Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple Businesses

Apple Denies Opensourcing Quicktime/Changes APSL 52

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the stuff-to-read dept.
webslacker writes "According to Macintouch, several Apple sources are denying that Quicktime will actually be opensourced. It could just end up being a simple confusion of Quicktime viewers and Quicktime server, seeing as how news.com made it sound as if all of Quicktime is going to be opensource. " Here is Yesterday's Story on the subject. Update: 04/19 06:17 by H :Apple has said, however, that the newly unveiled QuickTime Streaming Server will be included under the Apple Public Source License.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Denies Opensourcing Quicktime/Changes APSL

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    http://webx.lists.apple.com/?14@^821@.ee77a05

    There are no comments there yet, but Apple has made a discussion list for "QTSS-Open-Source-Development". My guess is that this is there because Apple plans to do it.

    Apple denies all rumors until there is a product announcement.

    Have a nice day,

    AC
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Funny that Apple and all it's supposed irrelevance get so much time hear at /. (and everywhere else too).

    Would be great if QT were opened as much as possible (i know it can't be 100% open cause Apple doesn't own all the technologies in it). It's good technology (just ask George Lucas), and the upcoming QT 4 will be pretty darned powerful.

    I hope that they at least open the server portion. It's been rumored for months that they will.
  • The offending part is gone at last! Kudos to Mr. Schoen for being the first one to point out the potential problems with the old paragraph 13.1.

    Thanks Apple for listening.

  • They'll break down and release it for Linux eventually. I'd be surprised if they didn't have at least a Linux binary by Applefest or Macworld or whatever it is. We need to show an overwhelming desire for a Quicktime compile on Linux even if it means writing our own Quicktime library and shoving it down their throat.
  • > but like so many things, it may be on the wane.

    With the success of the Star Wars trailer, I doubt it. It may be on the wane with unix users since xanim can't handle the new codes (through no fault of its own obviously!)

    > MS Netshow, RealVideo, etc. are (arguably) on their way up.

    Which is why I think Apple is trying to put a foot on their throat and squash them all. They obviously want QT to be they video platform.

    As for how they plan to address the growing number of *nix users is a big question. Maybe when they have QT4 client up to snuff on Mac OS X Server then can work on porting it to the other platforms.

    Of course, all the 'Be free or die' people will say that it wont be on all platforms until they GPL the source. Because we all know that all those people running Plan 9 out there really want QT4 ;-)


  • Considering that MPEG 4 *is* Quicktime, your point is moot.
  • Sorry, but Apple has just jumped back into the fire. Checkout the two urls below. The ASPL was updated to 1.1 today and a Darwin streaming sever was released under it.

    http://www.publicsource.apple.com/apsl/
    http://www.publicsource.apple.com/projects/streami ng/
  • they tried to go Opensource with Darwin but got firmly trounced. don't expect then to opensource anything else anytime soon. looks like Darwin may die too judging by the sudden lack of effort by Apple to do anything more or even comment on it.
  • everytime I'm negative about something like this the results are good. everytime I begin to feel like Apple really needs to shape up and I get a bad attitude they go and renew my hope. yes folks, this one only took a few hours to get results. I've been singlehandidly saving Apple with my 'bad attitude'tm since 1996 :->
  • Yes, Apple has continuously made lots of money from QuickTime, but like so many things, it may be on the wane.



    MS Netshow, RealVideo, etc. are (arguably) on their way up. And neither of those companies seem too likely to start throwing source code at us anytime soon. (Insert requisite guffaws re: Microsoft here.)



    Taking something this popular, and giving away at least the viewer part of the code, could be successful. They might even adopt the Real Networks model - keep some of the best stuff for themselves, to sell off (say, the server) and give the viewer away. Only this time, with attendant source code, and a real license (none of this weird Apple license stuff, which has entirely too many bugbears in it).



    I'm not saying it's likely, not even that it's necessarily wise. But it is an option...

  • "Whoops" is right. They got it all backwards. What good is a free server if there aren't any free clients out there?
  • It's nice to flail about worrying about the license, but has anyone looked at the source with a desire to have it compile on x86 Linux or even LinuxPPC?

    I had a quick look at it, but the Makefile appears to be heavily slanted towards only working with the NeXTStep compiler/development management system.

    Anyone having any luck with it?
  • Mpeg does me no good if the things I want to view are in AVI or Quicktime format. Granted that I don't view a lot of video on my computer, but when there is something that I do want to view, it is almost always in Quicktime format.

  • It's official. I just received this email from Apple:

    Today we are pleased to ratchet up our involvement with Open Source via two major announcements: [snip]

    - The Darwin Streaming Server, an Open Source version of the QuickTime Streaming Server http://www.publicsource.apple.com/projects/streami ng/ [apple.com]

    That sounds pretty 'released' to me. I'm downloading it now.

  • I don't know why everybody seems to think this rumor is early fact - so far, I haven't seen any source to backup the initial story on news.com.

    Rumors and speculation are just that - and if they don't pan out, blame the rumor mongers, not the subjects of hearsay.

  • Wouldn't exactly call it a "rewrite". Diff'ing between versions 1.0 and 1.1, the only changes I see are:
    1. addition of a definition for "Affected Original Code"
    2. modification of the definition for "Original Code" to also include object code compiled from the Apple-provided source code
    3. replacing all instances of "patents" with "patent rights"
    4. addition of "if available" with regards to Apple's web site, and the requirement to submit modifications there
    5. infringement claim on Original Code (i.e. the aforementioned "Affected Original Code") result changed from "terminate Your rights to use" to "suspend Your rights to use, reproduce, modify, sublicense and distribute"
    6. an explicit note of allowance on the previous item for "replacing the Affected Original Code with non-infringing code or independently negotiating for necessary rights from such third party"
    7. removal of the "Export Law Assurances" clause
    8. removal of the requirement that licensees "be of majority age and otherwise competent to enter into contracts"
    9. #2 closes a loophole. #4 thru #7 deal with specific complaints I've heard voiced. #8 makes the code available to Script Kiddies and madmen. =) Getting closer to what it should be, at least.

    10. --
      "Merging into heavy traffic at near light speed!"

  • QuickTime is primarily a transport mechanism for different media formats, and it ships with the ability to read several different formats (encapsulated in codecs), MPEG being one of them.

    Saying "support MPEG instead of QuickTime" is like saying "use blue ink instead of pens."
  • Is here [apple.com].

    Anyone who is more legaleeze savvy care to comment on whether the previous brokenness has been fixed?

  • I don't know of any video editing solutions based on Real or NetShow. Real/Netshow are broadcast solutions which QuickTime does not even compete with (at least until next week).
    --
  • "Whoops" is right. They got it all backwards. What good is a free server if there aren't any free clients out there?

    Actually, no. RTP and RTSP are IETF standards. Somebody needs to make a Linux viewer that is aware of these standards and then you can watch anything streamed from QTSS provided it is using a codec that you have. I don't think anybody is going to stream sorenson because it takes up too much CPU power. Most likely it will use MPEG1 or cinepak compression and those codecs can already be had.


    Another point is that a lot of the people that will use QTSS probably won't care about watching it, or only care if Windows and Mac clinets can. They love having a streaming server based on open standards(RTP and RTSP) and not something fed from Real or MS. These sites are porn sites, and since we know no Linux users look at porn, then people at slashdot shouldn't worry, right?

    Oh, and some news sites might like them too.


    remy

    http://www.mklinux.org

  • I am not sure if I should jump in the air out of joy or what. For me personally I don't think there is much advantage to QT streaming server being open sourced. I won't be able to view streaming QuickTime clips on my Linux box :-(. I have a RealPlayer and RealServer for Linux which works pretty good so why would I want to switch to QuickTime ? Anyone has any clue ?


    Does anyone also have any idea when Progressive Networks might be coming out with RealPlayer G2 version for Linux ?

  • Hey folks. I noticed this in the title of the original post, but it wasn't commented on.

    The APSL has been changed to eliminate the termination clause that caused so much whining. It looks to be a whole lot more similar to the NPL now.

    So much for Apple not listening.
  • Macintouch seems to have taken off the link, which was at the very top of their front page. Kinda curious why.

    Either way, server is opensource, the viewers are not. I don't use Linux myself, but I believe that the Linux user base is big enough now to warrant a little more engineering effort on Apple's part to port it to Linux. Sorenson is an awesome codec and should be more widely available, free or not.
  • While I would love to see Apple develop QuickTime as an Open Source project, I cannot possibly believe that it would ever happen.
    QT is one of Apple's few long-time cash cows; without QT for Windows and the MacOS, multimedia content would be seriously lessened, and I truly believe that Apple plows the money that QT garners back into it's research and development.

    -The Cheese
  • I, for one, am very happy to see the changes in the APSL. They acknowledged their first license as a first attempt and requested input. After serious issues were raised (almost lost amongst the ranting and raving), they have made some significant changes. At first glance, they have cleaned up the definition of affected code, eased the reporting clause, and eliminated the export restriction. With time, we will get a better idea of if this fully complies with the idea of open source. In any case, I sincerely thank those that commented constructively on the license, and offered encouragement to Apple. I also hope this bodes well for things to come.
  • by zephyr (33949)
    Quicktime is the only good thing apple has ever produced. Those bastards!

    jimi-
  • *bzzzt*

    Wrong. Apple has opensourced the QuickTime server and apparently rewritten the APSL. Version1.1? http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990419/ca_apple_c_1.ht ml and http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990419/ca_apple_c_2.ht ml are the press releases.
    --------------------------------------- ----------------
  • Check out the
    Apple Press Release Site [apple.com] for more information:

    "Apple Releases QuickTime 4 Public Beta With Internet Streaming"

    "Apple Introduces QuickTime Streaming Server Software-The First Open Server for Internet Streaming"

    "Apple Updates Public Source License"

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

Working...