Slashdot Log In
Apple Changes the APSL Rules
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Nov 13, 2006 07:47 AM
from the breakdown-shakedown-yer-busted dept.
from the breakdown-shakedown-yer-busted dept.
aitikin writes "Apple recently changed their license for the OS X kernel. According to semthex's post, Apple has reworded the APSL to prevent him and others from open sourcing the kernel hacking under the APSL:
'This file contains Original Code and/or Modifications of Original Code as defined in and that are subject to the Apple Public Source License Version 2.0 (the 'License'). You may not use this file except in compliance with the License. The rights granted to you under the License may not be used to create, or enable the creation or redistribution of, unlawful or unlicensed copies of an Apple operating system, or to circumvent, violate, or enable the circumvention or violation of, any terms of an Apple operating system software license agreement.'"
This discussion has been archived.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.
"Operating system" (Score:3, Insightful)
I am disturbed to see that people would jump so hard on this non-issue.
Re:"Operating system" (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice bad analogy... btw.
Parent
The mind buggles (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"Operating system" (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you pay for a product, according to first sale law, you are permitted to make modifications to it.
The DMCA prohibits most reverse engineering, except that which is done for the purposes of interoperability. While this does not involve reverse engineering (the code is provided) I feel that this indicates a legal attitude that interoperability is valuable and protected.
Making the software run on hardware not approved by Apple is an interoperability issue.
Running the software on non-Apple hardware is a violation of the license.
A kernel patch that would allow the software to run on non-Apple hardware would seem to provide only interoperability, and would seem to be valid under first sale law, which protects your rights to make modifications to things which you have purchased.
Apple is both relying on the legal validity of a shrink-wrap license which you do not sign, AND doing all they can to take away your first sale rights.
Apple is seeking to separate you from your rights. This is wrong no matter what you say about it. Apple is also strengthening the validity of the shrinkwrap license if they pull this off, which benefits no user.
If you accept this kind of behavior from Apple, they will continue to step on your rights.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Operating system" (Score:4, Informative)
Let me make this clear. That is far from a given and it can be argued either way in court. Please read this wikipedia bit on The first-sale doctrine and computer software [wikipedia.org] before you come on like a hard-on again - while I am not a lawyer, clearly you are not either, and you should be sure you know what you're talking about before you open your big fat mouth. To wit, from the linked page:
Or, as I said, it could be seen either way. It has not yet been resolved, so this falls into the area of legal ambiguity.
Ultimately, as Greg Graffin says in the song he wrote for the punk band he's fronted since the eighties, Bad Religion, entitled "YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT":
You are clearly purchasing a product when you buy software, especially if you are given the physical media. Outside of copyright law, you have the right to do anything you like with the physical media. When I buy a magazine, I am not interested in the physical magazine so much as the data, yet I can do anything I like with either one so long as I am not violating copyright law.
How is software any different? I have purchased a physical copy of the media; the law says that so long as I transfer it and any copies, it is irrelevant whether it is software, music, or a book; I may sell it to another.
If you think that's it's okay that this is the way the system works, then that's fine. Live within its confines and, as it closes on you, reflect that YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT.
I think if there's one thing we can do to bring about societal change, it should be to inform all citizens that, as potential jurors, they can vote "not guilty" not only if they feel that a person did not violate the letter of the law, but also if they feel they
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Short-term copyright existed in order to provide an incentive for people to create new content.
Our current long-term system of copyright is the result of legislation purchased by big media; the latest extension was a clear and obvious conflict of interest, being pushed as it was by Sonny Bono.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple doesn't want you porting their OS over to your generic Intel system. They want you to buy one of THEIR systems. Deal with it.
-Eric
Parent
Excellent phrasing (Score:4, Interesting)
I think Apple has done a very smart thing for a CSL (customer source license) by specifically limiting the use in such ways.
I would be more restrictive -- the source is available for debugging purposes only, and may only be modified through it's core project. I view using/linking CSL code as a variant on LGPL -- I don't care about the specifics of how code is linked (static, DLL, dynamic, whatever), just that any and all changes to such code must be submitted to the core project regardless of where someone deploys the changes.
i.e. No GPL escape clause of "internal use only" that lets weasels try to lawyer their way out of releasing changes by hiding apps behind web interfaces (the equivalent of screen scrapers IMNSHO.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Obtain the source [apple.com] by reaching up into the ivory tower and taking it. Notice that you're fetching tarballs over http, not svn or cvs. I'll bet that's current.
2. Beat yourself with a stick trying to build it until you discover darwinbuild [opendarwin.org].
3. Develop your patch.
4. Submit a bug to the Radar [apple.com].
5. Announce it in Darwin-kernel [apple.com].
6. Wait
Re:Excellent phrasing (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux weenies consistently miss the point of Darwin. It's not another BSD distro, it's ther for the convenience of Mac developers who have to work with kernel code, such as driver writers and third-party hardware manufacturers.
-jcr
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
More licensing options (Score:2, Interesting)
As much as I like my NeXT Cube at home, and Mac OS X at work or on my wife's Powerbook, I'm simply not willing to give up the flexibility of having a tablet computer w/ integrated graphics tablet capability (I currently use a Fujitsu Stylistic), or to go bac
Re: (Score:2)
I'd seriously love to have a Tablet running Mac OS but I've just about given up on Apple.
Is the Linux support decent or was it a pain in the ass to get everything working as it should?
Summary: (Score:3, Interesting)
DUH. That doesn't rule out much. You can't do that on the GPL either.
No longer open source? (Score:3, Interesting)
Note that I'm not passing any sort of judgement on Apple here. It's their code, and they absolutely have the right to do what they want with it. I'm surprised that they feel that unauthorised use of the OS on PCs is sufficiently important that they need to restrict their license terms to make it harder, but, well.
The GPL doesn't limit this sort of thing - you're permitted to use the code for anything, but there are certain limitations on how the resulting work may be distributed. The distinction is subtle, but real.
Darwin is no longer Open Source (Score:5, Informative)
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
What does this mean for the APSL? (Score:3, Informative)
Does it mean that its no longer "free software" (and that the GNU project will start listing it on its "licences to avoid" list again?)
On the other hand, it should mean that apple will continue to provide kernel source code for both x86 and ppc quite quickly after kernel releases since if someone does use it to pirate osx, apple can sue them right away (and force removal of the source code)
Still the same license? (Score:3, Insightful)
If not, would it not need to be recertified?
aitikin is a dumbass (Score:3, Interesting)
Semthex's OSx86 project may be out-of-luck-ish (I don't know the OS X EULA - if running OS X on non-Apple hardware doesn't trigger the "unlawful or unlicensed" condition, then it seems fine to me).
Incidentally, Apple's legal department isn't that great. As far as I know, they still haven't updated the AppleCare terms and conditions to cover displays bought with MacBooks and MacBook Pros. "Apple covers the Covered Equipment and one Apple branded display if purchased at the same time and registered with a covered Mac mini, PowerBook, or Power Mac computer." Apple Computer, AppleCare Protection Plan Section 1(a)(i), available at http://www.apple.com/legal/applecare/appna.pdf [apple.com].
PS - Anyone know why the section symbol ( ), entity §, isn't showing up?
Dual licensed software (Score:3, Insightful)
This kernel hacker was violating the copyrights of Apple. It does not matter what license they used, their copyrights remain intact. Circumventing the dual licensed MySQL would be just a illegal as what this guy was doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They should give up their right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Pulling a stunt like this makes them look extremely bad in the eyes of open source developers and users. Now, you may think that we're a small group. And yes, we are. But we have influence. Our
Re:They should give up their right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if you want to argue that it is in Apple's best interest to become a software company, you'd have plenty of company. Personally, I think it would be nuts to try to compete with Microsoft and all of the various UNIX-type OSes out there.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought the argument was just the opposite. That is, if Apple is a hardware company, then software is merely a cost center. By this theory, you open source the software to drive down the cost of development so that you can focus on the hardware that differentiates your
Except consumers don't think that way (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is not a software company. They write software - some of it quite good - but they are a hardware company.
Apple is a personal computer company. They write both software and build hardware, but they are both simply components. Microsoft is a software company. They create one component of a PC, which is assembled by Dell or someone.
Arguing that Apple should open source their operating system is like arguing that one of the car manufacturers should open up their engine-control software - it removes a
Oy. (Score:4, Insightful)
You can modify 99% of what happens on a Mac through writing apps and add-ons and tweaking the system through available source.
Apple, and every other for-profit computer company has to balance the attractive value of the modifications they allow against the remaining allowances that would torpedo their business model.
Hence opening everything would not be in their best interest. Beyond that, the serial grousing about the APSL limits is a bit like grousing that your fork isn't on the left. It will still get food to your mouth.
And let's see - that last paragraph pretty much says "that's a nice computer company youse got there - wouldn't want nothin' to happen to it, if you know what I mean - I'm not sayin' anything, I'm just sayin'..."
Please. You're going to stop recommending Apple to grandma and her gamer grandkids who will never EVER need the sort of kernel mods that you are discussing here. Never mind that when they get to the Apple store how much influence do you think the dire warnings of their local Nick Burns (or was that Christopher Moltisanti?) is going to have in the face of great hardware that can run the three major OSs? How soon do you think we'll hear "Sorry, Steve, but Boeing's going to WalMart for Linspire boxes - hey, but you call us when we can totally hack your kernel."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Recently I purchased a MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo. For all intents and purposes it's an excellent machine. Runs a little warm, but works well. It's replacing a Dell Inspiron that decided to commit suicide.
So anyway, first day I crack open the box, dig into System Preferences and play with the settings. I go into the Display panel, which has perhaps the weirdest slider widget in the history of all operating systems. Basically, you set the brightness then (if you decide to let it) th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The restriction is based on an extrinsic, characteristic: how you intend for your modifications to be used.
This is discrimination based on field of endeavor, which causes software licensed under the new APSL to no longer be open source software.
It is unlikely that the license with these added restrictions is anywhere close to fitting the OSI criteria for an Open Source software license.
The restriction may be well-intentioned; however, it causes the software to not be open, since now you can't m
Re:They should give up their right. (Score:5, Funny)
What color are the little elves and pixies on your planet? Are they friendly?
-jcr
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you have ever been to Europe, you have likely encountered for yourself these "little elves and pixies" that you speak of. For I work at a fairly large European financial institution, and just over a year ago we completed our transition to open source software. Aside from anything we've written for ourselves, we use open source software from the hardware up. Our servers run FreeBSD, and PostgreSQL is used for our relational database needs.
The benefits have been enormous: we immediatel
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What you call bias, I call experience. Congratulations on migrating to BSD from whatever you were using before, but that in no way means that the "age of proprietary software" is over. Are you giving away your in-house apps that you're developing for your own use? QED.
-jcr
Till you come up with a better way to make money.. (Score:4, Insightful)
As for peripherials I don't know what crap your using but my Hewlett Packard 3-in-1 Printer/Copier/Scanner works by just plugging it into my Mac. No installing software or drivers or anything....It Just Works. So why does Apple need to GPL its OS again?
You are aware that Apple is a hardware company right? They make most of their profits from hardware. Insane margins like 25% on hardware sales. From Macs, not iPods. Just exactly how are they going to replicate that lost revenue if they open source the OS allowing it to be run on any cheap generic PC? Do you REALLY think they'll be able to sell enough copies of OS X to make up for that? And at what price? Right now OS X sells for $130. Apple would have to up the price to $250 or more, maybe even $400. Who's going to buy an alternative OS thats that expensive when they can just stick with Windows?
Parent
Re:Slashtards (Score:5, Interesting)
And Microsoft already does do this; last time I checked I couldn't recompile XP to run on my PPC PowerMac. None of Microsoft's licenses are even close to open source, while a number of Apple's key technology are.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's because Microsoft is honest about their position towards FOSS and Apple isn't. At least you know where you stand with Microsoft, but with Apple, they do the bare minimum with FOSS -- just enough to let the Apple fanboys use the argument "Apple DOES do Open Source! What it isn't open ENOUGH
Re:Slashtards (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Slashtards (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because Microsoft is honest about their position towards FOSS and Apple isn't. At least you know where you stand with Microsoft, but with Apple, they do the bare minimum with FOSS -- just enough to let the Apple fanboys use the argument "Apple DOES do Open Source!
Microsoft has been promoting their software as open for years with their "shared source" initiative. Apple has been producing and selling both open and closed source software for years as it fits with their business interests. The situation is only unlcear if you try to oversimplify as "Microsoft..closed...bad, Apple...open..good." The real world does not work that way. Apple releases a lot of software as open because they recognize the advantages of open source and believe in that model. This is not philanthropy, it is good business. The same goes for IBM. Nothing forced Apple to release their zeroconf implementation as open source, or even to help port it to Linux. They didn't do it because they want people to like them either. They did it to promote the technology and interoperability and new standards. We all benefit, and so does Apple. That is how open source is supposed to work.
What it isn't open ENOUGH for you? Fanatic.
I think anyone arguing here that Apple is screwing people over is probably a fanatic. Apple is in compliance with the license chosen by the people who wrote the code. Anyone who thinks they know better than those coders and everything should be treated like GPL is being fanatical.
Not that I don't think people should not complain about what Apple is doing if they want to or try to convince them to be less restrictive (although in this case I don't care). Just be clear that whiners don't have some sort of moral high ground here. It is just as ethical for Apple to close their kernel as it is for them to keep it open. Anyone who wants it released one way or another is arguing their own (perceived) best interest, and nothing more. I'd like Apple to give me 10 million bucks, but I don't think they have a moral obligation to do so.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing teenagers download my favorite OS for free, or seeing the experience cheapened in the eyes of others because its running on unsupported hardware bothers me.
I agree... there's nothing more reprehensible than teenagers leeching and hacking away at operating systems. Sure, some might argue that we've had some amazing software developed as a result of nefarious kids like these but that's proved inadequate when balanced against the posters (and Apples) discomfort.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I love seeing my favorite operating system [ubuntu.com] downloaded for free. And amazingly, the experience is more or less the same whether you're running on a 32 bit PC, 64 bit, or PPC.
I know a guy who used to run OSX on his HP. He claimed it ran better on his HP than Windows did. I was never aware of him having any problems with the operating sys
Re: (Score:2)
No, just the usual band of Apple apologists. Just about the only positive thing you can say is that it probably has no useful validity in practice.
Apple really wants to have its cake and eat it. It wants to benefit from Open Source as a PR thing (its shown no signs of actually wanting contributions from the community), and as a way to get cheap source code (as in drawing in large tracts of BSD code to help build the first Darwin), but it really doesn't like this "Freedom" thing much.
You know, if Micros
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you bought a Mac, the license change has pretty much no effect on you, since it only targets changes to software that DOES NOT RUN ON APPLE HARDWARE.
Re:Apple is more heavy-handed then Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
They're being pretty damn generous even letting you see the source code. If you don't like the license, don't view the source, it's not necissary.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
its not Their code.
Re:Apple is more heavy-handed then[sic] Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait, what's that? News flash, Apple borrows FreeBSD code to base their kernel on and what does the Open Source community get for it?
I won't argue the accuracy of your statement because it is irrelevant, but I think it important to answer your question. The "Open Source Community" and specifically the developers who wrote the BSD licensed code Apple adopted for their OS got exactly what they asked for. They got their code more widely used and on a lot more desktops than they could otherwise have hoped for. They helped define the standard, promoted interoperability, and gained in reputation.
The BSD license doesn't force you to keep the source open, but for fuck's sake, you got it for free.
You seem to be of the opinion that those who developed the code were morons. They intended to license their code as GPL, but they were just too dumb, or they copy and pasted the wrong thing or some such thing. They really wanted the code to remain open to all, even if that made companies like Apple choose something else. I submit that you're assuming that the "community" should ethically be able to restrict code and keep it open, even when the developers who put in all the hard work specifically licensed it otherwise.
You're saying you wouldn't at all feel obligated to support the industry that provided you with the basis of your entire wildly popular operating system?
Apple supports the "industry" but that is not relevant here. Apple supported the individuals who developed the code they used in exactly the way those developers asked them to. They have kept it open in that people can see it and suggest modifications/fixes which is a huge step up on some other possibilities. It also keeps them in step with the rest of the industry. Because they have some of the same underlying code it means developers can target both OS X and FreeBSD more easily with less work.
If you have a beef, bring it up with the people who wrote the code and licensed it via a BSD license. They did all the work and make all the rules. Your assumption that the rules they chose are wrong is presumptuous.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However, it is my most humble and honest opinion that the BSDs are successful due in part to the openness that they have achieved.
The adoption of the network stack in Windows from BSD licensed code is a success as far as advocates of the BSD code are concerned. It is in no way open. For some reason a lot of people who are GPL advocates see it as a failure and a reason why BSD licensing is flawed, as though it was not doing exactly what the developers intended.
This entire argument is based upon your not