, it's still true that this is no longer Free software, since Apple is restricting the uses to which you can put your modifications and prohibiting you from distributing them.

Re:

[NemosomeN]

I was under the impression that it was never really Free software in any sense of the word.

Ah well.

[Funkcikle]

Apple attempts to plug license hole which was used to circumvent Apple's valid (even if unwelcome) desire to protect own commercial interests. Locals up in arms. Villagers outraged.

Re:Ah well.

[elrous0]

Apple is a corporation. The only "interests" they keep in mind are their profits. Too many people talk about Apple like they're some sort of fracking philanthropy that only makes money as a side-effect of their noble works. They're not. They're a business and they have an obligation to make money by selling their products, not just giving them away.

Apple doesn't want you porting their OS over to your generic Intel system. They want you to buy one of THEIR systems. Deal with it.

-Eric

Re:

[jay2003]

I agree that Apple is trying to stop people from running their supposedly open source OS on non-Apple hardware. Since locking the OS to Apple hardware is what they are trying to acheive, they should make that condition part of the license instead of adding some weenie intent based clause. Apple is trying to implictly add this condition so their marketing department can still claim Apple supports open source. This kind of duplicity makes me feel ill. Microsoft at least has courtesy not to try to deceive

Re:

[sethstorm]

They want you to buy one of THEIR systems. Deal with it.
I did deal with it by buying one of these fine machines [lenovo.com]. OS X did work on it despite the software design against such. Durable, maintainable and well appointed.

Excellent phrasing

[msobkow]

I think Apple has done a very smart thing for a CSL (customer source license) by specifically limiting the use in such ways.

I would be more restrictive -- the source is available for debugging purposes only, and may only be modified through it's core project. I view using/linking CSL code as a variant on LGPL -- I don't care about the specifics of how code is linked (static, DLL, dynamic, whatever), just that any and all changes to such code must be submitted to the core project regardless of where someone deploys the changes.

i.e. No GPL escape clause of "internal use only" that lets weasels try to lawyer their way out of releasing changes by hiding apps behind web interfaces (the equivalent of screen scrapers IMNSHO.)

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you need to read up on the current state of Apple's open source development initiative. I believe the process for submitting a kernel patch goes something like this:

1. Obtain the source [apple.com] by reaching up into the ivory tower and taking it. Notice that you're fetching tarballs over http, not svn or cvs. I'll bet that's current.
2. Beat yourself with a stick trying to build it until you discover darwinbuild [opendarwin.org].
3. Develop your patch.
4. Submit a bug to the Radar [apple.com].
5. Announce it in Darwin-kernel [apple.com].
6. Wait

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Linux weenies consistently miss the point of Darwin. It's not another BSD distro, it's ther for the convenience of Mac developers who have to work with kernel code, such as driver writers and third-party hardware manufacturers.

Can you blame the linux weenies for expecting that when Apple talks about Open Source [apple.com] that they actually mean the same thing as everyone else who uses the term?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Maximalist]

Well, there is no independent exclusive right to "use" code that is licensable under copyright law. The relevant copyright rights are to copy, distribute, publicly display, and to make derivative works. Language about a license to "use" is an invitation to litigation over its validity. Despite the fact that such language is a common meme, its basis in the law is tenuous.

More licensing options

[WillAdams]

I _really_ wish Apple would work out more licensing options --- if they're not going to make a replacement for my Newton MessagePad, the least they could do would be to allow licensing Mac OS X for use on hardware which doesn't compete w/ their products.

As much as I like my NeXT Cube at home, and Mac OS X at work or on my wife's Powerbook, I'm simply not willing to give up the flexibility of having a tablet computer w/ integrated graphics tablet capability (I currently use a Fujitsu Stylistic), or to go bac

Re:

[bhima]

how is that Fujitsu working out for you?

I'd seriously love to have a Tablet running Mac OS but I've just about given up on Apple.

Is the Linux support decent or was it a pain in the ass to get everything working as it should?

Summary:

[countach]

Summary: "This licence can't be used to create unlicenced copies".

DUH. That doesn't rule out much. You can't do that on the GPL either.

Re:

[aristotle-dude]

Exactly. I don't know where these slashdotters got it into their heads that the GPL somehow magically removed all copyrights. The GPL does not remove any rights from the copyright holders and the copyright holders can at any time remove their source from public view and cancel use of any code they write in the future under the GPL.

For example, if someone created a project under GPL and they were the sole contributor or had all contributors assign their rights to them as the main contributor to the project

Re:

[mollymoo]

For example, if someone created a project under GPL and they were the sole contributor or had all contributors assign their rights to them as the main contributor to the project, that person could at any time take their source and walk away announcing that any future source they would write would not be GPL'ed. Say that someone decided to continue the GPL'ed code, that person would not have any right to include any source written by the original author after they revoked the license in their GPL'ed project

No longer open source?

[mjg59]

The fact that the license prohibits you from doing illegal things may not be a problem. However, it also appears to to claim that you may not modify the software in such a way that it allows the circumvention of EULAs. Depending on jurisdiction, there appears to be some degree of uncertainty about whether EULAs are legally enforcable. So, in effect, one of the limitations of this license may be that it prevents you from doing some things that are perfectly legal, but which Apple don't want you to do. It's pretty easy to argue that that sort of restriction prevents it from genuinely being an open source license, in much the same way that a license that said "You may not use this code to produce a Windows version of the product" wouldn't be an open source license.

Note that I'm not passing any sort of judgement on Apple here. It's their code, and they absolutely have the right to do what they want with it. I'm surprised that they feel that unauthorised use of the OS on PCs is sufficiently important that they need to restrict their license terms to make it harder, but, well.

The GPL doesn't limit this sort of thing - you're permitted to use the code for anything, but there are certain limitations on how the resulting work may be distributed. The distinction is subtle, but real.

Re:

[aristotle-dude]

The GPL doesn't limit this sort of thing - you're permitted to use the code for anything, but there are certain limitations on how the resulting work may be distributed. The distinction is subtle, but real.

The GPL prevents you from releasing binaries only to the public. That is a hard limitation since you cannot use GPL'ed code with in house developed proprietary code without being forced to release it as GPL as well giving away any competitive advantage your company may have had over the competition.

Re:

[mjg59]

That's a restriction on means of distribution, not a restriction on use. You're perfectly welcome to use it with your in-house code, providing that everyone who receives a copy of the binary can have a copy of the source. The additional restrictions to the APSL mean that there's no way to use it if that would result in people being able to breach Apple EULAs.

Darwin is no longer Open Source

[sfraggle]

People are missing an important fact here: Darwin is no longer Open Source under the Open Source Definition [opensource.org]:

• 3. Derived Works
  

  
  The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
  
  

• 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
  

  
  The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
  
  

• 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
  

  
  The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
  

Re:

[aristotle-dude]

Where in that definition does it say that any open source license removes to right of copyright owners to protect their rights? Go read up on the GPL, nowhere does it remove the copyright from the original authors. These licenses are merely a way of extending certain rights to others who would otherwise not have such rights but they do not reduce or diminish in any way the copyright of the original authors.

Re:

[sfraggle]

Open Source licenses must not discriminate based on "field of endeavor". The license discriminates against people whose field of endeavor is to hack the OS to run on non-Apple hardware, therefore it is not Open Source.

What does this mean for the APSL?

[jonwil]

Does it mean the new APSL is no longer OSI complient?
Does it mean that its no longer "free software" (and that the GNU project will start listing it on its "licences to avoid" list again?)

On the other hand, it should mean that apple will continue to provide kernel source code for both x86 and ppc quite quickly after kernel releases since if someone does use it to pirate osx, apple can sue them right away (and force removal of the source code)

That's correct

[CritterNYC]

I'd be willing to bet that with this change, the APSL is no longer free enough to be considered a Free license. As such, it'll be removed from the OSI-approved list [opensource.org]. That means that any projects using it can't be hosted on SourceForge, Google Code, etc.

This shouldn't really be surprising to anyone. Apple never really intended to truely open up their stuff and allow others to fully use it without their blessing.

Re:That's correct Not!

[aristotle-dude]

No license be it LGPL, GPL, or APSL removes any right (copyrights) from the original copyright owner(s). You cannot use any license as a defence of wilfully violating the copyright of the authors of any software regardless of the license used.

Re:

[Mr2001]

Irrelevant. This change still means the APSL no longer fits the Open Source Definition, because it discriminates against developers whose "field of endeavor" is running OS X on non-Apple hardware. Running OS X on other hardware isn't necessarily a copyright violation, and even in those cases when it is, that doesn't mean Apple is exempt from the OSI's requirements.

Re:

[Mr2001]

It's three words, actually, and I'd like to see you or anyone else explain how the APSL still fits the Open Source Definition with these changes in place. Particularly, this part:

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Good luck coming up with a definition of "field of endeavor" that inc

Still the same license?

[salimma]

IANAL, but does this just count as additional limitation under the same license, or would the reworked license count as a new license altogether (i.e. not the same version 2.0 [opensource.org] that OSI approved)

If not, would it not need to be recertified?

aitikin is a dumbass

[torstenvl]

The OSx86 project is far more than "kernel hacking." Nothing whatsoever prevents you from hacking Darwin as much as you want. Admittedly, it would have been less ambiguous for them to prohibit unlawful or unlicensed copies of an Apple-branded operating system, or a commercially available Apple operating system, but its meaning is clear enough to stand up in court if they were to sue you for hacking on Darwin.

Semthex's OSx86 project may be out-of-luck-ish (I don't know the OS X EULA - if running OS X on non-Apple hardware doesn't trigger the "unlawful or unlicensed" condition, then it seems fine to me).

Incidentally, Apple's legal department isn't that great. As far as I know, they still haven't updated the AppleCare terms and conditions to cover displays bought with MacBooks and MacBook Pros. "Apple covers the Covered Equipment and one Apple branded display if purchased at the same time and registered with a covered Mac mini, PowerBook, or Power Mac computer." Apple Computer, AppleCare Protection Plan Section 1(a)(i), available at http://www.apple.com/legal/applecare/appna.pdf [apple.com].

PS - Anyone know why the section symbol ( ), entity §, isn't showing up?

Dual licensed software

[aristotle-dude]

Look at the dual licensed software out there. Copyright owners have a right to license as they see fit. Abusing the spirit of the APSL by distributing patches that allowed for patching pirated versions of OS X with Darwin code would be the same as taking any additional documentation supplied in a dual licensed situation and including it with the Open Sourced code.

This kernel hacker was violating the copyrights of Apple. It does not matter what license they used, their copyrights remain intact. Circumventing the dual licensed MySQL would be just a illegal as what this guy was doing.

It's hard to take the poster seriously

[possible]

I did RTFA but it's hard to take the poster seriously when he starts off with three typos in the first sentence:

"Appe silently as usal changed the APSL text distributed with the latest released sources to make further work on it imposssible."

Re:

[smilindog2000]

Expense, yes, but quality no. I'd love to have more Macs around if I could afford them. The ones I have just wont die, and I never tire of looking at them. Of course, I'm perfectly happy typing this response on my Dell Insprion 9300, running Ubuntu.

Re:

[MightyYar]

It's their right... they developed the software. Your trollish comments about expense or quality have absolutely no bearing on the situation.

They should give up their right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes it makes very good business sense for a company like Apple to give up some of its rights. In this case, they probably should have. There's a very significant trend towards the use of open systems that can be freely modified and redistributed. Apple may not like it, but it's how the software world now works.

Pulling a stunt like this makes them look extremely bad in the eyes of open source developers and users. Now, you may think that we're a small group. And yes, we are. But we have influence. Our

Re:They should give up their right.

[MightyYar]

Apple is not a software company. They write software - some of it quite good - but they are a hardware company. At this point, they are phenomenally profitable for a PC vendor, and probably care little about trying to achieve profitability down the road-less-traveled. Arguing that Apple should open source their operating system is like arguing that one of the car manufacturers should open up their engine-control software - it removes a core advantage of their hardware and makes you less likely to buy it. If you are tired of car analogies, use Boeing's flight control software or IBM's mainframe code.

Now if you want to argue that it is in Apple's best interest to become a software company, you'd have plenty of company. Personally, I think it would be nuts to try to compete with Microsoft and all of the various UNIX-type OSes out there.

Re:

[massysett]

Arguing that Apple should open source their operating system is like arguing that one of the car manufacturers should open up their engine-control software - it removes a core advantage of their hardware and makes you less likely to buy it.

I thought the argument was just the opposite. That is, if Apple is a hardware company, then software is merely a cost center. By this theory, you open source the software to drive down the cost of development so that you can focus on the hardware that differentiates your

Re:

[Gr8Apes]

Isn't that pretty much what the situation is now? I don't recall Darwin being closed, last time I checked.

Except consumers don't think that way

[blueZ3]

To your average consumer, a PC (or Mac) is a package deal. When there's an OS problem, they don't think "I'll call Microsoft about my problem" they call HP or Dell. If you ask your great aunt Matilda what's wrong with her computer, chances are she won't differentiate between a software and hardware problem. Anyone who does "support" over the phone for non-technically-oriented family and friends can confirm this. When the printer doesn't work, half the problem is determining if it's a hardware (printer/ink/c

Re:

[MightyYar]

Unless opening up the kernel made it easier to run their diffentiating GUI on generic hardware...

Re:

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Apple is not a software company. They write software - some of it quite good - but they are a hardware company.

Apple is a personal computer company. They write both software and build hardware, but they are both simply components. Microsoft is a software company. They create one component of a PC, which is assembled by Dell or someone.

Arguing that Apple should open source their operating system is like arguing that one of the car manufacturers should open up their engine-control software - it removes a

Re:

[MightyYar]

You can load an aftermarket PROM on your ECM, and you can load Linux or Windows on a Mac... the analogy fails how? GM does not provide source for its ECM software, as far as I know.

Re:

[MightyYar]

This is like saying Tivo isn't a software company, they're a hardware company.

Which is, in fact, my contention. When you buy a car it has an engine computer that runs very critical software. Does this make GM a software company? When you buy a TV, it has software that controls every aspect - from color correction to the digital tuner... does this make Zenith a software company? Almost everything has software in it these days. You are free to define a software company in any way you choose, but for me it wo

Oy.

[jpellino]

Apple's purpose in releasing any of their source is to make sure people can write apps and add-ons that make OSX an uber-amazing OS that runs on museum-worthy hardware and makes people want to buy more of their systems.

You can modify 99% of what happens on a Mac through writing apps and add-ons and tweaking the system through available source.

Apple, and every other for-profit computer company has to balance the attractive value of the modifications they allow against the remaining allowances that would torpedo their business model.

Hence opening everything would not be in their best interest. Beyond that, the serial grousing about the APSL limits is a bit like grousing that your fork isn't on the left. It will still get food to your mouth.

And let's see - that last paragraph pretty much says "that's a nice computer company youse got there - wouldn't want nothin' to happen to it, if you know what I mean - I'm not sayin' anything, I'm just sayin'..."

Please. You're going to stop recommending Apple to grandma and her gamer grandkids who will never EVER need the sort of kernel mods that you are discussing here. Never mind that when they get to the Apple store how much influence do you think the dire warnings of their local Nick Burns (or was that Christopher Moltisanti?) is going to have in the face of great hardware that can run the three major OSs? How soon do you think we'll hear "Sorry, Steve, but Boeing's going to WalMart for Linspire boxes - hey, but you call us when we can totally hack your kernel."

Re:

[Lord Kano]

...OSX an uber-amazing OS that runs on museum-worthy hardware...

Is it cool in here or it it just the fanboy?

LK

Re:

[SilentChris]

I find your post amusing.

Recently I purchased a MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo. For all intents and purposes it's an excellent machine. Runs a little warm, but works well. It's replacing a Dell Inspiron that decided to commit suicide.

So anyway, first day I crack open the box, dig into System Preferences and play with the settings. I go into the Display panel, which has perhaps the weirdest slider widget in the history of all operating systems. Basically, you set the brightness then (if you decide to let it) th

Re:

[jpellino]

They person you talked to has a script in front of him which is badly written.
I'm guessing he dropped back 10 and punted.
So that's at the least a problem of poor communications, but not proven to be a problem of closed source.

Parallels is apparently getting it done with Apple's blessing and cooperation. So there's no problem there.

Re:

[argent]

Apple's purpose in releasing any of their source is to make sure people can write apps and add-ons that make OSX an uber-amazing OS that runs on museum-worthy hardware and makes people want to buy more of their systems.

Museum worthy?

Well, I'd say Apple's hardware belongs in a museum. Alongside the Cray 1 and CDC 6600 and IBM 360. And the Ford Model A.

I love OS X. I hate my Macbook Pro. I would happily pay Apple their margins on the Macbook Pro if they'd let me run OS X on a Thinkpad.

Re:

[jpellino]

There are a half a dozen pieces of Apple hardware in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art in NYC.

Even the Cube.

Re:

[argent]

There are a half a dozen pieces of Apple hardware in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art in NYC.

What's your point? How does that make them better personal computers?

Re:

[mysidia]

The restriction is based on an extrinsic, characteristic: how you intend for your modifications to be used.

This is discrimination based on field of endeavor, which causes software licensed under the new APSL to no longer be open source software.

It is unlikely that the license with these added restrictions is anywhere close to fitting the OSI criteria for an Open Source software license.

The restriction may be well-intentioned; however, it causes the software to not be open, since now you can't m

Re:

[drinkypoo]

The restriction may be well-intentioned; however, it causes the software to not be open, since now you can't modify your kernel and release source based on APSL source, if there's any theoretical way, someone could use what you released to circumvent Apple's proprietary OS software.

It is clear that it is not well-intentioned; it is an obvious attempt to deprive you of your rights as a consumer who purchased a product under First Sale law. It's sad that it will probably succeed, but it's even sadder that

Re:

[mrchaotica]

it's even sadder that the majority of Apple fanboys (and girls) will accept it as reasonable when it is in direct contravention of your rights.

Cheer up -- I switched to OS X three years ago, but am switching back (to Linux) as soon I get a new laptop (i.e., once the one I want finally comes out) partly because of this.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. John C. Randolph:

If you have ever been to Europe, you have likely encountered for yourself these "little elves and pixies" that you speak of. For I work at a fairly large European financial institution, and just over a year ago we completed our transition to open source software. Aside from anything we've written for ourselves, we use open source software from the hardware up. Our servers run FreeBSD, and PostgreSQL is used for our relational database needs.

The benefits have been enormous: we immediatel

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[NemosomeN]

Pass the Kool-Aid, you've already drunk enough of it.

Re:

[ajs318]

I reckon Apple would do better to have Mac OS XI as true open source -- as in GPL or, if they've really got the bollocks, BSD licence. They could continue to make truly wonderful hardware like the iPod range, and supply the all-important drivers to allow it to be used to its full potential with OS XI Macs. Imagine Apple printers, built like old HPs and running on cheap generic bulk ink. Imagine Apple scanners, that actually work. Right now, nobody is making peripherals that are anything but crap; and th

Till you come up with a better way to make money..

[NDPTAL85]

Apple would do better for WHO? You or Apple? Do you open source people even think these suggestions through from the standpoint of the business making the code? Do you know anything about business? Seriously?

As for peripherials I don't know what crap your using but my Hewlett Packard 3-in-1 Printer/Copier/Scanner works by just plugging it into my Mac. No installing software or drivers or anything....It Just Works. So why does Apple need to GPL its OS again?

You are aware that Apple is a hardware company right? They make most of their profits from hardware. Insane margins like 25% on hardware sales. From Macs, not iPods. Just exactly how are they going to replicate that lost revenue if they open source the OS allowing it to be run on any cheap generic PC? Do you REALLY think they'll be able to sell enough copies of OS X to make up for that? And at what price? Right now OS X sells for $130. Apple would have to up the price to $250 or more, maybe even $400. Who's going to buy an alternative OS thats that expensive when they can just stick with Windows?

Re:Till you come up with a better way to make mone

[AusIV]

I agree that licensing OSX under GPL would be a mistake, but I do think they could make a sizable profit by selling OSX.

You're right, 25% is definitely a good margin for hardware sales. It's horrible for software sales. Apple could stamp out a CD and user manual for a couple of bucks and sell it at $130, and they'd have a much wider audience than just people who can afford Macs. Software development costs might be slightly higher to support more hardware, but the user base would be significantly higher. An

Re:Slashtards

[bedouin]

The key difference being, those who choose (notice the emphasis on choose) to run OS X to fulfill their computer needs enjoy their experience. I support Apple because I think OS X kicks ass, and have no trouble paying to enable further development of a solid OS and cool hardware. Seeing teenagers download my favorite OS for free, or seeing the experience cheapened in the eyes of others because its running on unsupported hardware bothers me.

And Microsoft already does do this; last time I checked I couldn't recompile XP to run on my PPC PowerMac. None of Microsoft's licenses are even close to open source, while a number of Apple's key technology are.

Re:

[chill]

And Microsoft already does do this; last time I checked I couldn't recompile XP to run on my PPC PowerMac. None of Microsoft's licenses are even close to open source, while a number of Apple's key technology are.

That's because Microsoft is honest about their position towards FOSS and Apple isn't. At least you know where you stand with Microsoft, but with Apple, they do the bare minimum with FOSS -- just enough to let the Apple fanboys use the argument "Apple DOES do Open Source! What it isn't open ENOUGH

Re:Slashtards

[voidptr]

My little sister's a whore. But it's not too late to keep my OS pure. It's all I've got left.

Re:Slashtards

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

That's because Microsoft is honest about their position towards FOSS and Apple isn't. At least you know where you stand with Microsoft, but with Apple, they do the bare minimum with FOSS -- just enough to let the Apple fanboys use the argument "Apple DOES do Open Source!

Microsoft has been promoting their software as open for years with their "shared source" initiative. Apple has been producing and selling both open and closed source software for years as it fits with their business interests. The situation is only unlcear if you try to oversimplify as "Microsoft..closed...bad, Apple...open..good." The real world does not work that way. Apple releases a lot of software as open because they recognize the advantages of open source and believe in that model. This is not philanthropy, it is good business. The same goes for IBM. Nothing forced Apple to release their zeroconf implementation as open source, or even to help port it to Linux. They didn't do it because they want people to like them either. They did it to promote the technology and interoperability and new standards. We all benefit, and so does Apple. That is how open source is supposed to work.

What it isn't open ENOUGH for you? Fanatic.

I think anyone arguing here that Apple is screwing people over is probably a fanatic. Apple is in compliance with the license chosen by the people who wrote the code. Anyone who thinks they know better than those coders and everything should be treated like GPL is being fanatical.

Not that I don't think people should not complain about what Apple is doing if they want to or try to convince them to be less restrictive (although in this case I don't care). Just be clear that whiners don't have some sort of moral high ground here. It is just as ethical for Apple to close their kernel as it is for them to keep it open. Anyone who wants it released one way or another is arguing their own (perceived) best interest, and nothing more. I'd like Apple to give me 10 million bucks, but I don't think they have a moral obligation to do so.

Re:

[bedouin]

I know this is Slashdot and all, but you really need to get a life. It is software for Christ's sake, not your little sister.

Corny as it may sound, it's really a lot more than software. It's the device I have to deal with when I want to contact close friends thousands of miles away, edit projects, write documents, watch films and clips, read the news, apply for jobs, and be entertained. The computer is more vital to my day to day operations than an automobile, because at least when the car breaks down I c

Re:

[shudde]

Seeing teenagers download my favorite OS for free, or seeing the experience cheapened in the eyes of others because its running on unsupported hardware bothers me.

I agree... there's nothing more reprehensible than teenagers leeching and hacking away at operating systems. Sure, some might argue that we've had some amazing software developed as a result of nefarious kids like these but that's proved inadequate when balanced against the posters (and Apples) discomfort.

Re:

[AusIV]

Seeing teenagers download my favorite OS for free ... bothers me.

I love seeing my favorite operating system [ubuntu.com] downloaded for free. And amazingly, the experience is more or less the same whether you're running on a 32 bit PC, 64 bit, or PPC.

seeing the experience cheapened in the eyes of others because its running on unsupported hardware bothers me.

I know a guy who used to run OSX on his HP. He claimed it ran better on his HP than Windows did. I was never aware of him having any problems with the operating sys

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so full of shit my cable modem is starting to smell.

If you bought a Mac, the license change has pretty much no effect on you, since it only targets changes to software that DOES NOT RUN ON APPLE HARDWARE.

Re:Apple is more heavy-handed then Microsoft

[FLAGGR]

Yeah, why doesn't Apple just release its kernel under the GPL like Microsoft? Oh wait.

They're being pretty damn generous even letting you see the source code. If you don't like the license, don't view the source, it's not necissary.

Re:

[xonicx]

They're being pretty damn generous even letting you see the source code.

its not Their code.

Re:

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

its[sic] not Their[cp] code.

Well, they wrote the IO kit component entirely. The Next developers wrote the majority of Mach 3.0, from my understanding, before being acquired. The BSD portion (that is the POSIX part) was partially written by them but mostly by others. Those people, however, licensed it is such a way that others could close the source if they wanted to (which Apple hasn't) or otherwise restrict it (which Apple has). Those developers felt that it was more important to promote adoption of the

Re:

[Lonewolf666]

If you believe Rob Braun (http://ezine.daemonnews.org/200602/apple.html [daemonnews.org], link posted by an AC a few posts above), you get to see less and less of the source code.
Too bad.
Because Apple uses a few graphics chips with notoriously lousy Open Source support (ATI, NVIDIA). For a short time, I had the idea that looking at their drivers could maybe help Linux development. But now I guess that there is no help to be had from Apple there.

Re:Apple is more heavy-handed then[sic] Microsoft

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Oh wait, what's that? News flash, Apple borrows FreeBSD code to base their kernel on and what does the Open Source community get for it?

I won't argue the accuracy of your statement because it is irrelevant, but I think it important to answer your question. The "Open Source Community" and specifically the developers who wrote the BSD licensed code Apple adopted for their OS got exactly what they asked for. They got their code more widely used and on a lot more desktops than they could otherwise have hoped for. They helped define the standard, promoted interoperability, and gained in reputation.

The BSD license doesn't force you to keep the source open, but for fuck's sake, you got it for free.

You seem to be of the opinion that those who developed the code were morons. They intended to license their code as GPL, but they were just too dumb, or they copy and pasted the wrong thing or some such thing. They really wanted the code to remain open to all, even if that made companies like Apple choose something else. I submit that you're assuming that the "community" should ethically be able to restrict code and keep it open, even when the developers who put in all the hard work specifically licensed it otherwise.

You're saying you wouldn't at all feel obligated to support the industry that provided you with the basis of your entire wildly popular operating system?

Apple supports the "industry" but that is not relevant here. Apple supported the individuals who developed the code they used in exactly the way those developers asked them to. They have kept it open in that people can see it and suggest modifications/fixes which is a huge step up on some other possibilities. It also keeps them in step with the rest of the industry. Because they have some of the same underlying code it means developers can target both OS X and FreeBSD more easily with less work.

If you have a beef, bring it up with the people who wrote the code and licensed it via a BSD license. They did all the work and make all the rules. Your assumption that the rules they chose are wrong is presumptuous.

Re:

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

However, it is my most humble and honest opinion that the BSDs are successful due in part to the openness that they have achieved.

The adoption of the network stack in Windows from BSD licensed code is a success as far as advocates of the BSD code are concerned. It is in no way open. For some reason a lot of people who are GPL advocates see it as a failure and a reason why BSD licensing is flawed, as though it was not doing exactly what the developers intended.

This entire argument is based upon your not

Re:

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So, when you say my argument is based upon my notion of what success is, you ought to realize that yes, I'm writing my opinion on Apple's open source effectiveness and how it falls short of how the BSDs do it.

I think this is our major disconnect. I've been talking about BSD licensed code in general, while you seem to be thinking more of certain BSD licensed OS projects in particular. I think maybe a lot of people saw the Darwin code and thought, "cool we can build an OS using what Apple has here." The pr

Re:

[FLAGGR]

No, the Darwin kernel is MACH + NeXT + Mac, in fact very little of it is BSD (90% of the userland tools, however, are modified BSD tools) Most of the code was either written by Apple or bought by Apple.