Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

APSL 1.1 Released 139

Posted by justin++ from the better-yes/no? dept.
blaster writes "Apple has released version 1.1 of the APSL which has revisions to the notification and termination clauses. " Can we sic debian-legal on it? Hopefully, Apple has addressed all the concerns of the community, but I am no lawyer, and that thing looks waaay too long.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

APSL 1.1 Released More

APSL 1.1 Released

Comments Filter:
  • Does Slashdot have a secret love affair? C'mon, I like Apple, but let's just wait till OSI releases an official statement or something before flogging this horse to death.

  • Licensee's Patent Rights? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    IANAL, but doesn't 12.1(c) effectively mean that Apple gets right to all my patents if I want to use APSL code?

    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.

  • IT'S COPYLEFTED!!! (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    GPL purists rejoice! This license is A Good Thing(TM)! I am so proud of Apple for once. While the license is still considerably more restrictive than the GPL (for instance, you still must distribute modifications plainly distinguishable from Apple's original source), it is vastly improved over the last version and even features a copyleft!

    2.2 You may Deploy Covered Code, provided that You must in each instance:


    ...

    (b) make all Your Deployed Modifications publicly available in Source Code form via electronic distribution (e.g. download from a web site) under the terms of this License and subject to the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, and any additional terms You may choose to offer under Section 6. You must continue to make the Source Code of Your Deployed Modifications available for as long as you Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial Deployment, whichever is longer...
    Section 6 only says you can charge for distribution and stuff like that, so once again, although a bit more ponderous than the GPL, this sucker is a step in the right direction. Glad to see something good come of all the bitching and moaning that was done, besides embarassing all the self-proclaimed leaders of the Free Software community.
  • Hey. There was another thread here less than five hours ago. It's disapeared. I guess it wasn't generating the kind of lively debate that some folks had hoped for.

    And it still isn't.

    And...this is the best part...get this...there was a post in the original thread saying there wouldn't be a debate until the list of approved initials comment on it. That until BP or ESR or OSI or Debian tell folks what to think no one will know whether or not to love it or to hate it. And yet that's just what the repost says..."Hey, what does somebody else think of this?"

    Without an "official" response from the approved list of "leaders" the discussion has been light, informative and intelligent.

    I think there's a story in here about how sheep like many of the commentors here are. Without direction from above about how great or terrible this revised liscense is people are forced to think for themselves.

    Well, I'm capable of making my own assessment. Thanks. Thinking for myself, coupled with context clues pretty much get me by. And here's what I've realized.

    Linux/GNU and OpenSource and free software are about making your own way, the freedom to code to use, to speak, and to think without commercial constraint. What I've gathered so far is that the "leadership" within Linux is more involved in the politics than the ideals.

    Well...Leadership Sucks. Apple has in my opinion set me free of concerns I had. Now I'm going to go code.

    What a wonderful night.
  • yeah im a prick, but so what? I was speaking from a personal point of view and in no way represented debian. I guess I should have changed my email address before posting.

    I apologe to all the other debian developers for making debian as a whole look bad.
  • s/apologe/apologize
  • Because they can no longer terminate the license at will. Unless you want to be able to sue Apple for patent infringement, I see no danger of termination of the license.
    If you fear that you will have to sue Apple for patent infringement, stay away from the APSL. Otherwise, the termination clause is no problem.
  • Just a hint for you. Debian is not a company. Therefore debian does not have employees. Sheesh.

    Not speaking for debian, or employed by it, although I am a debian developer.
  • I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm fairly certain there are no restrictions on how long a license can be. =P

    Remind me never to ask Justin for legal advice.
  • 1) It may be as long as the other licenses, but it's certainly more complicated. None of the other licenses threated to terminate your right to use the code, while the APSL does.

    2) Most of us already understand the other licenses. Understanding the GPL will enable you to work on literally thousands of projects without learning another license. Same with BSD. Having to learn a license for every project will get quite tedious after a while.

    3) Being "able to contribute with all the blessings of Apple" is not my goal, unless I know what type of project I'm contributing to, and what type of license the code is put under (i.e. How Free is it?).
  • That's exactly the problem. With a license that length, I'd have to hire a lawyer to figure out what exactly it says. The chances of me contributing code to a project that requires me to pay a lawyer in order to know what I'm contributing to are not very good.

    I don't think many developers want to have to figure out a new license for *every* project they want to contribute to, so as more and more new licenses proliferate, the projects with established licenses that are already well-understood (GPL, BSD, Artistic License, etc.) will probably have an advantage.
  • Posted by Stephen "The Carp" Carpenter:

    Hmm well...
    not everyone in Debian is on the Apple Mailing
    lists. In fact I would hazzard to guess that MOST
    are not.

    How many "debian.org" adresses did you see?
    It should also be mentioned that not everyone
    in debian uses their Debian.org adress for
    everything.

    Since I am not on the Apple mailing lists
    myself...I really can't comment further.
    However...at least on debian mailing lists
    I have seen a very low instance of what you
    talk about...flame wars yes...but
    mindless name calling...well...not till after
    all the usefull agruing is over
  • While it's certainly a Good Thing(TM) to think for oneself, it's important to remember that you are not an expert in all things.

    The various leaders of whom you speak spend much more time contemplating licencing issues than most people do. They have access to various lawyers who are trained to see and understand all the implications of these sorts of licenses. I can read the text of the license and I can pass my own (positive) judgement on it, but passing final judgement before reading what these experts have to say is silly. Of course, you are free to disagree with some or all of them, but it seems awfully short-sighted not to listen to what they have to say.
  • This isn't a broad "inclusion by reference" of US & California law, but a "choice of law" for interpretation.

    California law was a peculiar choice, though, even given that Apple is based in Cupertino--it changes to damned often for no sensible reason. [for those not familiar with the California initiative process, it has conclusively shown that you can convince 51% of californians (and often 2/3) of *anything* forthe 24 hours or so needed to win an election]
  • You've never been involved in a patent dispute, have you?

    If Apple was accused of violating a patent, lost the case, and had not made "best efforts" to stop its violation *at the time of the claim*, it would be in extra-deep legal doo doo.
  • Not hard - by your religiously hardcore rules, *impossible*.
  • But we already know and understand these other licenses, including the traps and pitfalls that aren't obvious from the first reading.
  • I'm not a Linux person, and no, innovation is not always good. Standard API's, standard protocols, stndard GUI's and standard licenses are to be prefered in most cases. Without standards, we wouldn't have the Internet.
  • Why is it that whenever there are any kind of technical critisism of anything related to Apple, zealots spring forward and claim that the critisism must be causes by irrationel hate toward Apple?

    *All* projects which tries to create their own Open Source(tm) compliant license, rather than using one of the already established licenses, are being critizised on /. It makes it harder to exchange code with other projects. But for some reason, the Apple zealots only see "critisism == bad", and activates their knee-jerk reaktions.

  • You may not have realized that I and others who object to the co-opting of the BSD code have looked at the source repository, and do understand what is and what isn't covered by APSL.

    The bulk of the tools separated out and not covered by APSL are separate because they are covered by GPL, and Apple can not legally apply the APSL to them. None of the source in the non-apple tree is required to boot a system, though it might be nice to have a shell...

    There is a substantial amount of code in the "Apple Projects" tree that was developed by the BSD project, and is largely unmodified. There is other code that has been more heavily modified, but the bulk of the development, at least a decade of it, was done by the BSD project (or the Mach project). For those files that are not heavily modified, some of us feel that Apple should simply assume stewardship, without modifying the license, rather than co-opt more than ten years of public money and research for their own ends (though it is perfectly legal for them to do so).

  • You don't need to be a lawyer... (Score:3)

    by RobotSlave ( 1780 ) on Tuesday April 20, 1999 @01:53AM (#1925729) Homepage
    ...you just need to be patient. This license does appear to address the major concerns that were raised with regard to version 1.0, but there are still smaller issues. Off the top of my head:

    1) Cumbersome notification requirements. It has been pointed out that the notification requirement is an obstacle to rapid development-- the model of: "grab a bunch of code, combine it in nifty new ways, and hang it out on the net" becomes: "grab a bunch of code, combine it in nifty ways, check all licenses involved, fill out all necessary virtual paperwork, write all legally required documentation, and hang it out on the net." Much less appealing, but probably necessary for Large Corporate Entities.

    2) Non-reciprocal notification requirements. You are required to notify Apple of your modifications, but Apple is not required to share them in turn with others. This violates the spirit, if not the letter of the DFSG/OSD

    3) Disclosure required for *deployment*. While I can understand Apple's position here, I think that there are many instances in which a company might internally deploy modified code covered by GPL/XFree/other only so long as the license does not require them to disclose their modifications to any external party. Code covered by GPL/BSD/other licenses fits this requirement, while code covered by the APSL does not. While some might percieve this as making the APSL more open, others will percieve it as making the APSL less free. Both views have merit.

    4) The new license has not been accompanied by any indication that Apple might be willing to shift code that they have not substantially altered back to its original BSD license, or in any other way acknowledge the contributors to the BSD project who did the bulk of the work behind the "Darwin" product. There is, by design, no legal obligation to do this, of course, but I think there is a strong moral obligation that has not been addressed.

    There are other issues as well, and I encourage you to find them and bring them to light as you consider or debate the points enumerated above.
  • Given time, someone with legal experience will make a FAQ out of this license, just as there's a FAQ for the GPL. I also suspect that someone will also do a "diff" between the GPL and APSL, so that people who are familiar with the GPL can easily understand the APSL.

    --
    Timur Tabi
    Remove "nospam_" from email address
  • I think most of the anti-Apple people have just filtered out the Apple articles. Much like how I've filtered out the Linux articles (and the Star Wars articles, the MP3 articles, the GNU articles, the Debian articles, .........)

    --
    Timur Tabi
    Remove "nospam_" from email address
  • This is not any more encouraging.

    To promote a type of license which doesn't provide sufficient protection for the licensor (licenser?) is bad, IMHO. Anyone who promotes the GPL over the APSL is basically saying, "I'll take your source code, but I want you to bear the brunt of any legal action." That's plain unfair. If you're going to take my source code, the least you can do is agree to help me if I get in legal trouble because of it.

    --
    Timur Tabi
    Remove "nospam_" from email address

  • I'm sorry, but I think the real problem is that the GPL does NOT have such a clause.

    Say I write some code and release it under the GPL. Hundreds of people download it, modify it, and release their versions. Then, I'm informed that some lines of my code infringe on a patent. That's where the problem starts.

    I'm no lawyer, but I believe that the patent holder could sue me, and the lawsuit could be stronger (for lack of a better word) because I allowed other people to use this patent-infringing code without any way for the patent holder to know who they are. With the APSL, I could then tell the patent holder, "Hey, it's not such a big deal, I know everyone who's using the code and I can tell them to wait."

    If I ever release any code as "open source", I will definitely use the APSL instead of the GPL, because the APSL will protect me more in a legal battle.

    --
    Timur Tabi
    Remove "nospam_" from email address

  • My only concern with the new license, is that as it stands it seems to be saying that if code is found to infringe a US patent, they will withdraw usage rights worldwide.

    Unfortunately the US patent office has a tendency to grant totally bogus patents, which would not apply outside the US because either we have more sensible patent officers, or simply don't recognise software patents to the same extent.

    This gives rise to a possibility my rights to use code which is perfectly legal in my country, will be restricted because of some dubious judgement in the US.

    Assuming that my reading of this is correct, I'd say this is just enough for APSL 1.1 to fail to qualify as DFSG free.
  • Personally, mabye I'm just negative, but i think that this insane mass trusting of apples new buzzword is gonna get us in trouble. Why work on there OS when we have an already better OS (Linux or a BSD 4.4 light) that has better licencing anyway?

    Better licensing: perhaps.
    Better OS: Are you so certain? Though it will likely pain the Linux community to hear this, every Linux user I've talked to who actually tried OSX was an instant OSX convert (though not all switched due to price concerns). Your words imply that you've never tried OSX; you therefore lose all right to call it better or worse than anything else until you've tried it.

    Apple has been the king of propieitary for since it was created, don't you people know we still can't run linux on a lot of there hardware?

    You can run LinuxPPC on a lot of their hardware, including every PCI-based PowerMac ever made except for the odd Performa model or two (last I checked the Blue G3's just got support; iMacs have had it for several months). Add MkLinux into the mix and you have almost every PowerPC-based Mac ever made. Throw the m68k port in and you have still more; granted you don't have all 68K-based Macs but you have quite a few.

    To the Mac users: Run LinuxPPC if you want Open Source. Fuck Apple.

    I do run Linux. I'm also going to run OSX when it's released (Server's out of my price range, unfortuantely). I don't have this odd prejudice you seem to carry.
  • That's not exactly what it says, but it is possibly the outcome. If a segment of code is flagged as potentially infringing a copyright than they have a few options which include yanking the code but also trying to reach an agreement. The US does tend to allow bogus patents, but since Apple is a US company they have to live by US law, not just the parts convenient to them. The judicial system wouldn't be very amicable towards Apple distributing technology patented in US based on it not being patented in the UK, or France or Belgium etc. Perhaps if Apple had servers in the UK and so on, but two or more code bases depending on the geographic location of the programmer in question seems pretty unworkable.
  • Suppose I hold a few patents.

    Now suppose I use some APSL code in a mission critical application, without which my business would fail.

    Now, if Apple were to violate my patents I would have a difficult choice to make. I could commence an action for patent infringement again Apple, and loose my APSL license, or I could let Apple continue to violate my patents.

    I have no idea how this relates to APSL being Open Source, but I don't see how any business with patents could allow themselves to use APSL 1.1 code in anything at all important.

  • When I'm back from Iceland. I have some sightseeing to do for the next few days.

    Bruce

  • The APSL is appropriate for deep-pockets defendants. I don't think it's necessary for everyone else. If you want liability protection, GPL or LGPL your code and assign it to FSF. If someone gets sued, it will be them, not you.

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • Looks much better (Score:4)

    by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Tuesday April 20, 1999 @04:17AM (#1925740) Homepage Journal
    Hi Everyone,

    Alan Cox and I are in Reykjavik, Iceland speaking at a Linux and Open Source conference. It's been an adventure. Pictures next week.

    This version of the APSL looks much better. I've downloaded a copy and will go over it in detail, but from my first reading, the things I complained about (with Debian and SPI folks) seem to have been addressed. Thanks, Apple!

    I'll be back on Sunday.

    Thanks

    Bruce Perens

  • There are continuing (calm) discussions ongoing at license-discuss, FYI.

    Sujal

  • You said:
    >Getting half a clue helps.

    >Next time you bad-mouth ppl, make sure you understand exectly what's going on, who is involved, who >said what, when and where

    You ought to have been on the Apple's Public-Source Mail List so you can get a clue I guess.
    Anyone with debian.org in their email tended to be rash insulting foul-mouthed jerks. They ripped on people for their beliefs, insulted people by calling them names such as moron, made vague generalities that such-and-such 'sucked' and never backed up any claims except to say that if you disagreed with them, they called you names again.
    YOU CALL THAT PRODUCTIVE!?!
    Not one of them made a _single_ helpful suggestion.
    NOT ONE!
    I've got every digest from 2 archived
    so I probably would have noticed.

  • Hi, It's difficult to say from work where I don't have the archive but from memory I'd say two separate addresses. The only name I recall is Crowley. I suppose it's statistically possible that all the nasty email was from him alone but being the most 'visible' debian rep there it makes for a very bad image of debian. Before this, I didn't have an opinion of debian now my opinion is negative. What kind of mean-spirited wackos are they fostering over there?! They came on and just insulted people and organisations. What was the point of that? That wasn't helpful in the least and I'm sure they made plenty of enemies. I wasn't even the butt of one of their rants but I feel for the people who were unnecessarily flamed.
  • ... I admit it. I take it back. I was under the impression that anyone with a debian.org after their name was a debian employee.
    That should now read:
    "No thanks to certain debian affiliates!"
    or how about:
    "No thanks to certain people named Crow and others with debian.org in their email address who like to spam Apple's public source mail list"
    :-)
  • since earlier today...
  • Darwin is the underlying parts of MacOS X without the GUI and a few Apple Proprietary parts.

    In other words... You wanna make KDE your WM? Go ahead! You wanna make your own WM that's 3d with all kinds of bells and whistles? Go ahead! You want a WM that's Java Based? GO ahead!

    You wanna port it to the Palm Pilot/Intel/Alpha/ARM? Go ahead!

  • Shadow,

    Would you suggest that Apple also take a flamethrower to their cash reserves as well? Remember, they still need to provide something to sell. $39 distro CDs won't sustain a company with an R&D budget like Apple's.

    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • >So maybe they need to change the way they do
    >business.

    ...and go out of business?

    I doubt it - Apple has had enough of that already. If Apple doesn't make any cash, their stockholders get pissed. If their stockholders get pissed, the members of Apple's board get nervous. If they get nervous, Jobs (who seems to be doing well right now) gets booted and is replaced by Yet Another Ineffective Apple CEO. That's assuming Apple is even still around by the time that happens.

    Considering Apple's recent financial track record, I don't think any of us are in much of a position to tell them how to remain successful. I suggest taking what they are providing and making something with what you've got - it's no good at all if Apple is gone a year later. I for one would rather not be stuck with the substandard standards and cruft of the Wintel world, thank you.

    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • >Why work on there OS when we have an already
    >better OS (Linux or a BSD 4.4 light) that has
    >better licencing anyway?

    Both 'better OS' and 'better licensing' are subjective. There are things that, despite the rhetoric, Linux does not do well. There are also those who find the GPL too restrictive.

    >This is just the mac users trying to bring there
    >little platform back

    Note the use of 'little platform' as a derogatory statement, aimed at belittling the OS and its users as some sort of inferior and/or unimportant faction. That's a term that a Microsoft exec would use in describing Linux and its users. Oh, how the resemblance sometimes peeks through...

    >don't you people know we still can't run linux on
    >a lot of there hardware?

    What are you talking about? Have you looked at the Linux support on Apple's machines? I'm willing to bet that percentage wise, Apple's modern machines have BETTER Linux support than the average knock-off Wintel clone out there. Almost all PowerPC based Macs out there run some form of Linux. The only reason why support doesn't reach down into most of the 68k line is because many of them PREDATE Linux and nobody has cared.

    In case you didn't know, Apple writes Linux code and has well before it became the new buzzword.

    You are spreading FUD pure and simple. Apple has been comparitively supportive of Linux. Once again, a tactic normally reserved for those in Redmond.

    >This ASPL is apples way of getting free
    >development (Thats exploitation) out of you.

    No kidding. Apple isn't denying that either. Surprise! Apple is a company. They try to make money and cut costs. They scratch our back, we scratch theirs. This isn't exactly a socialist country. Considering, I think they're doing fairly well. Instead of Microsoftian 'embrace and destroy' technique, Apple is giving to the community and gaining something in return.

    >...and save us a lot of trouble smashing there
    >shitty MacOS X into the ground with linux
    >bsd4.4light.

    Have you even used MacOS X? Neither have I - it's not even done yet, and won't be for several months. Perhaps the next time you open your mouth, you'll refrain from providing an enclosure large enough for your foot.

    >To the Mac users: Run LinuxPPC if you want Open
    >Source.

    I do. It's not terribly hard, either, as it works on most modern Macs.

    >Fuck Apple.

    My response to this is so obvious, I think I'd better leave it to your imagination.

    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • >This is just the mac users trying to bring there
    >little platform back

    BTW, Another correction:

    Our 'little platform', my friend, IS back.

    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net

  • Wow (Score:2)

    by Darchmare ( 5387 )
    Is it me, or are people being open-minded and giving Apple a chance? This is in sharp contrast to what I've been seeing in these Apple-related articles lately.

    I'm sure a whole mob of people (anonymous cowards and non-cowards alike) will descend on this story with all sorts of Apple-hate postings, but it's nice to see that some of the people here are willing to recognize a good thing when they see it.

    Good deal!

    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • Why doesn't Apple release Openstep as open source?
  • So maybe they need to change the way they do business.
  • ...and what's with all of these Linux threads?! Like, ten every day! Geez!

  • GNUstep [gnustep.org]

    Available via http, ftp, and cvs without any
    annoying licences to agree to, or registration to
    sign.

    Most importantly, it compiles, and most of the
    test applications run successfully.

    They could use some help, if you are willing
    and able.

    ---------------------------------
    "The Internet interprets censorship as damage,

  • Whoa, slow down there. Apple is a company, and as such it has one and only one obligation: make its owners happy with it. If the owners want maximal profits, that's what it will strive for. If the owner's goal is to have all employees dressed for the ballet, Apple will order tutus. It would actually be immoral, and possibly illegal, not to have its owners best interests at heart. And this goes not only for Apple, but for every company, from IBM to the corner deli. Who are the owners? Why, the stockholders of course. What's the reason to buy stock? To get a return on your investments. Thus Apple (and every other company) will do all it can to make that happen.

    If you do not trust Apple, or do not like the APSL, the answer is simple: don't develop for it.

  • Getting half a clue helps.

    Next time you bad-mouth ppl, make sure you understand exectly what's going on, who is involved, who said what, when and where.
    --
  • crow is a nice person, if you get to know him.. Plus he's doing a lot for g200 project.. so bow to him.. ;)

    talk to debian developers on #debian (irc.debian.org), crow's nick is crow_
    --
  • you gotta admit , though , that the type of discussion generated by apple news is a far cry from those generated by MS statements , announcements , and practices .
    in a nutshell - quit yer whining !
  • you don't have to love apple . but the way they're going , they may earn your respect .
    not only did this lazarus rise from the dead - but it's throwing a bitchen party , too .
  • pro-Apple or anti, good license or bad, Open Source or not, when was the last time you recall public feedback having any effect on the terms of a Large Software Corporation's licensing agreements? the trend throughout the industry is rather on the "you'll take what our lawyers say you'll take and if you don't like it tough shit" side, if you'll recall.

    if nothing else comes out of this whole issue, i'd be willing to bet that the APSL has been read and considered by more people than the "screw reading this, just click the Accept button and get on with the install" licenses of every web browser ever released.

    for that matter, how many people would you say have downloaded and read the GPL, the OSD, and all the other 'pure' open source licenses for the first time in their lives, strictly because they wanted to cite the authoritative documents in this battle? ;-)

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • you are absolutely right that the APSL protects the original author (in this case Apple, and not the free software community) more than the GPL. it does so, however, at the expense of the licencees, which, in this case, makes it non Open Source.
  • does the fact that it is hard for a company like Apple to release code as true Open Source mean that we should thankfully accept their non Open Source contributions and pretend they are Open Source? i think not.

    bye
    schani
  • it does not matter whether someone has to claim it in court or simply write a cease and desist letter. fact is that Apple CAN, under some circumstances, make you stop using the code, without you doing anything wrong and without any actual proof that the code violates some patents or copyrights. as for the possibility of writing a work-around: well, the free software community has written a work-around for windows (it's called linux). does that make windows Open Source?

    regarding the GPL: the GPL has no clause about a lawsuit against the original author because such lawsuits are irrelevant. only the outcome of such lawsuits matter! should the supreme court rule that some code in GCC violates some patent then US law automatically forbids the use of this code without a licence for this patent. the GPL does not need to state that explicitly.

    bye
    schani
  • 9.1 Infringement. If any portion of, or functionality implemented by, the Original Code
    becomes the subject of a claim of infringement, Apple may, at its option: (a) attempt to
    procure the rights necessary for Apple and You to continue using the Affected Original
    Code; (b) modify the Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing; or (c)
    suspend Your rights to use, reproduce, modify, sublicense and distribute the Affected
    Original Code until a final determination of the claim is made by a court or
    governmental administrative agency of competent jurisdiction and Apple lifts the
    suspension as set forth below.

    this means, in other words, that if someone claims that any part of the source infringes on his copyright or patents, then apple has the right to suspend your use of this piece of code. note that it is not necessary that this someone actually proves that the code infringes! all apple needs to take the code away from you is to find someone willing to CLAIM an infringement. then apple can suspend your rights until the case is settled, which can take a very long time, as we all know.

    bye
    schani
  • You wrote: "It means that if you do decide to file suit against Apple for patent infringement you are no longer allowed to work on the source via this license. In no way does it restrict your ability to defend your own patents."

    Theoretically, that's true. But in practice, if you want to build a bussiness based on APSL-code, you cannot defend your patents should Apple decide to use them without securing a license agreement with you.

    It goes to show that the GPL is a lot more friendly towards commercial use than those "commercial open source" licenses.
    If I had a company that was going to create products based on "open-source" software, only the GPL and the BSD license would be my choice as secure enough to build a bussiness on.

  • waaaay too long my ass (Score:3)

    by dadams ( 9665 ) on Monday April 19, 1999 @10:33PM (#1925770)
    Word Counts
    APSL 3231
    GPL 2491
    MPL 2909
    NPL 3359

    Judge licenses by content, not word count.
  • I have to give them credit for being willing to listen and modify their license according to people's inputs and complaints. I can think of other companies who have had deaf ears about what they dump onto the market, and pay lip service to "consumer/developer demands". But even without comparing their rather quick response to the community feedback, to the total lack of response from say some 'other' commercial s/w company, I think this bodes well. Until they are proven to be devils in this arena, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. They've not done this before, and they still gotta cover their ass.
  • Well, I didn't really know jack about Apple except for an Apple II I bought in '78. In university everything was basically C/Unix (Sun/HP) after the first year, and I have been using Suns at work for the past 8 years. I love Unix and would not want to do the kind of work I do on anything else. But when it came time to replace my old XT at home, I bought a PMac 8500. I had become aquainted with a Mac IIci in '93 at work, and I really liked it. Now at home I have that old 6502 Apple II, 4 little 020 Mac Plus'es, 1 040 Quadra, non-descript XT, 1 Dell 486/W95, PowerMac 8500 booting MacOS/BeOS/LinuxPPC, and one of the first iMacs, all on Ethernet with shared cable modem. I love Unix. I love my Macs. To like one or the other is not mutually exclusive. I gravitate toward as much quality as I can get. I am looking forward to see how OS X turns out. I just hope I can get to a cli when I want one.
  • So maybe they need to change the way they do business.


    I keep seeing this, and I keep seeing flawed justifications for it. Many of the ideas have merit, but I have yet to see a workable implementation proposed.


    So, if you see a way that a _large_ truly open company can afford to pay _many_ (hundreds to thousands) full-time programmers decent salaries, please draw up a _detailed_, _complete_ business plan and post it somewhere public.


    I'd love to see this done. If I could look at neat code that other people have written and modify it freely but still get paid a good full-time wage for the code that I write, I'd be ecstatic. Unfortunately, I can now only afford to write free code in my spare time, because proprietary code is the only code that my employers can afford to pay me for.


    Post a _detailed_ business plan like this and businesses will listen.

  • If Apple were required to republish changes, then a user could turn APSL into GPL as follows:


    (1) embed some GPL-ed code into a change;
    (2) submit it, passing along the GPl-ed license in accordance with GPL; and
    (3) apple publishes it.


    You couldn't get past step (1). The APSL makes it clear that you can't add any licensing that invalidates any of the APSL. Including the GPL in Your Modifications would certainly do this, and if I understand the GPL correctly (I may not), including it in any part of a Larger Work would too.

  • It turns out that most of the ownership arguments you are concerned about wouldn't hold water if actually used in court.


    However, they added section 11 (Ownership) which states that code written for Apple or on behalf of Apple is not auotmatically covered by the AAPL. What this means is that any code added to an another author's code or any code written originally by Apple and licensed under the AAPL can have the AAPL revoked.


    No; the exact wording is "such Apple Modifications will not be automatically subject to this License.". They don't _have_ to license their own modifications under the APSL, as any other modifying user would, but once they tack a license on there, it stays.


    Exhibit A assumes that portions of the code licensed under the AAPL are already copyright by Apple. What happens if someone writes completely original code and has to display this notice? Also, does it not also mean that section 11 is *always* enforcable even if the code you wrote doesn't have Apple code in it.


    The terms of the licensing agreement say that you have to apply the APSL, and hence Exhibit A, to any source files that contain Original Code or a modification thereof. However, you can distribute other files, that are completely free of Apple code, under whatever license you want, as long as the APSL applies to anything containing variants of the Original Code (which means that you couldn't GPL anything in the project, but you could LGPL or BSD it if I understand correctly). This is covered in section 2.1 (c) and in section 4.


    I do agree that having to destroy code would be a Bad Thing, but nothing that I would use the code for would be grounds for termination of the license.


    The patent issue still needs to be settled, though.

  • As far as I know, Darwin isn't booting yet (someone correct me if I'm wrong), so no one yet knows if Darwin is operationally better or worse than Linux or BSD.

    I would imagine that the AFP services in Darwin would be much better than Linux/BSD, for example.

    Open Source is only part of the reason to run Linux, many people run it only because it's a good OS.

    --
  • Slashdot is all about news for nerds, remember? Some of us nerds care about all the interesting news, not just news about God^H^H^HLinux. Some of us look for excellence wherever we can find it, and speaking plainly, Apple has done some excellent things. At the very least, some of the things they do are indeed newsworthy to nerds. They have earned the right to be covered in these pages, same as Linux, SGI, Microsoft, or George Lucas.
  • I bet 90% of the people who bitch and moan about this barely write code themselves.

    Also, love the prematurely negative assessment of it before it was read. If someone did the same to Linux the community would be up in arms.

    'At first glance, the Open Source Licensing for Linux appears to be an improvement but its waaaay long and I'm no lawyer'. You'd all be spamming that reviewer ASAP and using your /. might to 'Get those anti-open-sourcers'.

    Lame bias. Friggin read it before you start putting a negative spin on it. I don't care for any OS over another ( well, I can't use windows at all so thats not true ) but there is an obvious slant here. Apple == Totally NEgative , FreeBSD == Mostly Negative , Linux == Godlike. Its moronic. You folks need to get over this lame ass schoolyard mentality and get on the boat, realize that OS's are NOT one size fits all and to claim so and disparage other OS's because of this view makes you no better then Apple of Microsoft.

  • ...to see that Apple is a company based on expoitation.

    Personally, mabye I'm just negative, but i think that this insane mass trusting of apples new buzzword is gonna get us in trouble. Why work on there OS when we have an already better OS (Linux or a BSD 4.4 light) that has better licencing anyway?

    This is just the mac users trying to bring there little platform back, and i'm suprised how many peopel are buying in to this ploy.
    Apple has been the king of propieitary for since it was created, don't you people know we still can't run linux on a lot of there hardware? this company is B A D.
    Its gonna make you people do there work and then toss you aside when they are done using you!
    This ASPL is apples way of getting free development (Thats exploitation) out of you.
    If you ask me, and i suppose mabye you didn't, but we should tell apple to go backrupt and save us a lot of trouble smashing there shitty MacOS X into the ground with linux/bsd4.4light.

    To the Mac users: Run LinuxPPC if you want Open Source. Fuck Apple.
  • I just scouted out the apple open source page, looked at the liscense, and, searching for goodies to download, found something called Darwin. Anyone know anything about it besides the couple paragraphs apple provides?
  • really too long ..... way too long .....

    so why don't you just don't read it, and don't use the code !? .. just skip it if you don't like it, there is no need for you to hire a lawyer to read that.
    If you want to use the code or interested in it, but sadly you are illiterate, then go and hire a lawyer.

    Maybe there will be somebody asking why it's not in french or not in spanish or not in chinese or japanese ....
  • to get at the actual source you have to register (give a Name and e-mail). After that you can download everything.

    It's the core bits of the recently released MacOS X Server. Includes the kernel, driverkit, soundkit, networking (AppleTalk), file system (HFS+) etc that makes up an the core of an OS. Apple will be releasing installable binaries (so you can just dl and go instead of compiling etc.) in the near future. It is an OS... very portable.. very extensible.

    now they've added the QT Streaming Server to the source.

  • No it means that, as stated in previous sections Apple is allowed to use your code as is determined by your patents, and you can't just slap them with a lawsuit for using that code unless you have a reason for doing so. Which would then fall into section 9.1.

    Obviously, if you're intent on sueing Apple for stealing your idea that you saw in their code then you probably won't care whether you are protected by the APSL because it will have already passed that point... it will be a matter of "who did it first" and "who wrote it first".

    Just like when you are using Apple code with Apple patents and credits and documenting them correctly (like every good essay writer should) Apple is not allowed to slap you with a lawsuit for patent infringement.
  • why not? the benefits are obvious. Also they would have been hung by their ex-Next customers for not providing an alternative to Rhapsody for Intel.

    Darwin can be ported to any platform... now QT can go along with it. That's a powerful combination, and if I was programmer I'd be in there like a dirty-shirt.
    If you want an awesome API, then MacOS X will provide YB which is the single most awesome OO API I have ever seen. They have nothing to lose by doing Darwin. And they can't yank it now because they will be ridiculed and completely abandoned by developers if they do.
  • oh please... like someone has already pointed out... word for word, the other licenses are just as long. It doesn't take long to read it (I compared 1.0, 1.1 for changes in less then 15 minutes), and if you are going to seriously use the code and contribute to the project then it is worth your while to read and understand the most important points.

    It is basically all common sense anyway... document your sources, post your changes, play nice. You follow those three rules and you'll be able to contribute with all the blessings of Apple. Now is that that complicated?
  • not to take anything away from the fact that it is there... but it is not part of the changes in 1.1, that clause was present, word for word, in APSL 1.0.

    this is not meant as a slander towards you, anonymous coward, but it just goes to show how few people actually read, and understood APSL 1.0.
  • Well, from what I remember it was that "Export" clause that got people angry. That clause is no longer in the APSL. The clause you mention above is the same as it was in APSL so I guess nobody complained about it the first time.

    To me the clause you mention just means that the License is not above the laws of the United States or California... which makes sense. Whether that implies any export laws I don't know, but they've obviously left it up to the government to decide if that were the case.
  • That's a good point... it might be worth sending that concern to Apple. At least ask them for clarification on whether that is what the license actually implies.

    http://survey.info.apple.com/info.apple.com/surv ey/feedback/feedback.qry?function=complain tform

    trust me... this "tell-us" thing works. If your concern is valid (as yours is) they will at least e-mail you personally. They usually phone. I have used this three times and have been phoned back twice.

  • Here are the changes (Score:3)

    by Maktoo ( 16901 ) on Monday April 19, 1999 @10:29PM (#1925789) Homepage
    So lets see how much of the initial furor over APSL 1.0 was just a whole bunch of people feeling threatened by a "closed" company stepping into their (not so) "open" territory or real concern that Apple didn't get it right the first time.

    If you don't like APSL 1.1... tell Apple. they might just listen...

    Here are the changes... go at it...

    New Definitions:
    "Affected Original Code": means only those specific portions of Original Code that allegedly infringe upon any party's intellectual
    property rights or are otherwise the subject of a claim of infringement.

    9.1 "Infringement"
    Big changes here... (rightly so)
    Basically instead of "terminating Your Rights to use the Affected Original Code" end-of-story...

    They will "suspend your rights....until a final determination of the claim is made by a court or governmental administrative agency of competent jurisdiction and Apple lifts the suspension as set forth below." They clearly state that you can make any changes you wish to the code so that it no longer pisses Apple, or someone else, off.
    They also clearly state that only the *portion* of the code is affected... all the code won't be yanked.


    "If Apple suspends Your rights to Affected Original Code, nothing in this License shall be construed to restrict You, at Your option and subject to applicable law, from replacing the Affected Original Code with non-infringing code or independently negotiating for necessary rights from such third party.

    It goes on... "Upon such final determination being made, if Apple
    is legally able, without the payment of a fee or royalty, to resume use, reproduction, modification, sublicensing and distribution of the Affected Original Code, Apple will lift the suspension of rights to the Affected Original Code" ...

    13 "Miscellaneous"
    13.1 "Export Law Assurances" has been removed

  • Anybody notice how some harmless (although not terribly meaningful) pro-Mac posts are getting -1's, and some pretty lame anti-mac posts are getting 1's or better?

    A/C post:

    Looks much better (Score:-1)
    No, you can't be happy! It's Apple, we need to find something wrong! It's too long... yeah!


    While this one was left alone:

    You don't need to be a lawyer... (Score:1)
    by SalsaDoom on Tuesday April

    ...to see that Apple is a company based on expoitation.

    Personally, mabye I'm just negative, but i think that this insane mass trusting of apples new buzzword is gonna get us in trouble. Why work on there OS when we have an already better OS (Linux or a BSD 4.4 light) that has better licencing anyway?

    This is just the mac users trying to bring there little platform back, and i'm suprised how many peopel are buying in to this ploy. Apple has been the king of propieitary for since it was created, don't you people know we still can't run linux on a lot of there hardware?

    this company is B A D.

    Its gonna make you people do there work and then toss you aside when they are done using you!
    This ASPL is apples way of getting free development (Thats exploitation) out of you. If you ask me, and i suppose mabye you didn't, but we should tell apple to go backrupt and save us a lot of trouble smashing there shitty MacOS X into the ground with linux/bsd4.4light.

    To the Mac users: Run LinuxPPC if you want Open Source. Fuck Apple.

    "I don't know what life is, but nobody gets out alive"


    And this one (though not quite as negative) was even bumped up to 2:

    APSL is NOT Open Source (Score:2)
    by schani on Tuesday April 20, @08:43AM EDT

    9.1 Infringement. If any portion of, or functionality implemented by, the Original Code
    becomes the subject of a claim of infringement, Apple may, at its option: (a) attempt to procure the rights necessary for Apple and You to continue using the Affected Original Code; (b) modify the Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing; or (c) suspend Your rights to use, reproduce, modify, sublicense and distribute the Affected Original Code until a final determination of the claim is made by a court or governmental administrative agency of competent jurisdiction and Apple lifts the suspension as set forth below.

    this means, in other words, that if someone claims that any part of the source infringes on his copyright or patents, then apple has the right to suspend your use of this piece of code. note that it is not necessary that this someone actually proves that the code infringes! all apple needs to take the code away from you is to find someone willing to CLAIM an infringement. then apple can suspend your rights until the case is settled, which can take a very long time, as we all know

    Maybe the moderating just happend to be a little uneven at the time, but it lookes more like bias on the part of the moderators. (just watch this get knocked down to -1).
  • Oh yes it does, in that posts on one side seem to be rated differently than the other. Maybe I'm just being paraniod, but thats my obeservation.
  • It's good to see Affected Original Code narrowly defined and the termination-on-patent-suit and export clauses deleted.

    I remember that copyleft part about you having to make your modified code available for 6 to 12 months was in the first version, so nothing new there.

    Apple still has the right to do whatever they want with your modifications; I guess that's to be expected since they have to have some control over their product.

    They modified the wording about you having to post a pointer to your changes at their website; now it says "if available". So in case Apple or that web page dies, you don't have to post there anymore.

    So, I guess there's only one thing left to say:

    LET THE PORTS BEGIN!

    Now if I cold only remember my username and password for their site... :->
  • Maktoo wrote:
    13.1 "Export Law Assurances" has been removed

    APSL1.1 section 13.7:

    This License shall be governed by the Laws of the Unites States and the State of California except that body of California law concerning conflicts of law.

    Doesn't this imply the same? I only wonder whether this violates the OSD.


    I also wonder what the United Nations convention is, that they expressly excluded in 13.6


    CAVEAT: IANAL

  • I couldn't believe it when I first looked at the responses. I read the license, didn't seem *that* long to me, and it looked like it covered all of the bits that had people up in arms about it before.

    And what are the very first replies? "It's too long." Those, at least, subsided after several people demonstrated that it really wasn't much longer than any other of the popular licenses.

    So then it just goes back to general negativity. "Apple's in this for no good." "They're just trying to save their OS". "Use Linux!". Blah blah blah.

    What I would like to know is, of the people that are going to _contribute_ to Apple's Open Source Project, what do they think about the license?

    Everyone else wanting to moan and gripe about a license on a product that they're never going to use anyway, kindly remove your foot from your mouth and go back to your respective projects. Thanks.

    - Cattywampus.
  • IANAL, but no.

    It means that if you do decide to file suit against Apple for patent infringement you are no longer allowed to work on the source via this license.

    In no way does it restrict your ability to defend your own patents.
  • To quote:

    12.2 Effect of Termination. Upon termination, You agree to immediately stop any further use, reproduction, modification, sublicensing and distribution of the Covered Code and to destroy all copies of the Covered Code that are in your possession or control.

    Ok. Simple question, with that kind of language, why would I want to contribute to anything under the APSL? (IANAL)
  • Why is Apple even trying to go opensource? I know that they want to do it in part for the media and to rally some support for MacOS X, but as a self-proclaimed Mac hacker (different from a regular, run of the mill hacker), I doubt I will get much of anything out of their faulty opensource stratgy.

    For a long time Apple has been doing the next best thing to opensource: a huge, open API that has helped hackers and developers alike over the past 15 some odd years of the Macintosh. Come on, Apple, let us programmers do the opensource and you just keep on providing us the facilities to do as such. Don't forget your mantra of holding developers over self-interest to provided the better applications that we all use today. I just hope this doesn't go the way of AppleScript vs. Frontire.

  • OSI is hearing the community out. (Score:4)

    by bbehlen ( 25721 ) on Tuesday April 20, 1999 @12:29AM (#1925799)
    Disclaimer: I'm one of the newer members of the OSI Board. I don't speak for them, at least right now I'm not.

    After the APSL 1.0 situation, OSI started a mailing list to review licenses submitted to us for validation as Open Source. To subscribe, send mail to license-discuss-subscribe@opensource.org.

    We had the chance to put OSI certification on the APSL 1.1 for their press release today; but because we weren't allowed to share the new license with license-discuss beforehand, we chose not to give it certification, even though we on the board were confident the new license would pass. But in the spirit of "all bugs are shallow given sufficient eyeballs", we thought it'd be best to see what the community thought of the proposed changes, specifically along the lines of conformance to the OSD.

    Thanks,

    Brian

  • At last, my faith in Apple is beginning to be rewarded. This license looks like a HUGE step in the right direction. I think this is a very good sign that Apple is sincere in this movement. They are listening to the community, and taking our suggestions to heart.

    Keep up the good work, Apple!

    Also, I'd like to thank the community for the general tone of this discussion. It has been very positive, and I feel much better about the community as a whole. Thank you, everyone.
    --
    Matthew Walker
    My DNA is Y2K compliant
  • All the people complaining about apple re-releasing things under a more restrictive license need to actually look at the darwin web page - all third party projects are clearly separated under a heading which says this:

    Third Party Projects: These projects are primarily maintained by another
    development effort. Currently ports of this software is maintained here in order to provide additional functionality to Darwin. This software is part of the Mac OS X Server product and is provided by Apple under the license of the upstream source, unmodified by the APSL.
    In general, feature additions and bug fixes which are not specific to or needed by the Darwin platform should be sent to the upstream source; it is an explicit goal that the diffs between this code and the original code be kept at a minimum, as we don't intend to compete with other Open Source initiatives.
  • 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.
  • "I bet 90% of the people who bitch and moan about this barely write code themselves."

    This is debugging (not everyone in QA is a coder), and is what makes an application, or a license, better.
  • >I bet 90% of the people who bitch and moan about this barely write code themselves.

    To wander off the topic for a bit...

    It seems to me that a lot of these people would like to get involved with coding open source stuff partially to gain some recognition as a programmer, but mainly to increase their skills. The best way to learn about programming is to practice, practice, practice, and open source provides a good way to do this however most projects around are already well developed and so you already need to be a competant coder to understand them let alone to find bugs and fix them. I for one come into this category, I've learnt enough C to take my beyond the "teach yourself C" books but dont have enough experience to do anything usefull (I do a lot of awk/unix scripting at work but no C etc).

    It seems to me that what would be usefull for those of us in this situation (and you were all there once) would be a kind of "linux training academy" to provide a set of small and / or simple (but non-trivial) ideas that can be developed by relative newcomers to give them a start towards code guruhood. These wouldn't have to be new ideas but could just be new takes on old ideas (implement a version of 'ls' that prints the first line of text files so you know whats in them, or a version that lists all files the dont match a regular expression etc). Stuff that would be usefull but is not a real priority, or stuff that has been done before but can be redeveloped for new platforms, or to run better, or to take advantage of new functionality from other programs etc etc

    Just an idea
  • Quite right. I don't think that they should be ignored altogether, but having one's own opinion is much more worthwhile and such


    itachi
  • So that Apple users can write drivers for PCI hardware which is Windows-centric. It only makes sense -- Apple can't support everything, so why not let users do it?
    -russ
  • Right, but they have to make that claim in court. That is, they have to actually bring suit -- writing a cease and desist letter isn't sufficient. And you can write your own work-around for the infringing code, which is a good idea anyway.

    Think of this section as a battle plan against patents. At least Apple is telling you what its plans are. The GPL says nothing about what the FSF plans to do in case suit is brought against it for contributory infringement.
    -russ
  • Of course there's a termination clause. If you don't have *some* termination clause, what meaning would the other terms have??

    The question is: "what triggers the termination clause"? And you haven't explained what the problem is there, so I can't address it.
    -russ
  • If Apple suspends Your rights to Affected Original Code, nothing in this License shall be construed to restrict You, at Your option and subject to applicable law, from replacing the Affected Original Code with non-infringing code or independently negotiating for necessary rights from such third party.

    Phil, if you're in a different country where the code is non-infringing, you can negotiate for the "necessary rights". Since there *are* no necessary rights, you can continue using the code.
    -russ

  • I don't believe this provision is poorly worded (i.e. vague or ambiguous). The provision means what it says -- that if you file papers for a lawsuit with the clerk of a court stating a cause for patent infringement (that's what commence means under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), your APSL license is terminated automatically and without notice. Since there is no limitation in the clause that the infringement must be related to the termination, it is unlikely that a court would read that limitation into the provision.

    On the other hand, as pointed out by others, it is clear that this doesn't mean that "Apple gets right to all my patents." This is not a unilateral "cross-license," which would actually prevent you from suing -- you are free to sue if you so choose, but part of the consequences are that you will lose APSL rights.

    And yes, this could become a big deal if you make APSL code mission-critical. The question remains, which is the more valuable asset -- your right to sue apple for a patent, or the value of the code to your enterprise.

    For the vast majority of hacker types, this is a non-issue. For the small number of hacker-inventors, there are options: (1) don't use the code, or don't use it in mission-critical applications; and (2) negotiate a separate deal with Apple, setting forth the reasons why you think they should give you the right to use the code for free while you are still suing their pants off.

    A plausible argument of type two might be made. Absent such an argument, however, I see Apple's point well -- they see themselves giving away something valuable gratis, and expect a quid pro quo. If the quid is too much, don't take the quo.
  • This is a subtle and a clever question. I think the answer lends insight to the concern expressed earlier concerns that Apple is not required to republish changes. Consider:

    If Apple were required to republish changes, then a user could turn APSL into GPL as follows:

    (1) embed some GPL-ed code into a change;
    (2) submit it, passing along the GPl-ed license in accordance with GPL; and
    (3) apple publishes it.

    Whoops, under GPL, the published software is now virused in, and itself now subject to GPL, which may mean that some of the greater restrictions of APSL no longer can apply.

    I think that Apple was clearly alive to these concerns in drafting the license as they have.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close