Apple Releases Rendezvous As Open Source

clarencek writes "Apple has released Rendezvous as Open Source, as promised. Excerpt: Starting today, developers can download Rendezvous as open source under the Apple Public Source License. Rendezvous is part of a broader Open Source release today from Apple which includes the Darwin 6.0.1 operating system and additional Open Directory plug-ins. Together, these underscore Apple's commitment to making core protocols freely available as open standards and open source."

bad link...

[NNland]

I don't know what's up with the apple webservers, but they have a problem with;
http://developer.apple.com/Darwin/
as listed in the link above. Switching it to;
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
works fine though.

for what it's worth

[Anonymous Cowrad]

this is also being discussed on macslash.

the article can be found here [macslash.org]

Does this mean ...

[Vardamir]

Does this mean it'll be easier for me to set up my new linksys 802.11b network components in linux?

It's a nasty license.

[RealAlaskan]

Remember that the GPL requires that you publish source to derivitive works IF YOU RELEASE THEM. That requirement has caused a lot of heartburn and flamewars. Apple has carried it a bit farther. If you look here [opensource.org] you'll see this:

2.2 (c) You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications publicly available under the terms of this License, including the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as ...

and

1.4 "Deploy" means to use, sublicense or distribute Covered Code other than for Your internal research and development (R&D) and/or Personal Use, and includes without limitation, any and all internal use or distribution of Covered Code within Your business or organization except for R&D use and/or Personal Use, as well as direct or indirect sublicensing or distribution of Covered Code by You to any third party in any form or manner.

So, if you take this APL code and make a modification for use inside your company, you MUST release the source, where the GPL would allow you to keep your secret. I do hope that the usual suspects who flame away about the GPL will give this the same treatment.

Re:It's a nasty license.

[Jonny Ringo]

Well, its there code there rules. Your post reminds me of child wanting an ice cream cone and when the parent gives it to them the child screems "Nooo, I wanted the bigger one!" (freakin little brat).

Companies that want to use Apple's open code just have to take in acount its the rules that Apple made, and make the decision from there. What's the big deal? Seems to me that the company has one more option then they had before.

Re:It's a nasty license.

[foniksonik]

Here's how I think it will go down... open source programmers will take Rendezvous specs and implement a solution to them. Those same programmers will abstract out the specs so they can recode their own implementation. The libre implementation like SMB will become the defacto standard but will interoperate perfectly with Rendezvous specs. Apple and OSource programmers will diverge and recombine sporadically willingly and with full cooperation. Rendezvous and Zeroconf will benefit all humanity.

remember that Rendezvous is only one implementation of the completely open ZeroConf standard. You're are free to implement your own but in the meanwhile you can learn from what Apple has already done.

it IS nasty, or ir WAS nasty?

[deno]

I've read the fsf comentary (not the apples licence, sorry), and it talks about rewvoke clausula in past tense.

So what's up with that clausle? is it still active, or has it disapeared?

Re:It's a nasty license.

[Planesdragon]

I do hope that the usual suspects who flame away about the GPL will give this the same treatment

"The APL is not a zero-cost license. They force you to do more work than even the GPL does--"

Oh, wait a minute--you mean that Apple *isn't* trying to say that it's "Free Software?" You mean that Apple Zealots don't post on /. trying to say that no one loses anything by using the APL? :) On a side note, I think the FSF and associated zealots would be a lot better off in phrasing their philosiphy in terms of a commons: If I take from the commons, I am required to give back to the commons as required. This isn't freebies; it's just plain ol' civic duty.

(Does anyone else find it odd that proponents of the "bazzar" development model act like clowns so much?)

Re:It's a nasty license.

[Arandir]

The big sticking point for RMS on this issue, in my opinion, is the definition of private versus public. RMS considers my deployment of the software on my coworker's computer to be a private affair, while the deployment of the same software on my friend's computer is a public affair.

But what if my coworker is also my friend?

Help me understand

[Pahroza]

Please help me understand why it is that when a company refuses to release anything, there's nothing but whining and complaining about it. Then a company that has until recent years been a completely closed company as far as software and hardware are concerned, steps up to the plate, they get flamed.

Apple doesn't have to release anything under any license. They have chosen to release this, which is a great step in the right direction, albeit not the same direction a lot of you want to see.

In the past, Apple has made mistakes, and will probably continue to do so with frivolous lawsuits against certain people or companies, but they are protecting the interests of their company, as well as those of their shareholders. Apple is a company like all others out there trying to make money, and doing a damn good job of it. They realize that tough times are ahead for them, and yet are still taking the initiative to move forward with releasing this as open source. The fact that it isn't exactly the license you want should not cause all this griping about it.

I've seen enough arguments on /. over what the right license should be, and the open source communnity can't even agree on it, so why should Apple release under one of the many licenses that are out there instead of creating their own?

Apple is not infallible, but they are doing more to help set standards and releasing quality software for all to use on top of it than most companies out there are.

I personally applaud Apple for this decision and for carrying through with their promise.

Re:Help me understand

[Arker]

Maybe we're reading different posts. I've seen precious little that could be called whining, considering this is the new Slashdot of course... so expect a few whiny flames regardless of the subject.

But the license problem is definately fair game for comment. Anyone who's tempted to start working on this or any code should think long and hard about the license. Hopefully the next version of the APSL will finally fix the privacy issue. In the meantime, those that have an absolutely compelling reason to use Apples code (there is, the best I can tell, no compelling reason to use Darwin instead of real BSD, but there may be a compelling reason for some to use the Rendezvous code) will have to cope with the license problems, and everyone else is probably better advised to use Free/Open/NetBSD or Linux instead.

In the interest of full disclosure I should mention that I'm typing this in on a G4 TiBook, I like Macs a lot, and I'm not putting them down or trying to dissuade anyone from using them. Great hardware, and great software, I highly recommend Macs actually. But in terms of doing unpaid work to improve an 'Open Source' project, it makes sense to choose one that's actually Free, rather than one that is almost but not quite yet, maybe next year Free. No?

Re:Help me understand

[g4dget]

Please help me understand why it is that when a company refuses to release anything, there's nothing but whining and complaining about it.

Why shouldn't people complain about it? Is Apple a little old lady to whom you have to be nice? Have they become a not-for-profit organization working for the good of humanity?

I don't think so. Apple is a business. They release stuff under open source licenses when it makes sense for them to do so from a business point of view.

And we have to look at Apple's record rationally. Not as in "are we grateful to them", but as in "do their current actions indicate that they really understand how open source fits into their business model"? Is there a possibility that they give out something open source and later retract it? Is this merely an attempt to hurt a competitor (keep in mind that Microsoft has its own answer to this)?

APSL raises some questions and may not be suitable for inclusion in some Linux distributions, so the Rendezvous source code is probably not all that useful. And the actual protocols are already published as IETF memos.

So, I think Apple didn't quite get it. If they want to use a Rendezvous source release to establish it as a widely used standard, they'd be better off releasing the code under a BSD license, or just putting it in the public domain.

ZeroConf is simple enough anyway that Apple's release probably doesn't really matter much either way.

Re:Help me understand

[foniksonik]

You raise some good points. Personally I think that Apple is releasing it as a free as in beer software package so that all their partners, potential partners and 3rd party developers out there who already do things for Apple's OS X will find it faster and more convenient to implement Rendezvous instead of rolling their own.

Slashdot, being a venue for many x86 *nix programmers is of course a host to those thinking in terms of using it for their favorite OS. OSS isn't just for individuals or libre software developers though and really it seems to be intended for those mentioned above more.

So it seems that Apples Open Source offerings are free but not libre and if that fits in to your plans then you should take note of it. Just remember that you have to publish all of your fun hacks and/or improvements. Not that it seems like such a big deal to me as most of the cool things out there don't rely on hacking protocols... it's the particular style of their implementation that is the interesting part. Look at P2P software... same old networking tech as a server - client/browser but a very novel approach (well it was in the beginning).

Re:Help me understand

[g4dget]

Apple worked very closely with the Zeroconf group at IETF, in fact they employ the head of the group, Stuart Chesire. You have Apple to thank for helping Stuart push this through the IETF as a standard, and I think Apple not giving away their implementation with no strings attached is very reasonable.

So do I. I merely said that we don't need to thank Apple for giving away code, with or without strings attached, or for that matter sending one of their employees to author a standard. You thank people for a favor, you don't thank corporations for business decisions.

Re:Help me understand

[_Sprocket_]

Please help me understand why it is that when a company refuses to release anything, there's nothing but whining and complaining about it. Then a company that has until recent years been a completely closed company as far as software and hardware are concerned, steps up to the plate, they get flamed.

Apple doesn't have to release anything under any license. They have chosen to release this, which is a great step in the right direction, albeit not the same direction a lot of you want to see.

First off, let's not forget what Apple is a business. When they release software, they are expecting some kind of return. Which is fine - users and developers should be getting something in the exchange too. Exactly what everybody is getting in the exchange is written out, in black and white, in the terms of the license. And that is why so much attention is paid to the license.

The devil is in the details.

Criticisms of Apple's chosen license may or may not have merrit. But criticizing the fact that people ARE taking a critical look at the license is short-sighted.

Opensource.org

[bherrmann7]

I thought the trade marked opensource.org community says Apple's license is open source. Can't we rely on them to police these licenses?

It's the technology, stupid.

[marmoset]

So far we have several dozen posts complaining about licenses (so very Slashdot of you, really), and no one talking about why releasing the Releasing the Rendezvous source is so cool. Zeroconf is cool stuff. Imagine setting up a dozen machines at a conference or a LAN party and having them automatically self-configure their networking and discover each others services, without having to worry about subnet masks or a DHCP server. They already demoed a forthcoming version of iTunes that lets you play music from another 802.11 connected laptop without any configuration.

Oh, but I forgot -- bitching about the license is more important.

Re:It's the [broken] technology, stupid.

[keithmoore]

yea, imagine a dozen machines at a LAN party (or in an airport terminal or in any other random place) automatically connecting to each other and spreading viruses around. the current linklocal address spec (currently awaiting review for final approval) insists on having linklocal addresses enabled all the time, and by default - and for some reason the working group insists on it being that way!

for that matter imagine zeroconf breaking apps that expect addresses to be routable and stable.

oh, but I forgot - having kewl broken technology out the door is more important than actually doing the engineering that is required to make it work well.

Think why it is called zeroconf

[epeus]

the current linklocal address spec (currently awaiting review for final approval) insists on having linklocal addresses enabled all the time, and by default - and for some reason the working group insists on it being that way!

The reason is so that it has ZERO configuration. If you have to 'turn it on' it has a configuration step.

Apps that expect addresses to be routable and stable will die with DHCP or NAT already. Networking code needs to cope with network failure.

DNS records have durations and expiry for a reason. With ZeroConf you get a stable name to relookup for the address when you need it.

Re:It's the [broken] technology, stupid.

[keithmoore]

options are often good, but the current linklocal spec is optional only for the implementor of the IP stack. users have no choice about whether it's enabled (at least, not as a matter of standards compliance), hosts are exposed to additional security risks, programs are forced to deal with linklocal addresses even though they mess things up, and networks can't disable it even when it causes problems.

hopefully these things will be fixed before the specs are approved as standard, but so far the working group has steadfastly resisted any fixes that would actually make linklocal optional.

Re:It's the [broken] technology, stupid.

[keithmoore]

it's not that much of an apple vs. microsoft thing. microsoft and apple both have employees working with the IETF zeroconf working group - and at least some of the specs have both an apple employee and a microsoft employee as authors.

(I say employee because IETF doesn't recognize vendor representatives - all participants are supposed to use their best technical engineering judgement regardless of their employer's interest.)

the difference between ms and apple here is that apple is shipping rendezvous code before the specs are finalized, even though there are several known problems with those specs (especially the name lookup protocol).

Re:It's the technology, stupid.

[_Sprocket_]

So far we have several dozen posts complaining about licenses (so very Slashdot of you, really), and no one talking about why releasing the Releasing the Rendezvous source is so cool.

...

Oh, but I forgot -- bitching about the license is more important.

The story here is that Apple is releasing some technology Open Source. Since Open Source is an issue of licensing... you'll have to forgive everyone for naturally assuming the license in question might actually be both on-topic and important.

Re:It's the technology, stupid.

[Morth]

Imagine standing outside your local mac tech shop. Their network runs ZeroConf, when you open your iBook you are greeted on to their corporate LAN. It may be secure but it sounds likely that it is more Zero Security and lots of Conf to make it secure.

This scenario is not more applicable with zeroconf than without it. To use zeroconf you must have access to the network data, and if you do you have already compromised the network. It's not much harder to configure an ip yourself than getting one by zeroconf. And it's not much harder to sniff the network for service discovery either when you know how.

Re:It's the technology, stupid.

[90XDoubleSide]

You complain about the ASPL, but the only facts you point out about it are in the FSF link, and Apple has already made every change the FSF requested, except requiring you to publish deployed changes. Comparing the Apple Open Source program to MS's Shared Source program is pure BS: MS never said they were doing anything like open source; they never even used the term, and there are almost no similarities in the terms of the licences. And as for:

Imagine not being able to do this because Apple decided that they made a mistake, and cencelled your license.

Just read the fine licence:

7. Versions of the License. Apple may publish revised and/or new versions of this License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number. Once Original Code has been published under a particular version of this License, You may continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such Original Code under the terms of any subsequent version of this License published by Apple.

You always have the right to use the version of the licence the code was published under, and Apple has no clause allowing them to revoke the licence at their discretion; the licence may only be cancelled if you violate it or you sue Apple for patent infringement. See:

12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate: (a) automatically without notice from Apple if You fail to comply with any term(s) of this License and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of such breach;
(b) immediately in the event of the circumstances described in Section 13.5(b); or
(c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple.
... ... ...
13.5 Severability. (a) If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction finds any provision of this License, or portion thereof, to be unenforceable, that provision of the License will be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to effect the economic benefits and intent of the parties, and the remainder of this License will continue in full force and effect. (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if applicable law prohibits or restricts You from fully and/or specifically complying with Sections 2 and/or 3 or prevents the enforceability of either of those Sections, this License will immediately terminate and You must immediately discontinue any use of the Covered Code and destroy all copies of it that are in your possession or control.

Apple didn't want to use the BSD licence for their open source because of concern that MS would steal work exactly like the Rendezvous code, and they didn't want to use the (L)GPL licence because they didn't want to unneccissarily prevent anyone from using the code. Dozens, if not hundreds, of other companies have made similar open source licences to fit their needs. Apple made a few big mistakes in version 1.0 of their licence, but I see little room for anyone to complain about the current one.

Rendezvous, SLP, and UPnP

[maggard]

OK - complete karmawhore here (like I need it) but before there are a hundred what is it? posts here are links to the answers:

• IETF Zero Configuration Networking (Zeroconf) Group [zeroconf.org]
• IETF Zeroconf on Apple Rendezvous and Zeroconf [zeroconf.org]
• Apple's Customer-pitch for Rendezvous [apple.com]
• Apple's Developer-pitch for Rendezvous [apple.com]

Here's an overview of earlier Apple implementation called SLP (RFC 2608) also used by Novell:

• Service Location Protocol [opendoor.com]

Finally, for completeness here is UPnP:

• Universal Plug and Play Forum [upnp.org]
• MS's Developer kit [microsoft.com]
• Intel's Developer info [intel.com]
• Intel-developed SDK, Open Sourced. [sourceforge.net]

Re:Rendezvous, SLP, and UPnP

[maggard]

Whups - forgot the SLP homepage:

• Service Location Protocol Project [srvloc.org]

top stuff

[johnjones]

thanks for the links

regards

john Jones

Slashdot == New York Times?

[innate]

Whoa, Google News [google.com] links to this story (actually an older version of it [slashdot.org]) as a headline. Slashdot gathers news from around the web, Google gathers news from Slashdot. How meta is that?

x86 Darwin?

[tabacco]

Check out this page within Apple's site (this is the Darwin binaries page):

http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/ 6. 0/release.html

I just noticed that there's a section for an x86 binary, even if it does say "watch this space."

That's not news.

[Arker]

Darwin's been on x86 from the beginning. It's the higher level GUI systems that are PPC only.

Re:That's not news.

[Anonymous Coward]

...correction. It's their higher level GUI systems that are RELEASED for PPC only.

Re:That's not news.

[kalidasa]

And I I R C Darwin for x86 only works with some configurations.

Darwin or GNU/Darwin?

[porky_pig_jr]

Darwin? Built with GCC 3.1? uses bash? RMS, did you hear that?

has anyone done anything with the source?

[RestiffBard]

I keep hearing about apple's open source releases but I never hear about anyone doing anything with that source.

has anyone got any Apple OSS project working?

Re:has anyone done anything with the source?

[RestiffBard]

no one will likely ever see this but I just need to bitch about moderation. I never do and I have super duper karma so I don't care really. but. calling a comment redundant means that that comment was already made in some form previous the comment being moderated. thats what redundant means. saying something that has already been said. ok got that figure out now? I know there were only about 15 comments when I made my post and none of them made the same comment I did. have you considered that you are reading a thread? just because you see 20 messages before mine doesn't mean they were written before mine. check the damn times you twits.

ok sorry. just tired of messages being marked redundant when they are in fact original.

Something glazed over....

[Brat Food]

One thing that sems to be missing in all of this is that Apple is a public, for profit company, releasing code in to the public domain.

While im sure the GPL et al. are great, what apple does is give themselves some protection, and try to make it so that their code doesnt get forked and messy with no way "keep up" with it. To illustrate the point, lets say rendevous is released under a "take it and do whatever the hell you like" liscense. CompanyA decides to add something, and releases a million widgets with their unpublised modification. Lets also say that this modificaiotn makes their produch not interroperate with anything else based on the standard. Now, while you may say "thats companyA's perogative", you are also probably not realizing that companyA is so often microsoft. So you see, the protection built in stops companyA form "embrace, extend, break" and gives OTHERS using the standard sort of a guarentee that they wont be left out in the cold. If i find a bug, i can be sure that my addition will work with the standard that everyone has. Its not perfect, its not the same on the outside, but, to all you detractors, it has its inherant merits, and should not be judged with tunnel vision.

License?

[supabeast!]

I would really appreciate it if the Slashdot crew and link submitters would note the license that software is placed under when said software is released as open source. Anyone else agree?

Re:APSL is no opensource

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL - 6 pages of legalsleaze 25000+ words.
BSD - 1/4 page less than 300 words.

BSD code can be used in GPL
GPL code can't be used in BSD

Looks like BSD is MORE Open Source than your 'real open source' idea. Oh, and next time Bruce, post with your name.

Re:APSL is no opensource

[TellarHK]

Where'd you learn your debate skills, Gene Ray [timecube.com]?

Re:APSL takes away rights

[TellarHK]

Apple suing people for look and feel sucks, yes.

However, Apple is perfectly within their rights not to open thier window manager. It sucks for you, but it keeps them in business. Aqua -is- Apple, in many ways.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[BlueGecko]

* Apple sued developers of the KDE and Gnome themes that were "confusingly similar" to their Aqua theme?

Like it or not, Apple spent a good deal of money developing Aqua and cultivating its image. When users see Aqua, they immediately recognize it as an OS X system. It's like the distinctive styling of Jaguars and BMW that make it so easy to identify them even from a good distance. The KDE and GNOME themes threatened to destroy that branding before it got off the ground. I fail to see what's wrong with that. Apple didn't ban KDE or GNOME from transparency, or blueness, or even clumping all the window widgets together on the left. They just didn't want them copying their branding. Is it that hard to come up with your own unique theme without copying someone else? Or do you just have to have permission to flat out plagiarize everything you see?

* Made the decision to keep their window manager closed, in order to keep the community from benefiting?

So, just to make sure I'm entirely and 100% clear on this, your basic problem is that Apple only released all of their base system (which included many parts--NetInfo, OpenDirectory, OpenTransport, the HFS+ filing system, CoreFoundation, OpenPlay, and Rendezvous, just to name a few--that they had absolutely no requirement whatsoever to release) and not the entire system. Apple did not release that core because it is what distinguishes the experience from so many other pgorams, but still, look at all of the stuff you did get. Instead of focusing on the fact that Quartz, which probably cost millions to develop, remained closed, why not be happy that they have given you an excellent directory technology (NetInfo) and some very good networking technologies under an open-source license.

As for your complaint about the APSL: the APSL is recognized by OSI [opensource.org] as a valid license, so unless your beef is with all of OSI, I'm not going to accept your complaint about the APSL unless you can be more specific about how it's taking rights away.

but what about iCal?

[prockcore]

"Like it or not, Apple spent a good deal of money developing Aqua and cultivating its image."

Ok, but how do you explain Apple threatening XTunes to change their name?

Especially since just two weeks later Apple unveils "iCal" calendaring software.. reguardless of the fact that there's already calendaring software for windows called iCal.

Re:APSL takes away rights (minor nitpick)

[Zenki]

You don't see the OSS/FS community bitching because Apple ripped off the dock, which is used in so many of our Window Managers, do you? No.

The dock was invented by NeXT, whose codebase is now the property of Apple. A more appropriate question is "Why isn't Apple suing people for ripping off their dock?"

Re:APSL takes away rights (minor nitpick)

[dh003i]

Please. You think there were no docks in UNIX WM's before NeXT? Bullshit.

Re:APSL takes away rights (minor nitpick)

[foobar104]

Well, NeXT's dock goes back to about 1990. Find us a reference to a dock in use before that, and we'll accept that you're right. Until then....

But this is all pretty pointless. Apple hasn't (as far as I know) trademarked the dock. They've trademarked the entire look-and-feel of the Aqua user interface. It's a sum-of-all-parts thing, not an each-part-individually thing.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[BlueGecko]

You don't see the OSS/FS community bitching because Apple ripped off the dock, which is used in so many of our Window Managers, do you? No.

The Dock comes directly from NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP. Check out a picture here [pair.com].

Re:APSL takes away rights

[BitGeek]

You don't see the OSS/FS community bitching because Apple ripped off the dock, which is used in so many of our Window Managers, do you? No.

I love how apple "ripped off the dock" from operating systems that were released well after NeXTSTEP.

We all know they have amazing powers of time travel-- "stealing future technology for the needs of today!"

Sheesh.

Nevermind that the entirety of the look and feel of every Linux box is a blatent ripoff of the creation of Apple computer (with a trivial amount licensed from Xerox.)

No, lets pretend that isn't the case. sure.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[foobar104]

So fuck Apple. I have the right to make my UI look like whatever the hell I want to.

No, you don't. You have the right to make it look like whatever the hell you want up to the point where you're infringing on somebody else's trademark. This is just like names. If you make a beverage, you are free to call it whatever you want... but you obviously can't call it Coca-Cola. Similarly, you can name your company whatever you want... but you can't call it American Airlines.

Trademarks are a really simple idea, dude. I'm concerned and saddened that you don't get them. Perhaps your trouble is the fact that you're a moron?

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dh003i]

The only moron here is you.

If I want to make my desktop look like Apple's tacky Aqua appearance, that's my fucking right. Apple can't stop me from doing that legally, nor would any such efforts be enforcible.

Its the same as if I had branded a large copyrighted picture on my wall. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that.

All I'm doing in distributing my customization appearance to others is helping them do the same thing I did, saving them the trouble. I'm not a commercial competitor, so trademarks don't apply.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[SlamMan]

No, just like if you have a big sign that says open house on your door, and I come in, that fine. But it doesn't make me a hipocryte for not have a sign on my door saying the same thing, and being pissed when you climb in my window.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[foobar104]

Apple took plenty from the FS / OSS communities via the UNIX-tools they incorporated into OS X. They pretty much took it unmodified and recompiled it for Apple hardware. A little bit hypocritical for them to ask that no one copy some of their good ideas. :sigh:

Apple took what was freely given (FreeBSD), and combined it with what was already theirs (NeXT's IP) and some new things (Quartz, Aqua) to come up with OS X.

Get that? Apple took what had been freely given. They are under no obligation-- moral, legal, or otherwise-- to give anything in return. They do so anyway.

And yet you say they're not doing enough.

You zealots amaze me.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dh003i]

They give back to the community under a draconian license, the APSL. As has been noted by Stallman, the APSL has several problems which mean we can call it Open (as in OSS, we can see the source) but hardly Free (as in freedom):

1. Disrespect for privacy. APSL doesn't allow you to make a private modification for your own purposes; you must publish any modifications. Though this is completely uninforcible, it is disturbing none-the-less.

2. Central control. Anyone who releases or uses a modified version must notify Apple.

3. Revocation. The license states that Apple can revoke it at any time. This makes it no better than the EULA.

4. Its an unfair and unequal relationship. It requires you to give Apple certain rights to your modifications, which they do not give to their code.

This is hardly giving back; hardly a symbiotic relationship. This is, "lets see if we can get them to work for us without paying them".

Re:APSL takes away rights

[foobar104]

Anybody can download Apple's source, read it, learn, and use Apple's ideas to implement their own software. People are prohibited merely from modifying Apple's code without telling Apple about it. This is a fine and good thing; Apple is sharing their innovations while still holding on to their valuable intellectual property. This is most certainly giving back to the community.

And yet you find fault anyway. Why is that, I wonder?

The problem here is that you, dh003i, have a political agenda. This agenda, which is based on the idea that no corporation or individual should own intellectual property, is incompatible with the modern world. This is why you have plenty of things to complain about. This is also why your complaints are irrelevant.

Let me show you what I mean. For purposes of discussion, I will adopt a political agenda. Let's say that agenda is... environmentalism. My goal in life is to protect the environment.

I now observe that the Apple license is notably silent on the subject of greenhouse gas emissions. According to the APSL, anybody can download Apple's source code while continuing to use as many fossil fuels and CFC's as they want! The license does not restrict in any way one's use of plastics or aluminum; it doesn't even have the standard clause that says, "All printed copies of this license must be recycled in an environmentally friendly paper recycling facility!" This license sucks!

See what I mean? If your agenda is orthogonal to the purpose of the license, you will find many things to which to object. But your objections will be meaningless, and they will be ignored.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dh003i]

Oh please. Believing that intellectual property rights should either be eliminated or scaled back both in scope and duration is not incompatable with the modern world; indeed, it makes more sense in the modern world than when copyrights were first invented.

Now that most software, music, and videos are obsolete in 5, 10, and perhaps 20 years respectively, it makes sense to limit copryrights to perhaps 20 years max, following the 5-year renewal plan that Lessig proposed.

I'm not sure I support eliminating intellectual property all together. But I do support drastically scaling back its scope and duration, as I've previously indicated. By scaling back its duration, I mean that it should be very narrowly construed; Coca Cola's trademark on the slogan "its the real thing" for their drinks shouldn't be able to prevent a book reviewer from saying (in regards to a book), "its the real thing".

Your example regarding the environmentalism is absurd, because the environment is not an inherent issue in software; users freedom, however, which is the concern of the FS community, is.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dh003i]

You should also note that while Apple has the right to license their software in whatever reasonable manner they like (and many of the clauses in their license are completely unreasonable and probably unconstitutional), they do not have the right to the praise or acceptance of the OSS and FS communities.

We have the right to criticize their license, while at the same time encouraging them for their relative progress.

Perhaps Apple improved their grade on licensing for some comoponents of its OS from an E to a D; but a D is still failing. While we should encourage them for their progress, we should hardly say that all is right.

You should also note that what's more important isn't how much software Apple licenses under an open sourced license (the APSL), but rather the quality of that license. It would be better to release that same amount of software under the BSD or GPL licenses than to release the entire OS under the APSL.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[foobar104]

I can't understand how anybody with even the slightest understand of how business works would say such a thing.

As much as I hate to say it, I think that Microsoft might actually have a point. A sizable fraction of the "free" software advocates out there-- including you, dh003i-- hold intractable anti-business positions. That concerns me.

On the one hand, we have the corporate world. Big companies doing business. On the other hand, we have the "free" software folks. I don't like to think that these two groups are in opposition to one another, but it sounds like they are after all. At least, the "free" software folks oppose the corporate world. The corporate world still seems to be pretty indifferent to the "free" software people, which is a good thing.

Anyway, you have these two groups, in opposition to one another. Comparing the contributions to the world that the "free" software people have made-- some software that's only useful to a tiny fraction of the population-- to the contributions to the world that the corporations have made-- in with a lot of bad stuff, a lot of good stuff like medicines and abundant food and relatively inexpensive housing-- I have to say that I'd side with the corporations.

Yeah, you people have the right to criticize Apple's license. And lord knows you exercise that right; the "free" software people are the most critical gang I've ever encountered. But that doesn't make you right. You're still a bunch of immature idealists who haven't really thought about the implications of what it is that you're advocating.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dh003i]

I'm not anti-business; I'm just against some business methods employed:

1. Insider-trading, commonly practiced by executives, which allowed that bastard Gary Wennig to make 600 million dollars while the shareholders of Global Crossings lost their money.

2. Biopiracy and other outrageous attempts to own life. Refer here to biotech companies patenting cures developed by traditional people, then making money on that, and charging indigenous people for the cures they themselves developed. Also refer to Monsanto corporation, which has now taken up the practice of suing farmers for not removing "patented" seed which germinates on their property due to wind.

3. EULA's which take away basic user rights and attempt to extend the companies rights far beyond what copyright law allows.

4. The ever-continual efforts of corporations like Walt Disney, and corporate organizations like the RIAA and MPAA, to retroactively and unconstitutionally extend both the scope (i.e., DMCA) and duration (i.e., 1998 Mickeymouse Copyright Extension Act).

5. Other unfair licenses, like Apple's APSL (though most of the unfair parts are unenforcible [i.e., those requiring that you publicize any modifications]).

6. Unreasonable attempts to silence speech using intellectual property laws. Refer to Intel Inside and "Yoga Inside". Also refer to "fuckfordmotors.com" or whatever it was.

The business world is not indifferent to the OSS & FS movements. They want to either use them (in the way in which Apple parasites off of the efforts of the OSS community) or eliminate them, as they see them as a threat (in the way in which MS has targetted the FSF and the GPL, and any software covered under it).

I'm not against business in general. I'm just against certain business practices, which are rather common in the business world. I happen to believe its possible to make money without fucking anyone over, breaking the law, or violating anyone's rights.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[overunderunderdone]

...and many of the clauses in their license are completely unreasonable and probably unconstitutional

I can accept unreasonable, but "unconsitutional"? Such a bizarre statement severely undermines your credibility.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dbrutus]

If Apple has the moral obligation to release code back, the OSS community has the moral obligation not to bitch about how they fulfill that obligation. They've adopted an OSI license, released a great deal of code and seem to be successfully profitable which means as time goes forward there will continue to be code released as they please. Now isn't the choice of when and how to release code properly the decision of the owner/creator?

Re:APSL takes away rights

[foobar104]

Anyway, the way they've been acting over the aqua interface is pathetic. They should have let people copy the aqua theme.

No offense, but you appear to lack a basic understanding of branding and marketing.

Apple wants people to buy Macs. Fundamentally, I think many people in Apple's upper management have higher motives-- their recent decisions show that they want to create new and beautiful things that make people's lives better-- but, as a company, they just want people to buy Macs.

Why do people buy Macs instead of other computers? Each Mac owner has his own set of reasons, but if you boil them all down you'll find that people buy Macs because they're Macs. Macs are different from other computers.

A Dell is pretty much the same as a Gateway, is pretty much the same as a Compaq as far as personal computers go. They all run the same software and do the same things. They differentiate from one another on price and on the way the case looks.

Macs are differentiated in several ways. Their industrial design is different. Their applications-- like iTunes and iPhoto and whatnot-- are different. And, yeah, their look-and-feel is different.

Take away what's different, and you lose the thing that makes a Mac a Mac. People lose their reason to buy a Mac-- after all, the only reason people buy Macs is because they're Macs, right?

So Apple has a vested interest in keeping Macs different from other computers. That extends to all aspects of "differentness," including the design and appearance of the user interface.

Apple would have been foolish if they hadn't defended their Aqua-related trademarks. They would have been giving away their market differentiation, which is the only thing that keeps them in business.

Based on the tone and content of your comment, I do not expect you to agree with this, or even to understand it. But it's the truth.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[betaray]

If you can back up the claim that NeXT didn't invent the dock (that is that there's a OS with docks before NeXT), then I'd love to see it.

I love that you bring up cars, because EVERYTHING on a car was patented. You know why the Taurus didn't have rounded headlights the very next year after Porsches? Because those lights are patented, and Ford would either have to develop their own unique design, license the Porsche design, or wait for the patent to expire.

This is not a bad thing. This is also what you fail to address from my first post: What is the motivation for developing new technology if your competitors can immediately take what you've produced and sell it at a lower cost since they did not have to fund the R&D?

Just think of it this way, what if some open-source GUI guru came up with a wonderful new way to do things, something that would revolutionize the desktop and bring Linux to the forefront? Then Microsoft saw the idea and incorporated it into the next version of Windows totally negating any advantage Linux might have, and at the same protecting their position as the market leader. Assuming it was GPL'd you'd claim that they were in violation of the license.

Well, the street goes both ways. By ripping off the Mac GUI you're in violation of their license. In another post [slashdot.org] you seem to understand this. Just like you can't use even a small bit of GPL'd code and not GPL your program, and you can't take Apple's work without their permission. Remember the only thing that makes the GPL work is the existence of copyright law.

If you believe that closed source is bad, I can respect that. However, that does not give you license to steal from the people who develop closed source software.

On a completely different subject, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but you might want to think about your attitude. Maybe you just like being an ass to people, but you're not going to change anyone's mind by starting of your posts with "Your full of shit" or generally insulting people. You just going to alienate and galvanize people's attitudes against your position simple due to the fact that you're abrasive. If your goal is actually to convince people of your point, you might try using more tact in your posts.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[dh003i]

Firstly, there's a big difference between Ford copying Porsche's features and an OSS / FS project copying Apple's features. Ford is commercial and competes with Porsche. OSS / FS projects are not commercial and don't compete.

Secondly, as you implied, Ford could have come out with rounded headlights the next year, or day; just it would have to be their own implementation of them. Similarly, the Aqua themes I've seen so far for Linux or Windows are not copies of Apple's implementation of a glassy/bluish look & feel; they're different, separately generated, implementations.

The idea that a "look and feel" can be patented & copyrighted is absurd. Xerox was trying to make that point when they sued Apple because Apple sued MS for "ripping off their look and feel"; essentially, Xerox said that you shouldn't legally be able to own the rights to a look and feel.

Think about how backwards what your saying is. You want a world where one person discovers something useful, and then no one else can use that something without paying them. Its like saying that if I find a better way to do business, and that becomes widely known, I can prevent anyone else from doing business that way.

The entire market is dependant to some extent upon competitors copying eachothers efforts. This is the only way you can create real competition.

Yes, I know the only thing that makes the GPL work is copyright law. However, the GPL is a brilliant tool designed by Stallman to use Intellectual Property laws against themselves, so to speak. It is not the end goal. The end goal is to either eliminate intellectual property all-together, or vastly reduce its duration and scope.

As for being an ass, I call it as I see it; if I think someone's full of it, I'll say so.

As for a dock before NeXT, what do you call this [plig.org] in TWM?

Re:APSL takes away rights

[g4dget]

Made the decision to keep their window manager closed, in order to keep the community from benefiting?

I think it's their full right to do this--they aren't obligated to give software away.

Of course, I also think it's foolish for Apple to invest much effort in this proprietary effort. Aqua looks nice and has set a new standard for appearance, but I predict that we will have smaller and faster X11-based systems with similar appearance and graphical capabilities within less than a year, and you'll be able to get that appearance using any of your favorite toolkits, without porting or any other hassles.

If you want the programming model of Apple's GUI, you already can get GNUStep. I think if Apple made their entire system open source, it would be about as successful--most developers apparently really don't want to develop for Objective-C and DisplayPostscript/DisplayPDF.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[akac]

The problem here is that X11, Windows, OS 9, and all the other window managers work in a very similar way - just look different. Quartz/Aqua looks AND works differently from the other window managers. Its PDF based with automatic double buffering and far more sophisticated compositing that is just plain not possible on other systems without major hacks.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[g4dget]

X11 has had automatic double buffering support for years. The X Render extension provides compositing, alpha support, full transparency (including for windows), antialiased drawing, antialiased text, affine transforms, and splines. X Render is part of XFree86 4.2.

Time will tell whether the Quartz or X11 approach is better. I suspect X Render will be more efficient and work with many more toolkits.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[BlackGriffen]

"Apple sued developers of the KDE and Gnome themes that were "confusingly similar" to their Aqua theme?"

That has nothing to do with source code and everything to do with branding. Apple wants people to be able to look at the screen and say, "Oh, that's a Mac," like they have done for years.

"Made the decision to keep their window manager closed, in order to keep the community from benefiting?"

There's a very good reason for closed sourcing the the window manager. Any monkey can find a free BSD variant online, but the window manager is sufficiently different from X and it's managers to make it stand out, so Apple doesn't want to lose that competitive advantage. If Apple lets go of that, then there would be no reason to buy a Mac when 50 clones came out on the x86 platform. Simply put, Apple isn't just in the business of building computers, and because they also make the operating system, they cannot afford to open source all of it unless they are willing to let go of what competitive advantages they do have.

Besides, I was under the impression that parts of the Red Hat distro were proprietary, no?

BlackGriffen

Re:APSL takes away rights

[bnenning]

Regardless of the merits of Apple's actions that you cited, neither has anything to do with the APSL. Darwin is free and the UI layers aren't; this has always been the case.

Re:APSL takes away rights

[BitGeek]

APSL only works to take away the rights of the users

Are you really so stupid that you think a license granting rights to source code with conditions is "taking away" rights?

They cant' take away rights to their property that was never given.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO APPLE PRODUCTS OR SOURCE.

Furthermore, its clear that you think suing somebody who STEALS YOUR PROPERTY is a violation of rights.

Great. Can I have your car?

Re:APSL takes away rights

[SlamMan]

Wait, what? You expect Apple to distribute under the GPL , of all liscenses? Do you actually think Apple wants to give Darwin code to every person who installs OS X? You could make a good agument for BSD liscenses, but no way on the GPL. For Grandma nto to see a cd called source code to show up with her mac is reason ebnough to use a differnt liscense.

Re:Troll

[g4dget]

APSL has passed most open source advocates' definition of Open

It is arguably an open source license. Nevertheless, there are practical problems with it; RMS's commentary [gnu.org] is based on things that anybody using APSL should take a close look at.

Anyone who's rational recognizes the great service Apple has done and continues to do for the open source community.

Oh, get a clue. Apple is a company, not a charity or a benevolent benefactor. They have realized that some open source efforts are good for their business. You don't owe them anything and they don't owe you or me anything. Apple is being rational, and so should anybody using their products.

socialist radicals

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

Re:Troll

[foobar104]

socialist radicals

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

It is a bad thing. Read your history.

Re:Troll

[g4dget]

It is a bad thing. Read your history.

Funny, that's what I recommend you do. History is never just black and white.

Since when was aqua a protocol?

[cduffy]

Keeping some user interface code closed is not a big deal. Keeping core OS code, interoperability-related code or protocols themselves closed is. Apple's position is reasonable.

Re:ahhh, newspeak

[spankalee]

How is Aqua a "core protocol"?

You can't be happy that Apple is participating in open source, you want them to give away everything. It's simple business that Apple has to retain some value added features in order to have something to sell (of course I'm sure you'd rather they gave everything away). Plus they wrote Aqua from scratch, it doesn't use open source code. Originally based on Display PostScript, they had to re-write the entire windowing and graphics system, and you want them to give that away? Basically, you're jealous.

They are not using open source like M$ used BDS tcp/ip stack, this is pure FUD. By all accounts they are contributing back to the projects they use, and are releaseing the core of their operating system as open source that even comes ready to run on open x86 hardware. They also hired Jordan Hubbard in part to make sure that they were able to work better with the *BSD projects.

Re:ahhh, newspeak

[g4dget]

How is Aqua a "core protocol"?

It isn't, and that's part of the problem. if it were a protocol, it would be documented and could be implemented on other platforms.

X11, in contrast, is a well-documented protocol, which is why there are dozens of different server and client library implementations for it.

Re:ahhh, newspeak

[g4dget]

Why is having a different (and arguably better) graphics system 'part of the problem'?

The "part of the problem" that I see isn't the differences in the graphics models, it's the fact that Apple doesn't define a fixed protocol for communication between the display server and the applications--it is just whatever it is, and it can change at any point. That's fine for Apple's business, but it places it completely outside open standards or the open source world, and will probably limit its adoption.

but it provides capabilities and features that would be hard, if not impossible to do with X11 (true transparency, pdf based vector graphics, built-in color management all come to mind).

The X11 render extension offers true transparency, antialiased text and graphics, and an imaging model equivalent to PDF. While it's still evolving, most important capabilities are in XFree86 4.2 already. Color management has been in X11 for years, although it's not used much (and arguably not very useful despite its popularity).

Don't get me wrong, I love some of X11's capabilities, but I just don't see having Quartz rather than X11 being a bad thing.

PDF-like imaging models are nice, and display hardware is now up to it. But you don't need Postscript or PDF in order to get that kind of graphics. In less than a year, I predict most X11 toolkits will use a PDF-like imaging model but with much less overhead than Quartz or Cocoa. We'll just have to wait and see. If I'm right, Apple might want to consider retargetting their back-end.

Re:ahhh, newspeak

[0x0d0a]

What the hell is wrong with you? Aqua has no technical value whatsoever. It's not useful from an Open Source standpoint. It's a blinking *theme*.

It's also how Apple designed a unique looking product. They're handing you the important code, so quite complaining about some skin-level deep issues.

Ask the experts.

[Cardinal]

Finding out isn't hard. Search google for 'site:gnu.org APSL' and look what comes up first.

But since that's a lot to ask, here:
The Problems of the Apple License [gnu.org]

Re:Ask the experts.

[j-beda]

For the truely lazy, the GNU link basicaly says that the APSL has one "flaw", namely "any modified version "deployed" in an organization must be published".

Of course the definition of "deployed" is a bit vauge, like the GPL definition of what situations require GPL code to be released.

Re:Ask the experts.

[overunderunderdone]

It looks like Apple has systematically addressed each of the the objections until there is only one remaining. I'm sorry but I can hardly get myself all worked up over this last "major flaw" which makes the APSL so evil - That if you deploy modified code within a company/organisation you must make the source public. (It is worth noting that purely personal or R&D use is not under this condition).

It seems a tempest in a teapot to me and one I'm surprised that GNU.org is making such a big deal about. Ironically the GPL is more pro-business bowing to a principle of respecting *corporate* privacy whereas the APSL respects *personal* privacy but counts corporate/organizational deployment (for non R&D purposes) to be a public affair that requires publishing the source. After all in an organization that the GPL allows to keep it's internal code closed (in contrast to the APSL) you could be talking about many thousands or tens of thousands of copies of the software and it could get messy with subsidiaries, contractors, joing-ventures, employees with home copies etc. etc. etc.

Sure it's fair to argue about the merits of either approach but it hardly seems to put the APSL beyond the pale and scandalous to mention in polite society.

Re:Comments on the Apple source licenese?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can use/modify/distribute code, iff
1. It still has the original notice in the source
2. It includes a copy of the License
3. Modified source includes notice and date of the mod
4. The source must be made publically available for as long as the code is available (12 month minimum)
5. If binary only, notice of where to get source

Apple didn't license any patents for you. If you need a patent to use/distribute the source, you need to get it yourself.

Any modifications you make can be used by anyone (including Apple)

If you combine APSL code with non-APSL code and distribute as a single product, you must follow rules as above for the APSL code.

If you offer support for APSL code, you take it all - Apple isn't helping.

You can use the version of the APSL that came with the original code, or any subsequent APSL as you wish.

No warranty or support.

Limited liability ($50 tops).

No trademark licensing is implied.

Your changes belong to you (but are still subject to APSL). Apple's changes belong to Apple (but are NOT still subject to APSL)

The license is terminated if:
1. Breach of contract (+ failure to fix with 30days of notice)
2. If a court finds that the licensing rights/restrictions/grants are invalid
3. If you sue Apple for patent infringement

The government should treat APSL code as a "commercial item"

The APSL is not a partnership or joint venture between any parties (Apple or otherwise)

Apple is allowed to compete directly against any modifications you make.

If Apple fails to enforce some part of this license, it doesn't that it won't enfore it in the future.

If a court finds that part of the license is unenforcable, the rest of the license is still valid. (except for the licensing rights/restrictions/grants clauses)

If you are from Quebec, it's OK that the APSL is in English. Really.

Re:yes it is nice shame its not compatable with GP

[BlueGecko]

so from this *BSD nor Linux can NOT use the code

I don't understand where this comes from. You cannot easily integrate Darwin's source directly into the kernel, but certainly all of their independent libraries and programs are absolutely fine, and unless someone has a really convincing argument otherwise, since closed-source drivers can be linked with the kernel through loadable modules, I would assume that any of this code can be linked that way as well. In fact, while it is no longer under development, there was a project to integrate NetInfo with Linux [padl.com]. They apparently saw no problem. So what, specifically, makes this impossible, in your opinion?

Re:on so many levels.....

[MalleusEBHC]

Sorry, but _your_ argument fails on one fundamental level: Apple is not required in the slightest to open source anything under any license. You should be happy that they have chosen to open source a lot of stuff under an OSI acceptable license. It's trolls like you who forget that Apple is a company, a company that needs to make a profit.

Re:on so many levels.....

[drrobin_]

1) Release open source software

2) Sell iMac which it runs on

3) PROFIT!

Re:on so many levels.....

[johnjones]

1) Release open source software

2) Sell iMac which it runs on

3) PROFIT!


yep I agree even better than this would be
1) release software (pay for it)
2) sell Mac
3) Profit
4) release code to world under BSD
5) sell more mac's because they work best with printers/gateways (find automagically)
6) MORE PROFIT

but this is slashdot and when did having a inteligent way to make money ever be a good thing

regards

John Jones

1997 and still one implentation

[johnjones]

hate to burst your little bubble but rendezvous is based on standard RFCs dating to 1997. Sorry, but I don't have particular numbers handy but it is easy enough to look up.

As to the license: welll, IMHO GPL is severely flawed, and I personally, prefer the BSD license.

great people submit RFC's all the time....

to actually get it to move forward you need it to be deployed

and I am sorry to say apple you cant do it on your own you need the BSD, linux and little device OEM's to take it up

its simple put the code under BSD and people actually have an referance much like you use the BSD code for referance when building a IPv6 into Mach kernel

regards

John Jones

Re:yes it is nice shame its not compatable with GP

[spankalee]

APL is compatible with BSD, and they do give back the the *BSD projects, even though the BSD license doesn require it, as well as release Darwin as open source.

Re:bsd compatable ?

[j-beda]

Yes, you have to inform Apple.

Not for the current Apple license I don't think.

GPL incompatability is based on the single requirement that people who "deploy" modified code in an organization must release that code. The GPL allows one to refrain from releasing the source code until you release the modified program. Of course the GPL is pretty vauge on what it means to release the modified program.

This is explained at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html [gnu.org].

ASPL 1.2 & BSD

[Aapje]

As of version 1.2 you no longer have to inform Apple. It's also BSD compatible in the sense that I can use it in a BSD project and the entire project won't be tainted, just the part under the APSL. For instance, were I to put the code cleanly into a seperate library and deploy the project in my organization, I would have to publish the library, but not my own code (this is the only problem the FSF sees with APSL 1.2, BTW). You can use LGPL'ed code in the same way, but if you use GPL'ed code, the entire project would have to be GPL'ed. Your own BSD'ed code would automatically change license (which is why many people call the GPL a viral license).

PS. I think you can mix APSL and GPL code as long as you don't distribute it. The GPL & APSL only kick in when you do (since they are not EULA's). This might not do you much good, but technically, the APSL and the GPL are not mutually exclusive.

Re:yes it is nice shame its not compatable with GP

[MaxVlast]

I'm moaning about the spelling and the content. You've never addressed what that sig of yours actually means.

Apple has released many changes back to GCC. The APSL is perfectly compatible with your favorite license. It's just your blind hatred of Apple, proper spelling, and commercial software that causes you to flick your wrist instinctively and without understanding.

yes I have

[johnjones]

infact I wrote in reply to one of your coments if you dont read anything after you write it then....

they HAD to release GCC changes its freaking GPL

I dont hate apple I type this on the family G3

its not compatable with the GPL, that and BSD are my favorite licenses so thats 50% bad

regards

John Jones

google so you have to dont think [google.com]

Re:could a dyslexic spell dsylexic ?

[MaxVlast]

My dyslexic friends can.

Re:Darwin 6.0.1 not the latest

[Draoi]

The 6.1 MacOS X kernel update only came out a few days ago by Software Update. Boxed Jaguar is still only 6.0.1, as is the latest Darwin release [apple.com]. The above references are confusing as they refer to both 6.0.1 and 6.1

One Apple developer on the darwin-developer [apple.com] mailing list hinted strongly that 6.1 Darwin would be out shortly.

Re:iChat protocol?

[foniksonik]

You only have to support the 'discovery' protocol... as iChat uses the same messaging protocol as AIM et al... to my knowledge.

I wouldn't be too surprised if what you describe happens pretty soon.

Re:that's nice...

[BitGeek]

Oh, that must be it. IT couldn't possibly be the fact that Quicktime uses codecs under license from other companies. No, no, it couldn't be that.

Or the fact that Apple pays a license fee for EVERY installation of Quicktime... No couldn't be that either.

Sheesh. You're an idiot.

Re:HELP!!!!

[SlamMan]

Um, Darwin comes in an x86 variety, actualy...

Re:HELP!!!!

[ciryon]

Uhm, why not just buy a Mac? You can get them really cheap or really expensive depending on your preferences.

Ciryon

Re:Excellent.

[foobar104]

Even in the face of comments like this, there are still people out there who wonder why the software industry hates and fears the open source movement. Amazing.

Re:Excellent.

[rakslice]

Heh... Mandatory commentary ensues: Well, I'd have to say that the writing and acting in Antitrust was above average, as far as mainstream Hollywood movies go. Of course, the Hollywood recreation of computing (everything from software development to computer geek culture) in the movie has the same relationship to the real world equivalents as Lipton's chicken noodle soup has to actual chickens. But I'm as jaded as anyone else about that by now; and the Synapse product cum plot device still sticks out like a sore thumb... What was Synapse supposed to be, exactly? I mean how does taking over all the TVs/computers/fax machines/PDAs/Atari 2600s/toaster ovens in the world contribute to a business model? And, is that the kind of feature you want to build in to your product if the DOJ is breathing down your neck? =)

But to address your specifict comment, didn't Milo Hoffman do that already? =)

Re:What open source?

[Matthias Wiesmann]

The core reason has nothing to do with licences or even technical merit, but with history.

OS X and thus Darwin are modified versions of NextStep. NextStep was based on Mach + BSD. This was the case because part of the team that built NextStep had worked on Mach at Carnegie Mellon University. Here is some background information [icselectionguide.com].

From a technical point of view, Mac OS X relies at lot on Mach features, like messaging and shared memory support. Apple also modified the Mach architecture a lot to simplify driver management: IOKit is very different from the BSD or Linux driver system.

All this differences mean that Apple cannot simply take out Mach + BSD and insert Linux instead. Such a change would require a lot of work and bring little - linux has no compelling feature that would justify such a large task.

And (sight) of course they are the licence issues. With BSD licensed code, Apple is not obliged to give back code - they have choosen to do so with their own licence - but under the BSD licence, they are not required to do so.