Slashdot Log In
Apple Public Source License Now FSF Approved
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Aug 06, 2003 01:28 PM
from the join-us-now-and-free-the-software dept.
from the join-us-now-and-free-the-software dept.
BWJones writes "Apple has now made their public source license 2.0 free.
From the release "The Darwin team at Apple is pleased to announce that version 2.0 of the Apple Public Source License has been certified as a 'Free Software License.' APSL 2.0 includes numerous changes and simplifications to make it even easier to use Apple Open Source software as part of your programs. To indicate acceptance of APSL 2.0, you can now use your new or existing "Apple ID", rather than having a separate Darwin account.""
proclus adds "This
is great news for Darwin-based free software projects like
The GNU-Darwin Distribution
and
Fink.
GNU-Darwin has had an
ongoing discussion
about this development, and annouced and end to our
'Free Darwin
Campaign,' so long as Apple avoids DMCA-based legal action."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What are the motivations and implications? (Score:5, Interesting)
Licensees will now have the choice of providing source code to either just the users of the code or (as before) to the general public (Section 2.2(c)).
What does this mean? Could one restrict who is allowed to use the code and thereby restrict who may view the source? In a commercial application this means that one could produce a program and then sell it and only allow purchasers to view the source, correct?
Long arm of open source community (Score:5, Interesting)
We are making history and leaving a big footprint. Little people influencing very large companies.
Parent
Re:Long arm of open source community (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:What are the motivations and implications? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What are the motivations and implications? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you mean GPL'd software, no. According to this [fsf.org] page, the FSF still considers APSLv2 incompatible with the GPL. Though they don't explain why. At some point, I really like to see a comprehensive listing of why each of the free-but-not-GPL-compatible licenses are designated such. I mean, it's all well an good for the GPL to say "It's not ok to use this license", but I find such a statement annoying without at least a brief note along the lines of "it's incompatible because it prevents you from doing $foo, which is allowed under the GPL" Or something.
Parent
Re:What are the motivations and implications? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually most of the newer BSD-style licenses are GPL compatible. This means that I can use GPLed and MIT licensed source (as an example) in a project and distribute the new project without problems (under the GPL). Mix APSL and GPLed source and you have created something that can't be distributed.
In the end there is so much GPLed software that most Free Software licenses trend towards becoming GPL compatible. The change in the Python license, and the change in the license for QT (to the GPL), are two well-known examples of this trend.
Parent
Re:What are the motivations and implications? (Score:5, Insightful)
No [gnu.org]; it's still GPL-incompatible. I am not convinced, however, that GPL-incompatibility is in any stretch a black mark on any license.
GPL compatibility is like a one-way gift. You bow to the "all-GPL" crowd by allowing them to use your code on their terms, but they don't reciprocate by giving you the right to use their code on your terms.
Parent
Re:What are the motivations and implications? (Score:4, Informative)
Sort of like BSD-style licenses, aka proprietary-compatible licenses.
I don't think that the parent put that very well. Let me try to explain it better (if he means to say what I think he means to say):
The GPL implicitly says that it's not good to have a non-restrictive license (such as the BSD license) because it tries to turn code with such a license into GPL'ed code. On the other hand, it's also not right to have a license with more restrictions than the GPL (because it won't work with GPL'ed code). For instance, the major criticism by the FSF of the previous version of the APSL was that you always had to publish the source if you changed the code (even when you didn't distribute the binaries outside of your organisation). However, there is nothing in the Free Software philosophy that says that this is not right (this restriction is in accordance with all freedoms that define Free Software [fsf.org]). A programmer who is more extreme than RMS might want to see to it that every change is given back to the community. To this purpose, he can devise a sort of extended GPL license. Unfortunately for him, code under such a license would be incompatible with the GPL. GPL'ed code can never be used together with code that has more restrictions, while it can restrict code with fewer restrictions (code with a GPL-compatible license).
The BSD license is different. A BSD-licensed codebase can be extended with more restricted code. It's up to to the maintainer of the main tree and individual users to decide whether they accept the license restrictions that the new contributions bring (which may only apply to contributed code itself). On the other hand, you can also contribute code with less restrictions (public domain code, for instance) and it can keep its original (lack of a) license. There is no one-way street towards a particular set of restrictions.
To recap, GPL compatibility can only lead to GPL'ed code. You can never benefit from GPL'ed code without adopting the same set of restrictions for your own code. BSD compatibility does nothing more than allow your code to be used with BSD-licensed code. You have the choice to restrict your own code more, less or differently than the BSD-licensed code.
Parent
Re:What are the motivations and implications? (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think so, no. According to the FSF, the APSL is free but not GPL-compatible. [gnu.org]
Re:External Deployment (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't know how I feel about this one...
You can't run an application service provider program without releasing changes to all your clients, and possibly the public if your clients deal with the public?
You can't run a b2b service without releasing all your changes to your distributors that use it and your clients that use it?
This is very different from the "no black box public distribution" that I previously considered the GPL to represent.
If I had a client who sold widgets, and he had to release all his source to clients who connected to his b2b setup, allowing them to leave him and then give all his internal systems to his competitor, even though he never distributed his software, I don't think he'd be wanting to buy anything I built.
Could you insulate against this by putting a "dumb layer" between your apps? You could argue that ANY system that was interacted with by the public, however indirectly, required publication... in most businesses, this would eliminate the "internal deployment" angle almost totally, unless you had a typist carrying out your data-syncronisation work
Parent
That is so cool!!! (Score:3, Funny)
BFD
Re:That is so cool!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
GNU's Opinion (Score:5, Informative)
GNU is not software, it's religion (Score:3, Insightful)
A quotation:
"... we must remember that only part of Mac OS X is being released under the APSL. Even though the fatal flaws of the APSL were fixed, and even if the practical problems were addressed, that does no good for the other parts of Mac OS X whose source code is not being released at all. We must not judge all of a company by just part of what they do."
The FSF reminds me more and more of a religion [slashdot.org] than of a sof
Re:GNU is not software, it's religion (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:GNU's Opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
>(they are quite picky).
My experience from reading GNU's work is that they aren't terribly fond of anything that isn't GNU.
From that webpage:
-------------
The FSF now considers the APSL to be a free software license with three major practical problems, reminiscent of the NPL:
*It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.
*It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to your changes which Apple will not give you for its code.
*It is incompatible with the GPL.
-------------
Let's go over these point by point.
>*It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with
>other files which may be entirely proprietary.
So does BSD. This does not, in my book, qualify as a "major practical problem."
>It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to
>your changes which Apple will not give you for its code.
Yes, it requires this. I'm not sure why this makes it "unfair" though: this seems like more of a "legal cover our asses" clause on Apple's part so that they can use the changes elsewhere.
>It is incompatible with the GPL.
Would someone look up the definition of "circular reasoning"?
It seems, from everything I've seen come out of GNU, that they fit every definition of "Zealots". They almost seem to be *reaching* for something bad to say about the license simply because a proprietary software company is behind it.
Parent
GNU's not BSD either (Score:5, Insightful)
One interesting thing about the GPL, is that it protects the software itself, not necessarily the authors. The FSF has come up with a unique and powerful mechanism for insuring that code and/or an application will *always* be freely distributable over its entire lifetime.
It's perfectly reasonable for them to stand up for this important principle. Many times RMS and the FSF have pointed out flaws in only slightly more compromising licenses, and many times their warnings have turned out to be farsighted.
We should all be thanking them for selflessly taking on the role of a watchdog. They serve the public good and have an excellent track record. You should really pick up a membership
Parent
Re:GNU's not BSD either (Score:5, Insightful)
I would agree with you, but the problem is that they never grant the same courtesy to anyone else.
Apple does not want to release their code under the GPL. It's perfectly reasonable for them to stand up for this important principle. However, Stallman and the other FSF "advocates" don't want to hear that. Ever. It drives me nuts to hear such blatant hypocrisy from someone who is so often touted as being "revolutionary". More like elitist and closed-minded if you ask me.
---rhad
Parent
The FSF doesn't deny other licenses exist. (Score:4, Informative)
No, they warn about the shortcomings of other licenses that don't ensure the freedoms of free software (in the case of MIT X11 and new BSD license).
Although what they want is beneficial for both the Open Source and Free Software movements, the movement they are more properly associated with is the Free Software movement, which they began over a decade before the Open Source movement started.
This is simply untrue. The FSF has a widely-accepted and very useful license list [gnu.org] which includes these licenses and suggested ways of speaking about the licenses to avoid confusion about which license you're referring to:
RMS gives talks [gnu.org] where he tells people why he encourages contributions to X licensed under the X11 license (matching the rest of the project) instead of making a GNU GPL fork. See the Q&A section of some of the Free Software speeches--he tells people precisely why there is no GNU GPL fork of X and why such a fork is likely to be a bad idea.
This is hardly the behavior one would expect to see if the FSF did not want to "accept the existence" of these other licenses.
Parent
transplanting? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:transplanting? (Score:5, Interesting)
You'd definitely have to use the APSL-2.0 for the resulting product.
But the architectures of the two systems are different enough that you aren't going to be able to plug in the SMP support. Or most drivers. Darwin uses a unique kernel and driver architecture.
Parent
Apple is giving people what they want (Score:5, Insightful)
They are giving end-users the software and hardware that fits their needs, such as the iMusic software and the introduction of the G5. at the same time, they are not forgetting the *NIX and open source base of their current OS. Actions such as this one and the continued "giving back" of code to OSS projects exemplify this trend.
Apple seems to have its head on straight and although I don't use their products, I support them and their continued sucess. A computer monoculture is a bad thing.
Now, I might actually buy a Mac laptop if they didn't cost so damn much!
Re:Apple is giving people what they want (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Apple is giving people what they want (Score:3, Insightful)
Okaaaaayy.
My 700 mhz iBook was very comparable in actual performance to the laptops of the time, and at 900 mhz, it's kept pace. The battery life, size and weight of an iBook set the standards for years in the industry. If you like a space heater in you lap, by all means, get an X86. If you want to work for an afternoon without stopping to hunt for an electrical outlet, get an iBook.
"Give me a 1Ghz+ G4 with 512MB, 40GB+ hard drive with a
Re:Apple is giving people what they want (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple produces mid-range and high-end products. They do not produce any low-end products.
iBooks are mid-range laptops and compete quite well with comparable PC laptops.
PowerBooks are high-end laptops and blow away most other high-end PC laptops.
Apple also does not produce luggables, almost-PDA-sized laptops, laptops without CDs, laptops with less than 4.5 hours of battery life, or tablets.
If you stick to laptops you will find that Apple's laptops are highly competative.
Was that enough?
Parent
Re:Apple is giving people what they want (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Apple is giving people what they want (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, try pricing them out. Often they are cheaper than other Wintel products and when they are slightly more expensive, the price of admission is well worth it. For example, I'm getting emails here while folks on Slashdot are hitting my workstation server pretty frequently. At the same time, The Clash is cranking on iTunes while I am working on a manuscript in Word and creating figures for that manuscript in Photoshop and doin
Re:Apple is giving people what they want (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Apple is giving people what they want (Score:3, Insightful)
good news! (Score:4, Interesting)
But on the whole this is great to hear, because I consider the FSF stamp of approval to mean "this license has no hidden traps". I.e., no weird venue change clauses, or ejection seats (if you get sued, your license terminates, if you have patents your license terminates, if you "use" the software the wrong way your license terminates) or other stupidity.
Sometimes free software folks think that these little details don't matter, but of course if you ever have to go to court, EVERY detail matters, and you agree to them!
I really don't have time to read all these stupid licenses, but when I see FSF-approved I feel a little more at ease.
Re:good news! (Score:3, Informative)
They also want others to be able to link to it without using the APSL, because that will allow driver developers to use it with fewer barriers.
It's almost the same as the NPL, but they need to make a new copy of it so that rights cede to Apple rather than Netscape.
Typical (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe one of these days RMS will learn to appreciate the jumps and hoops companies who sell software for a living go through to do these types of things, instead of just dismissing them with "they're evil, proprietary and you shouldn't use them". Life is so much simpler when you don't have shareholders, boards of directors, lawyers and... well, money.
Re:Typical (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. Free software is what it is today precisely because of RMS's 100% no-compromises attitude.
What about MSFT? (Score:4, Funny)
Right direction. (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I find most of Apple stuff a bit pricey but like where they are going. This FSF move is another step in the right direction.
Hopefully some of these players can continue allying themselves to take down the many-headed hydra that is Micro$loth. Novell adopted some Java angles with Netware 5, and recently added Linux services to their support suite. Maybe Apple can be added to the picture to cover desktop OS, server OS, desktop hardware, desktop software, *NIX services, etc.
I know Apple hasn't been a collaboration proponent in the past but the sum of all parts could be a force to be reckoned with.
Re:Right direction. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see why $129 seems so expensive to you either. OSX was released in March of 2001. It didn't perform nearly as well as advertised and the update was released in September. The first update (10.1) only cost 10.0 users a penny to upgrade to a signifigant performance increase. Jaguar (10.2) was released in late August of 2002, a year and a handful of months after the original OSX release. Panther (10.3) doesn't look like it will be released until late in the fall. That's about 16 months between paid upgrades for the OS. That is only $8 a month that a copy of OSX costs. That is two less Frappucinos a month for 16 months and you've saved enough change to buy a new version of OSX. That's also assuming you buy upgrades the day they're released, there's little reason to upgrade to Panther if Jaguar's running fine and dnady for you. There's still plenty of folks running releases of 10.1 because it runs well enough for them not to justify an upgrade to 10.2. If $129 is so much you might want to reconsider your "career" as a McDonalds grease engineer.
Parent
well how about releasing some software under it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:well how about releasing some software under it (Score:5, Funny)
Darwin is great and all, but many of us already have a kernel to use. Apple may say they embrace open source but when are they going to release code to some of the various software that makes OSX unique?
Wow I sure do like all the nifty features of OSX. I don't understand the fact that giving away the very technology that draws in customers, thus commoditizing the product, would be a stupid business move.
When they decided to use KHTML for Safari, I thought they would at least release the source code for Safari and not just the changes to KHTML.. Its not like Safari is innovative or anything, we already have better open source browsers, but releasing the source code would of been a nice gesture.
Apple should give away any and all software that draws customers to their platform. That way they no longer have to bother with selling hardware of any sort. Since their software should all be open source they can just make money selling advertisements. I'm sure they could make a couple hundred dollars a month at least. That's way more than my mom gives me!
Parent
typical /. troll form (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:typical /. troll form (Score:4, Insightful)
You're whining because you're inately jealous of what Apple's been able to do with Free code they've used in their products or based their products off of. Apple's taken a bunch of technologies and standards that have been floating in Limbo waiting for someone to actually do something useful and made a good product out of it. Now you want them to release all of their implementations so the next version of Linux can offer all of the features without any of the development time or cost. That is plainly stupid.
Take Redevous (zeroconf/service discovery). Apple took a languishing technology and turned it into a huge feature in their OS. They've also released enough documentation and code for Rendevous to make it simplistic for any developer to work their own implementation of it. If Linux developers hopped on the good foot they could have all the Rendevous functionality they wanted and be entirely compatible with all the services Apple's working with.
Not everyone can make money selling advertisements on their website, ergo they need to sell software or even hardware. To do so you need something your competition doesn't. Apple's in a good position because they've made themselves extremely compatible with the competition and provide incentives for using their products. You can use KHTML all you want in Konq or some other browser. In OSX you can use Konq if you want but they're offering Safari. Anybody can use CUPS for printing, Apple stuck Print Center on top of it and is offering that as an incentive to use their products.
Stop your whining about Apple using OS for PR benefits only. They've put some good money into GCC, CUPS, KHTML, and making OSX fully compatible with FreeBSD. Go check your kernel compile and stop whining about Apple's use of software.
Parent
Re:well how about releasing some software under it (Score:3, Informative)
There's other stuff too, although some of it is Mac OS X specific implementations of various other stuff (GCC, Kerberos, CUPS, etc.). My point is that by looking only at those high-profile projects, you're missing a few other interesting things (particularly, IMHO, the Darwin Streaming Server, a free, op
good (Score:3, Interesting)
It's called progress. It's still not compatable with the GPL, but it is now Free Software according to the FSD.
FSF' response to APSL 2.0 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is this just Darwin (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Apple good? (Score:3, Informative)
So no, the FSF does NOT think that Apple is good, but the FSF also has a very one-dimensional method of determining moral quality, don't th
Re:Apple good? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there something instrinsically bad about Apple's FairPlay DRM?
Seriously, is there anything *fundamentally* wrong with it, specifically?
> How about the patents?
This may come as a surprise, but Apple is a "company" in a "neoliberal economy" trying to turn something called a "profit."
I know that *is* shocking, isn't it?
Re:x86 port of OSX (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably because PowerPC architecture is vastly superior to x86. In addition to that, Apple has very strict engineering standards. They do things that make a lot of sense [apple.com]. If you've ever actually sat down and tinkered with or owned a Mac, you'd understand.
Even when I was looking at buying my 15" Ti Powerbook, I decided that if I hated MacOS X, I'd just run Linux or FreeBSD on it. I bought it beacuse the hardware is of exceptional quality. Offerings from most vendors in the PC market are mostly crap. There's very little money spent into engineering things well, but a lot of money invested in engineering them cheaply. I'll never lay a dime down on another piece of x86 hardware again--it's just not worth it.
Parent
Re:x86 port of OSX (Score:5, Interesting)
Ask this question to all people who has their Macs running Linux/PPC (Gentoo, YDL, Debian, etc - there thousands and thousands of Linux/PPC users), Mac OS 9 (or even 8 - "classic" application still run better in the original OS *AND* there are still tons of such application not ported yet to OSX *AND* there are still millions of users of Mac OS 8/9 around the world who has own reasons of not migrating to OSX), and even BSD (not OSX - original *BSD, although, there are not many Mac/BSD users).
I think that overall there are millions of Mac users who are running something different than OSX. How do you think they have got their Macs? I understand that some of them have bought their old Macs before OSX was stable/available. But I am sure that there are many of them who bough Macs *AFTER* OSX was around. I personally know many such individuals and some companies. And that makes you quoted sentence WRONG. Think about it.
Parent
Re:No, you idiot. (Score:5, Interesting)
That is indeed true, and John Carmack ported X11 to Darwin a while back.
Parent
Re:Apple Publicity (Score:3, Insightful)