Apple responds to APSL issues

heretic writes "Here's a techweb article on Apple's response to the criticism they've drawn on their source license for Darwin. Personally, I hope they fix at least the cancellation clause. "

Eric Raymond Does Not Own "Open Source"

He doesn't. Go to www.uspto.gov [uspto.gov] and search for it. You will find that it has been applied for (NOT granted) by Software in the Public Interest (SPI). Additionally, you'll note a company called Open Source Solutions with a similar REGISTERED trademark that is likely to dispute SPI's claim to "Open Source".

So "Open Source" is not yet a registered trademark or certification mark at all, much less owned by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) or Eric Raymond.

Of coure there is still the dispute between SPI and the OSI. I am very disappointed in SPI's failure to say anything further on this. They soliticed input from the free software community with a deadline of 12/31. However, no decision was ever put out and the community feedback was never published as they claimed it would be. I emailed them about it in late January and they said they were running a bit behind. More than a bit I would guess.

Sometimes perspective helps...

Apple has made a tremendous step toward legitimizing the Open Source movement in the minds of major businesses and enterprise shops in its decision to open the lower layers of its next-generation operating system.

At the same time, it provides a core OS for free for the tinkerer, and I believe that at least those tinkerers who have come onto the Darwin mailing lists will not only add value to the Darwin environment but perhaps bring some of Apple's technology back to Linux.

Yes, the license is written in such a way that it is hard to understand and can be misconstrued. Bruce Perens has said many times now that he and others are working with Apple to help them revise the license to better support Open Source's ideology.

This company- which has endured tremendous abuse on the Slashdot forums- witness the transition of the most popular argument from "Apple is overpriced" to "Apple is closed and proprietary" (so are IBM and Sun, for most of their stuff) to "Apple's license is evil and a threat to our freedoms"- has made an offer of great import to the Open Source community... "Here. Here is the source code to everything that makes our OS run. You can use the technology for your purposes and we get some of your innovations and bug fixes too."

Of course they keep the top layer. This is a company that NEEDS to make money in order to survive. Unlike a band of programmers unified only by their passion for the project- with no corporate expenses to pay- Apple must pay for its very survival. And it does so by maintaining control of the GUI and high-level layers of the OS. That's why the argument "I'll think they're serious about Open Source when they give away the entire source for the Mac OS" doesn't fly.

Apple has made great strides- perhaps they still have a distance to come, but I don't see why they need to be continually attacked for their efforts.

I do understand, however, the viewpoint of the GNU people, whose very purpose is the same as the ant-establishmentarians from the 60s- to provide a radical counterpart to the closed corporate culture that prevails. They embrace an extreme that substitutes the cry "freedom of code" for "free love."

Apple, by its very nature, can not be Free Software because they need to retain some control over the code they release. Unlike a lone programmer, Apple has billions in assets to lose over a patent lawsuit.

But the company can, and is trying to embrace the ideals of Open Source. I think, despite the initial stumblings, that Apple will continue to refine its license and move closer toward those ideals.

Let's wait and see. Perhaps Apple is making an effort to break from its past mistakes. Based on its performance and actions in the past year, I'd bet they really are trying.

Ability to revoke the license at any time

I find it very disappointing that Apple reserves the right to revoke a developer's license at any time. That makes it pretty scary to devote your time to a project only to find out that Apple changed its mind after six months of work.

For crying out loud, read the license, people! Apple can't do that!!! If you'll look at the license, the only time Apple can terminate a license is if it has evidence that a developer has violated a patent (might I add that if they didn't do this they would be breaking the law), and they can only terminate the license to that developer (plus remove that bit of code, which was illegal to add to the codebase anyway.).

Boycott? no

OK, I suppose I've sort of got a vested interest in this if you want to call it that. I do use Apple hardware for personal use. Boycotting is absolutely the wrong thing to do if you ever want to see mainstream companies start to embrace Open Source or GPL or any other similar license. I'm not saying that you've got to accept what their license offers, or contribute to it or sing songs of apple pie and motherhood about it. A few companies are taking their first baby steps towards free software. Yes, they are doing it because they see the possibility of some tangible benefit. They owe that to their employees, stock holders and customers.

Rather than boycott support the efforts of people like Bruce Perens in getting Apple (and other companies) to change the offensive parts of their license agreements. This is new to them, its new to the corporate lawyers. It's even new to the traditional Open Source community. Apple, Netscape, Sun, IBM and all the other companies that are taking their first steps towards open source face difficulties different from what a lone coder or an unassociated group of coders face. They can be sued by a variety of entities: stock holders; customers; competition.

The license will change and for the better. I'm sure of it. Or Apple's open source will fade away into obscurity. I'm sure of that too. The open source community needs examples of companies making a success at open source. It doesn't need examples of companies that either got out of open source because of boycotts or law suits or went under because they went open source. It will happen eventually of course, failures happen, but right now everybody needs some success stories.

Leave the boycotts for televangelists and their campaign against childrens TV shows or uneducated house wives and prime time TV.

Sheesh.

SPI still owns the Open Source trademark. Ask the USPTO.

16000 approvals of the license means that people clicked through the license page on the way to downloading the software to get a look at it. It doesn't mean that many of those 16000 people would contribute their own work on the software, given the current license. But it's a good thing to say at the stockholders meeting where nobody understands this anyway.

Apple is still listening to comment on the APSL and does not intend to leave it at 1.0 forever, although Avi might not be aware of that.

So far, CMP has done two of the worst stories on this topic, and they don't write back when I write them.

Bruce

Ability to revoke the license at any time

I think it will be very difficult to get a license without the termination clause past company lawyers.

I can't blame them for having it. It's very specific as to what can cause Apple to terminate there are three conditions. 1) User fails to comply (reasonable) 2 & 3) User engages in patent or copyright infringement, and Apple cannot secure the necessary rights. (If Apple has liability, then this is necessary)

The license doesn't say that Apple can revoke the license at any time for any reason.

I suspect that the GPL could be struck down in court because it doesn't offer a reasonable way out, but I'm not a lawyer.