FSF Denies Latest Apple Attempt at APSL 215
An anonymous reader wrote in to tell us that "The latest Free Software Foundation take on the newly released APSL v1.2
"In January 2001, Apple released another updated version, 1.2, of the APSL, but it too remains unacceptable. It still has the requirement that any "deployed" modified version must be published. So it is still not a free software license." The dance continues."
Surprised? (Score:1)
It's the APSL, not the AFSL (Score:4)
I'm wary of the APSL (and indeed any other custom license made by a big company so they can jump on the open source or free software bandwagon while still at least feeling like they're in control of the code), but Apple has done some good things with it. OpenPlay, for instance, will be a really neat networked gaming API once the Linux port is cleaned up a bit.
It's nice that Stallman took the time to review this license and provide intelligent commentary, but I don't think anyone should be surprised by his response.
-John
Who cares? (Score:2)
The fact that I can't make a direct system call (and bypassing the LGPL'ed glibc) in Linux without GPL'ing my software is nauseating. The fact that I can't use the GNU regular expression library without GPLing my software is even more frustrating. What is the point of a library you can't use because of licensing issues? How is that free?
I don't think that it's important. It's just an attempt to get the zealots stirred up in an attempt to force Apple to accept things on the FSF's terms. I say ignore them.
We should do away with licenses (Score:3)
Why are we and they making the damn situation so complex?
Why does RMS have to take a look at everyone's license and make certain it is "Free"?
Let's just get rid of the whole damn license. Just release your software if you want and don't release it if you don't want. This DOES NOT require lawyers.
Misleading Subject (Score:2)
--
kinda like BSD then.. (Score:1)
Was apple trying for FSF approval. (Score:2)
When did RMS become such a hard-liner ;) (Score:2)
The rest of us can be more pragmatic, and see the advantages of somewhat open source, and be glad to see more companies moving in that direction.
I'm not in it for the Spirit of Free Software... (Score:1)
I don't know about everyone else, but when comparing the differences between free and proprietary software I've become fairly pragmatic. I'm definitely don't feel like belonging to a community. I buy the tools that can't be taken away (free software) and pay the price of complying with the respective licenses. The price of some licenses makes certain company's software too expensive.
Speaking of tools that can never be taken away, does anyone have a copy of cycle-buffer.el by Vladmir somebody? I've been looking for months...
Sigh (Score:2)
That all being said, the dogmatic insistence of a definition of "Free" and some self appointed experts who happen to make a lot of noise to not take the fact away that one can get the source to Darwin, and hence the low level code for OS X, look at it, poke at it, and prod it. That is a boom for developers writing drivers, that is a boom for programmers who need to see how things interact with hardware (game developers), and that is a boom for Apple customers who have technical knowledge and want to get OS X running on non-G3/G4 machines. Say all you want, its BETTER that not having the source at all. Apple should be given credit for it.
Disrespect for privacy (Score:5)
I think one of the most egregious parts of the new APSL is the clause preventing you from making modifications for your own use without sending them in to Apple. One of the great benefits of open source software is the ability to tweak it to fit your own unique or perverse environment, whether it's home or business.
I change things. I hack. I added trailer brake controls to my pickup truck and put diamond plate steel in high-wear parts of the bed. I put longer power cords on some of my tools. I've made numerous tweaks to my computer hardware. I made holes in a bookshelf for power cords so I could put electronics in it.
People modify their environment. It's one of our distinguishing characteristics. I deeply resent a software vendor telling me that I can't tweak with their open source software unless I'm willing to send them my changes, and I have a feeling I'm not the only one.
Credit (Score:1)
I don't see MS doing anything close to this. Apple is trying to balance legitimate business concerns with giving users what they want. In short, they are trying to 'Think Different'.
Sure, maybe they haven't made it all the way to pure GPL or done the best that they could have, but they're making an effort to fight the good fight, and shouldn't that be worth something?
Brant
GPL... (Score:3)
any time someone makes an accusation of patent or copyright infringement.
You know, not to nitpick, but doesn't the fact that the GPL can be changed at any time sort of do the same thing? I mean, it's not spelled out in writing, but couldn't Stallman just change the wording horribly, at any time, and own it all?
Just a thought...
Poppycock. (Score:5)
The Free Software Foundation will only accept one license -- the one that gives them control, the GPL.
A license need not be GPL to be GPL compatible [fsf.org].
The FSF has no power except its voice. If you don't like what FSF is saying, you can ignore them. If you don't want to play ball with them, you don't have to write code for tools that do.
But don't misreprent what they're saying. They prefer the GPL, no question. Beyond that....
Responsibility? (Score:3)
I read this clause as an attempt by Apple to maintain some responsibility for their code. In light of the DMCA and other "our software isn't broken, it's your fault" legal stances of most commercial software companies, we should applaud those that stand behind their software.
I can hear the frustrated keyboard banging now. "But I should have a right to my changes" you say. Look at the liability that a corporate entity encounters with free licenses. Let's say for example that some small company took Darwin, and modified it in some way to become the base of an air traffic control system. Let's also say that such a system hosed up a major hub airport, and a multiple plane collision occurred.
Would Apple be liable because their software was used? If said modifications on their base were the root cause, and they had no idea that such changes were made, they shouldn't be held liable. Almost all of the lawyers that I know would tend to follow blame until they reach the deepest pockets.
By requiring return notification, they can limit their liability, and take responsibility when appropriate.
I don't see emacs or the gimp becoming life-or-death software, so something like the GPL does make sense. If I were Linus, though, I would be extemely worried as Linux creeps into more and more embedded applications.
My 2 cents,
-- Len
Have any of you even READ the FSF page on it? (Score:5)
How would you feel if you spent months making mods to a package and then all of a sudden couldn't release it cause the code you based it on had its license revoked? (and to top it off, you'd STILL be obligated to give Apple your changes anyway).
That doesn't sound "free" to me.
What about the lack of freedom to make mods and NOT release them if you just doing for internal company use?
That sounds like less freedom to me too.
I really don't understand why /.'ers hate Stallman so much...
Re:Who cares? (Score:5)
Sure you can, Linus has given you a permission to do so. See
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
APSL--what's new in 1.2? (Score:2)
For easy reference, here's a link to the Apple Public Source License, v. 1.2 [apple.com].
I'm having some trouble understanding which parts of Stallman's commentary apply to the revised version of the license; from his comment on 1.2, it would appear that he's saying that the only remaining problem is the requirement to publish all modifications, but from the license it looks like some of his other comments might still apply; anyone else understand the situation?
--Bruce FieldsRe:GPL... (Score:2)
It is either that your roll your own license.
This is the problem, Not Apple... (Score:4)
It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.
A truly free software license wouldn't/shouldn't care what you do or do not link to.
To that effect, what Richard Stallman is describing is contradictory to the "freedoms" he describes in the GPL.
There are two different fences in software. On one, major corporations are attempting to demand the right to force consumers to pay for everything they see, hear, and do.
On the other fence, Free Software proponents claim that software should be free, and to that end, have come up with an EULA that is just as restrictive as the corporations, without the dollar signs.
What neither side sees is the eight lane freeway right in the middle that Apple is trying to drive on, while both sides throw bricks at them.
krystal_blade
I'm not sure RMS understands Open Source (Score:2)
-russ
Re:Who cares? (Score:3)
The Free Software Foundation will only accept one license -- the one that gives them control, the GPL. It does not matter what anyone else attempt to do, unless you give all software over to their dogmatic cause, then you are the enemy. I don't think Apple should pay them a bit of attention. The FSF's dogma has always been "My way or the highway."
Well, the FSF think they're right. Of course. Most people who take a philosophical or moral stance think they've taken the right one ;) But the FSF do accept many other licenses as being free software, most of them not viral like the GPL. They list here, on their website [gnu.org] various licenses, many of which they consider free.
Also, I don't think GPL'ing software gives the FSF any particular control. It's still your copyright, you just happen to have chosen a license their lawyers drafted.
The fact that I can't make a direct system call (and bypassing the LGPL'ed glibc) in Linux without GPL'ing my software is nauseating. The fact that I can't use the GNU regular expression library without GPLing my software is even more frustrating. What is the point of a library you can't use because of licensing issues? How is that free?
It's a device to ensure that software stays free. I'm sure you understand this. (I'm not asking you to agree with it, you don't have to). It's a device to protect the author's work, in a different way to a conventional copyright. A conventional copyright protects the author's work by forbidding copying it at all without a fee (and, in general, source code is not available). The GPL protects the author's work by ensuring that derived works must also be GPL'ed (which almost, but not quite, means that their source must be released). The X11 license (also a free software license) simply doesn't protect the author's rights at all.
Oh, and incidentally, a program which syscalls directly is still (probably) not a derived work of the Linux kernel, and so wouldn't need to be GPL'ed. Exactly what a derived work is, is a subjective, not technical, issue.
I don't think that it's important. It's just an attempt to get the zealots stirred up in an attempt to force Apple to accept things on the FSF's terms. I say ignore them.
I think it's simply RMS saying "It seems Apple wishes this to be free software" (and it does seem that; that does appear to be Apple's intention), and "in my opinion, it still isn't, for this reason". No one is claiming RMS is the only voice that counts, but (for me, at least) his views are interesting, because he has taken a long time to think about the issues involved
Jules
Compare to Microsoft (Score:2)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5)
The Free Software Foundation will only accept one license -- the one that gives them control, the GPL.
Wrong, the Free Software Licenses page specifically lists licenses that they consider to be free software license, which includes:
This also bring up your point that you must GPL your software to link to GPL code. That isn't true, you have to license your code under a GPL compatible license. You could license your program under the BSD license(without advertising clause), LGP, or other licenses that meet the standard for compatibility. The FSF is trying to eliminate non-free software, so of course they aren't going to try and undermine that ideal. But they aren't accepting only the licenses that puts them in control.
If you want to bypass glibc by all means do so, but fullfill the licensing requirements. Wouldn't you demand users of your software to do the same?
treke
Please stop the FUD! (Score:2)
> one license
BZZT! WRONG!
Please follow the link given in the article. The FSF has evaluated a lot of licenses, and some (like BSDL and MPL) get the "free software license" predicate, other (like the Sun "community license" or the Apple license does not).
What is true is that they in generel prefer the GPL, not really surprising given that they wrote it, but they also use and accept other free software licenses in situations where they are more practical.
The myth that the FSF rejects all other licenses is spread both by people who are ignorant and anti-GPL zeleats who deliberately lies. The second group cannot not be stopped by arguments, but the first group can easily find out the FSF position by looking at the content of their ftp site, and the statements on their web site.
too much hurts (Score:2)
So what? (Score:3)
The reality is that the people who want to work on Darwin - BSD and NeXT types, for the most part - are. The folks who were screaming their heads off about APSL 1.0 didn't start contributing after Apple released 1.1 to address Bruce Perens' objections, didn't start contributing after 1.2 was released and aren't going to start even if 1.3 meets FSF standards.
And now it's time for all the "As a result of this, I'll never do business with Apple again!" posts from people who have never owned a Mac and never plaaned to. And the usual "Everything Apple makes sucks, and furthermore they won't GPL it all so we can use it."
Re:We should do away with licenses (Score:4)
Sounds good in theory, but here's the problem: what happens when a company grabs an open-source product like Linux, makes its own proprietary mods, and then sells the whole thing for a profit - but doesn't allow you to see its changes? That's the problem with doing away with licenses: you can't stop people from doing BAD things with your software.
A good license (like the GPL) ensures that the work you do is protected, and someone can't rip it off. That's why so many people jump on the Linux bandwagon: they know that the coding they do will be used for the good of the community, not ripped off and shoved into a big, closed-source entity.
Imagine if Microsoft walked into the Linux fray, dedicated a team of 1,000 programmers to making Linux better, but none of the community was allowed to see the code anymore? What if they released a new version of MS Windows that's actually a Linux base, with the Windows UI on top of it? Suddenly, MS is gaining from everyone's open source work. That's not fair, but that's what happens if you get rid of licenses altogether.
Right now, the Linux community is protected by RMS's bulldogs, because they fight to make sure what we do stays in the public domain. Lose the licenses, and you lose the right to fight companies who want to rape and pillage the source code for their own benefit (and ultimately harm Linux as a whole.)
Why is software magically different? (Score:2)
[stock rant on the subject]
This is my issue with the FSF philosophy that companies shouldn't be able to remain proprietary about their source code, if they also use elements of process that are "Free."
Companies are proprietary about injection-molding techniques, they're proprietary about the integrated circuit layouts, they're proprietary about so many physical processes that go on behind closed doors. They also use such open techniques such as how to mop the floors at night, and which motor oils they use when they're maintaining the printing presses. Why is software magically different?
If you aren't allowed to cut and paste existing processes with no effort, you'll have to innovate. Sure you have to start from scratch, or from simpler licensed technologies, but by setting down your own requirements for the new process, you'll probably have new strengths that the existing ways don't have.
Heck, maybe the GPL is good for something. When I see that a module is under the GPL, and I want to sell my product, I have to skip the not-so-"Free" methods and write it from scratch, thus making it fit exactly to my needs.
To me, Open Source and Free Software are irrelevant. Get the job done. If your competitors want to do the same, let them. If you want to open your source as a service to mankind, go for it. If you show me your methods and then tell me not to use them, well, that's just being petty.
[stock rant on the subject]
Re:Who cares? (Score:3)
The Free Software Foundation will only accept one license -- the one that gives them control, the GPL. It does not matter what anyone else attempt to do, unless you give all software over to their dogmatic cause, then you are the enemy. I don't think Apple should pay them a bit of attention. The FSF's dogma has always been "My way or the highway."
Surprisingly enough, Apple's dogma is "my way or the highway", too. All licenses are. That's their purpose. The FSF will use the GPL because that's what they stand for. If you ask their opinion of licenses, they have to be as free as the GPL, or even more free (BSD, etc). Licenses that don't offer what the FSF are particularly looking for get panned.
The fact that I can't make a direct system call (and bypassing the LGPL'ed glibc) in Linux without GPL'ing my software is nauseating.
Don't bypass it, then. If you wrote portable code, you wouldn't have to deal with any particular OS'es restrictions.
The fact that I can't use the GNU regular expression library without GPLing my software is even more frustrating.
Don't use the GNU regexp library, then! There are loads of regexp implementations out there.
What is the point of a library you can't use because of licensing issues? How is that free?
I write GPL'ed software. Others write BSD'ed software. It's free for us. Join us. If you don't like that, I'm sure there's a commercial library that will let you license it for money rather than freedom.
Re:Sigh (Score:2)
Perhaps you should read Stallman's comments in more depth. He actually reads the licenses carefully and notes what are potentially serious problems with them, not just areas where they fail to constitute Free Software or are GPL incompatible. For the APSL he notes:
I think that he has pointed out a potentially very serious problem here. If somebody accuses Apple of copyright or patent violations, they can yank your right to use you own computer because they can revoke your operating system license. Doesn't that sound a bit scary to you?
Arrogance of the FSF (Score:3)
They complain about apple's license but perhaps when push comes to shove the language apple uses will stand up better in court. The language doesn't seem to be trying to keep people from doing what they want with the code, but rather it is trying to guarantee that if somebody releases a modified product that it will remain open. The FSF may see the added verbage to be restrictive but perhaps the GPL's verbage wouldn't hold up in court as well.
The FSF wreaks of the arrogance that comes with the assumption that they are right. I appreciate what the FSF has done and I think that the spirit of the GPL is wonderful, but frankly until you are taking people to court and prooving the validity of the license, don't go criticizing the subtleties of other groups whose hearts appear to be in the right place.
---
Re:Sigh (Score:2)
With all due respect to the FSF, who cares what they think is "free software".
People who think that the FSF have thought through many of the issues of free software carefully, and given arguments as to why it is a good thing. Since the FSF (and RMS in particular) have thought about these issues extensively, that makes it interesting (to me) to hear what they have to say. Even when I don't agree with them.
They set up conditions for a definition of "free" and insist till the end of time that software is not "free" unless it follows the GPL (or some very close and related liscense)
FUD. Look at their website (here comes the link again [gnu.org]) and see that there are many other licenses they class as free, that are quite different from the GPL.
Say all you want, its BETTER that not having the source at all. Apple should be given credit for it.
Hear, hear. I don't think anyone (least of all RMS) would disagree with the above statement
[offtopic remark about trolls] What you wrote certainly isn't a troll. A troll is when an author deliberately makes comments that he doesn't even personally believe to be true, just to incite an argument. You believe what you said, that's not a troll. (Moderators take note, please)
Jules
Re:Responsibility? (Score:2)
I don't understand how the notification requirement would limit their liability; in your air traffic control example, wouldn't it actually appear to *increase* the chance that they could be blamed? Someone could say "you knew about this unsafe modification, yet you took no action to warn of its risks", whereas if Apple hadn't been notified, the fact that they could claim complete complete ignorance of the modification would seem to help absolve them of responsibility for it. In the case that they did want to guarantee a piece of software for a given use, they could just make an individual agreement, independent of the license, with users that needed the guarantee, certifying a particular unmodified version for a particular use.
In general, this is the obvious way to handle GPL'd software in critical situations where a user needs someone else to accept responsibility for software flaws; some entity (perhaps the author, perhaps a third party) can study a particular version of the code and promise to accept responsibility for it for a given use; I don't see that anything in the GPL prevents this. You're not preventing a user with which you make such a contract from modifying and redistributing the software, you're just giving them additional rights above those the GPL gives them, which apply only to a certain unmodified version.
So what's the advantage of the APSL again?
--Bruce Fields
Re:I'm not sure RMS understands Open Source (Score:2)
------------------
Re:We should do away with licenses (Score:3)
If Microsoft came in and worked on the software and packaged it and sold it, they would be ripping you off by not giving you the new additions for free?
I say that is bullshit. You with the GPL are forcing them to be ripped off by taking their work for free if they want yours.
You still have your work. They still have theirs. No one is hurt by that situation.
You can't currently stop anyone from doing something bad to your software anyway. Some idiot can still take your software, GPL and release the source to their additions and it can still suck.
The fact of the matter is that if you want your work to stay in the public domain just say so and keep releasing it anytime someone asks.
The GPL is not "FREE" no matter how much RMS repeats that it is.
Re:Actually, thas is what RMS wants... (Score:2)
"Anyone is free to copy this work for any purpose".
It doesn't have to be a freaking lawyer fest to allow someone to copy your work.
Re:Disrespect for privacy (Score:3)
From my reading of the APSL [apple.com] this is incorrect. Section 2.2c states you must release the source to any "deployed" modifications, and the definition of "deploy" in section 1.4 specifically excludes personal use. So I don't see any problem with tweaking Darwin for your own purposes and not notifying anyone. Of course IANAL, so I may be missing something.
Re:Sigh (Score:2)
And why do you think that is? Could it be because you don't have your facts straight and are posting stupid comments about the Free Software Foundation before thinking twice?
Go here [fsf.org] and check what licenses make free software according to the FSF. Then come back in shame.
Every time there is a story on Slashdot these days that even vaguely concerns the FSF, it gets flooded by a bunch of losers who feel they have to talk crap about how bad this organisation really is.
The Free Software Foundation, and Richard Stallman in particular, deserve a lot of respect. If you've got something against them, at least have the decency to come up with some real arguments.
Re:Have any of you even READ the FSF page on it? (Score:2)
I think Stallman is a great guy, even though I'm not fanatical about software licenses. Someone has to be.
Don't listen to this bunch of pussies, most of them wouldn't know good character if it came up and kicked them in the nuts.
The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion.
Not troll, but offtopic (Score:2)
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
Re:Who cares? (Score:2)
Re:Sigh (Score:2)
Re:Disrespect for privacy (Score:2)
Not to nitpick, but have you ever actually READ the version 1.2 of the APSL? in it it clearly states that its free to use as you see fit for personal use, or internally for R&D purposes WITHOUT notifying apple of your modifications if you wanna take the code, and hack it around to have darwin working on your power mac 6100*, go ahead, the code is there, tweak and hack away. if you wanna make it work for one of the Motorola PowerMax 6000**'s you got off of ebay last year, go right ahead.
As long as your not putting it in a commercial production environment, or selling a product based on the code and your modifications to it, Apple doesnt give a rats ass about it.
no, its not as open and free as the BSD license. but remember, you said you want the code to hack around, to change things in your environment...
GO RIGHT AHEAD
the APSL isnt stopping you. do as you see fit with the code, provided you dont release it in a production or commercial environment.
and if you were to do so, all you have to do is send your mods over to Apple, and if they think its something worthwhile including in the main darwin product, then they will do so. Just send them notification.
and if you were to use linux for your project which you were selling, remember, you have to give your source code away anyway.
the only diference is that your sending your changes to one entity under the APSL, and to any joe hacker schmoe that wants to look at your code under the GPL.
*The powermac 6100 is the first powerpc-based mac, but since its based on the NuBus architecture, its pretty much incompatibvle with darwin, OSX, and pretty much anything except MKLinux
**The PowerMax 6000 was a CHRP (common Hardware Reference Platform) machine, the first chrp machine introduced to the general public (Macworld Boston 97, I had the pleasure of playing with one at the floor) but was only made as a few hundred prototypes, and killed shortly thereafter after Apple killed cloning and refused to allow motorola to sell them
and completely OT--- why does the Extrans mode (allowing HTML tags to the text) NEVER work?
Re:Poppycock. (Score:2)
No. But the license must be *assimulable* by the GPL in order to be "compatible."
The flip side is that the GPL is not compatible with *anything* else by the standards used for calling licenses "GPL compatible." . . .
hawk
Re:Have any of you even READ the FSF page on it? (Score:4)
We hate Stallman because he says that, "It you use my code with your code, you have to give your code away."
(Aside: So you hate people for their views on copyright? Nice...)
Ah? I misheard? You hate his views? Fair enough. Let's discuss, then.
Stallman: If you use my code in your code, you have to give your code away
'Old-style' software company: You can't even look at my code! It's private! Don't you dare copy it! That's called piracy, that is!
Well, the contrast is there for all to see. Stallman envisions a world in which, because there is constant, free sharing and reuse of software, the programs get enormously better, and all can use them freely. The GPL is a device (with drawbacks) for acheiving this goal. I can understand that.
To be more mercenary: If you use my code, (in your code, to make a better program), I want something back. Before I heard about free software, I would have asked for money. Now, I'd use the GPL, and hence be asking you to give your code back (not just to me, but to everyone). That's the fee --- I think it's a great one.
Jules
Re:We should do away with licenses (Score:2)
It is the same thing in my mind as the hardware issue. I buy something and I should be able to do whatever I want. Likewise, you give me something (software), I should be able to do whatever I want.
It seems odd that the so many people here line up on the side of the GPL type license and then also complain about not being able to do what they want when they buy a piece of hardware or a CD.
Furthermore . . . (Score:2)
hawk
different definitions for "free" software... (Score:2)
The GPL has kind of a virulent character. Any software based on GPLed code must be GPLed again. This way, the FSF use their GPL to enforce the "freedom" of derived works. However, there are no restrictions at all in what you can do with the software.
The APSL seems to enforce central availability of the software, which is quite a good thing to have, but restricts freedom, as developers are forced to publish modified versions and notify Apple.
Other licenses like the Artistic license or even plain old "Public Domain" don't enforce anything. But they endager freedom of the software, as they allow it to be commercialized.
So it all seems to depend on priorities. What's the important point about "free" software? Freedom to do anything with it? Making sure the software stays free? Getting it for free?
I Guess, everybody has different preferences here...
Re:This is the problem, Not Apple... (Score:2)
Hmm... with the 'italic quote' convention, what do I do about italics within italics? Let's try bold
It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.
A truly free software license wouldn't/shouldn't care what you do or do not link to.
It's important to notice the difference between a free software license, and a copyleft. A free software license is simply a license which satifies the freedoms RMS suggests (which is very similar to the Debian guidelines). A copyleft is a specific kind of free software license, once which deliberately hinders the progress of non-free software. RMS isn't saying that the APSL must be copyleft to be free; he's just remarking that it isn't copyleft.
To that effect, what Richard Stallman is describing is contradictory to the "freedoms" he describes in the GPL.
Yes. The copyleft is a sort of compromise; it does restrict the users freedoms. It does so, the FSF hopes, to help the 'larger' cause of free software. But you're absolutely right in noticing that it is a restriction.
You're wrong about the middle road, though. The middle road exists, and RMS is happy with it. The middle road is the X11 (BSD without advertising) style licenses, which are free, but not copyleft. Apple's APSL isn't middle-of-the-road, it's just hovering around the right fence ;-)
Jules
Re:Have any of you even READ the FSF page on it? (Score:2)
But this license sounds dangerous. If you make mods, you HAVE to give it back to Apple and THEN they can decide to revoke the license retroactively. Sounds to me like in that case you have NO rights to even your own code (oh, I guess maybe to the diff, but what good is that if you can no longer legally grab the source to apply your patches against?)
Now please explain to me again why Stallman is a fanatic for being against this?
Re:Who cares? (Score:2)
Re:kinda like BSD then.. (Score:2)
BSDL (Score:2)
Re:Not troll, but offtopic (Score:2)
Of course, it's less black-and-white with `free software', since that might be argued to have had a meaning before RMS started writing about it. (It's that kind of thinking which caused the term `open source' to be born). However, the previous meaning of `free software' was certainly free-as-in-beer.
So, to the extent that RMS crystallised an idea (the idea of free as in speech software), and wrote about it, and chose to call it `Free Software', and built the FSF on it, he is an arbiter of what the term means.
It's a convention in human intercourse that when a term has an accepted meaning by a bunch of people, you agree with them on the definition (and if you want to say something else, you think up a new term). I don't think that's unreasonable.
Otherwise all of your arguments become `Foo Bars do this'. `No they don't, they do this'. `But a Foo Bar is one of these'. `No, that's only your definition, a Foo Bar is actually one of these'.
Jules
Response to all: Looks like I'm wrong (Score:2)
Things I got wrong:
1) Linus gives permission to use system calls without violating the GPL. Thank God. It really irritated me that if I wanted to use a feature of the kernel directly that I couldn't take my choice of licenses. (I prefer a public-domain like license, such as the BSD license.)
2) There are GPL-compatible licenses. I did not know this. I thought that if you linked to GPL'ed code it had to be GPL'ed. In fact, I wrote up a response in another article [slashdot.org] about the GPL 3.0 where I asked a bunch of questions about this. The responses I got back indicated that you probably did have to GPL your code if you so much as touched someone else's GPLed code. Never once did someone bring up GPL-compatible licenses. I didn't know such things existed.
However, I still think that RMS's message is nothing more than a troll intended to get people to try to pressure Apple into doing things his way.
As for the control thing, aren't you supposed to give ownership of a GPL'ed project over the FSF generally? (Primarily, according to them, so that they can handle any legal disputes.)
Re:Sigh (Score:2)
Jules
Re:Disrespect for privacy (Score:2)
Re:Have any of you even READ the FSF page on it? (Score:4)
7. Versions of the License. Apple may publish revised and/or new versions of this License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number. Once Original Code has been published under a particular version of this License, You may continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such Original Code under the terms of any subsequent version of this License published by Apple. No one other than Apple has the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered Code created under this License.
So, you can continue to use the old version. This is the same as many other licenses, including the GPL itself.
This case is interesting in that the Apple license gives you less chance to keep your modifications private, and that is what RMS is objecting to.
Bruce
GeForce 3 (Score:2)
Another story Slashdot felt you didn't care to read about.
Re:We should do away with licenses (Score:2)
> and packaged it and sold it, they would be
> ripping you off by not giving you the new
> additions for free?
Yep. It would piss me off to have to pay for the priviledge of using a product that was mostly my own work, if I gave my part away for free.
Here, I would prefer something like the Alladin license. Feel free to use it as you want, feel free to distribute it with free applications, but if you try to distribute it as part of a proprietary product, I want a fair share of the profit.
> You with the GPL are forcing them to be ripped
> off by taking their work for free if they want
> yours.
Yes, I'm putting a gun to their head and saying YOU MUST USE MY SOFTWARE. That's the kind of guy I am.
Re:Not troll, but offtopic (Score:2)
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
As Linus Said... (Score:4)
Or something like that. And I agree wholeheartedly, which allows me to retain respect for both Apple and RMS.
Cheers.
Re:Sigh (Score:2)
This is an interesting case because the main objection RMS is making is to terms of the Apple license that force you to give away even more code than the GPL would! In this case, RMS is supporting your right to hold back your code if it is not distributed. This is rather a turn-about from the way these arguments usually go.
Bruce
YES (Score:3)
Re:We should do away with licenses (Score:2)
So you think it's fair that they have your work, and you don't have their work?
Huh? Let's think about this one. They take my work for free, and you're complaining because I ask for quid pro quo? You say I'm "ripping them off" because I'm not giving them my code for nothing in return?
Your argument makes no sense.
Jeremy
--
Re:Sigh (Score:2)
The termination clause is not present in the later versions of the APSL, a fact that RMS conveniently ignores. The only objection that remains to the APSL 1.2 is the clause which states that all modifications must be released, even if they are not publically distributed. He says this interferes with privacy, and so he declares the license not Free.
Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity
Re:BSDL (Score:2)
It also isn't clear to the limits of how much you can copy it, "if you want" is not very precise.
Re:We should do away with licenses (Score:2)
If you want money for it, keep your source and charge for it, don't give your source away.
Re:We should do away with licenses (Score:2)
He wants something in return and that is for his code and all derived works to remain open. That's the asking price instead of money.
The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion.
Most of the FSF page is obsolete (Score:2)
You, sir, are full of it (Score:2)
Does the name "Kerberos" [slashdot.org] ring a bell? If Micro$loth can distribute Linux binaries without source, they can introduce code that breaks compatibility. And if we can't see the source, there's not much we can do. Especially under something evil like the DMCA, where we might not even be able to reverse-engineer it.
Come on - this is their stock in trade. It's how they killed DR DOS, Netscape, and Novell. It's how they'd love to kill Linux.
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
Re:Sigh (Score:2)
The latest one I can find is APSL v1.2 [apple.com], which has a termination clause:
RMS has done a good job of reading over these licenses and determining if they restrict freedom. He is not simply saying it isn't free because he doesn't like it. Indeed, he has stated that he doesn't like the Netscape Public License, but still admits that it is a free license.Re:We should do away with licenses (Score:2)
As long as your not closing off any source code... use GPL'ed code if you want, no worries. If you need to keep the source secret, use BSDL or Public Domain code or write your own damn code for once... no worries.
I don't see what the problem is.
The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion.
Re:We should do away with licenses (Score:2)
Either, I set a price for my work, my software, and MS have to pay if they want to use it. My price happens to be a license to all of their modifications. This way, the buy my software for theirs.
Or, I give the software away for free, they use it, and then asks me for money if I want to use their modification.
Why do they have the right to ask me for a return, if I do not have the some right?
So no, GPL is not completely free, but it is completely fair, which BSD license is not.
Software is not that different. (Score:2)
If you can't build on others work, it usually means you have to duplicate it before you can start real improving (innovating).
Re:Who cares? (Score:3)
Other than that, the first 4 are considered GPL compatible (modified BSD) and the last 5 are non-GPL compatible, but still considered free software licenses.
Just wanted to clear that up =)
Re:You, sir, are full of it (Score:2)
How 'bout:
Test the compatibility for before putting it into a release?
Not use it.
AFAIK, Microsoft (invoked above only to try and stir up advocacy from the legions of microsoft haters) has no control over any distribution or source tree related to Linux. ALSO, AFAIK, they still screen code and test it before it gets put into and release. There is NO way what you are describing can happen.
I am not a troll; I just think the GPL and all these licensing issues are a plague on software.
I also am not a fan of microsoft.
Re:Have any of you even READ the FSF page on it? (Score:3)
No one other than Apple has the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered Code created under this License. Take out the words 'no one other than', and it reads like it is: "Apple has the right to modifiy the terms applicable to Covered Code created under this License." In other words, say you create MacFooBarX, and release it under APSL 1.2, say. Anybody else who gets their greasy little hands on it can do whatever they like, but it remains under APSL 1.2; they can't turn around and publish it under a different license, blah blah blah. But Apple can. They can 'modify the terms,' retroactively, without warning, at whim, and without even knowing what's under the license and therefore affected. I think. I, of course, am not a lawyer; I'm a human.
So much FUD... (Score:2)
However, even for GPL libraries, you are permitted to dynamically link to them without GPL'ing your code.
Why are you spreading FUD?
It's a shame that so many people are willing to moderate your post up without checking the facts for themselves.
As a result of this... (Score:2)
OS X seems incredible, and since I've switched from Linux -> BSD (Open), I've been a happy camper. OS X seems like it will let me play nice with all my applications, including the important option of coding for deployment on my BSD boxes.
I don't have time to hack Darwin, but I'm glad they openned it. Assuming they got a single modification submitted that was worthwhile, openning it was good, because it means when OS X runs on my shiny new laptop, it'll be better.
Slashdot ignorance is aggravating, but you take the good with the bad.
This is slight more newsworthy than the usual "Linux is the best OS ever, I mean, it's more stable than Windows 98!" mental masturbation that sits on the comment sections these days.
Alex
Do you know how to use a dictionary? (Score:2)
To make it clear which of the multitude of defintions the FSF use when they talk about free software, they have a page describing the exact meaning when they use the phrase. Not many people who use the word "free" do this, they prefer the ambiguity inherent in the word.
Re:You, sir, are full of it (Score:3)
However, you can't deny that their "embrace and extend" tactic is one of the most predatory, if successful, business practices of the last 20 years. Sure, they're in a little hot water now, but things could still go either way. I bring them up because they're the most credible threat to Linux right now.
Secondly, I'm not talking about people who can hack code, but Joe User buying a computer. What if M$ releases M$Linux? "Reliability! Speed! And binary-only compatibility with M$ Office, IE and
"Sorry - you can't run Apache on M$Linux, but IIS-Linux doesn't crash nearly as much as it used to."
"Sorry, Star Office has some odd crashing problems under M$Linux, but they've cut the price of Office 10 to only $500."
What's saving us from this scenario? The GPL.
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
Re:We should do away with licenses (Score:2)
"not imprisoned or enslaved"
"not controlled by obligation or the will of another"
"not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance"
"not subject to external restraint"
How, exactly do the restrictions the GPL place on you count as "free"? A restriction is a restriction whether it comes from Apple or the FSF.
Help yourself (Score:2)
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
Let an academic/marketting environment bug them! (Score:2)
Let some committee go nuts something and change a word here, a color there. Put those changes into production - and BLAM...apple must be told.
Easy fun!
Re:Who cares? (Score:2)
This is the problem you get when everyone and their mother release their own licenses and differing versions of each. Meanwhile, I'm still trying to figure out how to get my XFree86 4.0.1 and the nvidia drives to work together nicely =)
What is a "normal" system call? (Score:2)
Re:When did RMS become such a hard-liner ;) (Score:2)
RMS merely stated that there were 3 things that stopped him from calling the new Apple license free. And he listed them with comments.
Nothing extreme about it.
Re:We should do away with licenses (Score:3)
Didn't the above (with my changes) happen via the BSD licence? I don't think that BSDers are upset. Its all about what compensation you want for what you did. They don't want compensation. GPLers do. (Excuse my pidgin bash)
Re:Have any of you even READ the FSF page on it? (Score:2)
If you are the copyright holder of a modification and you can make that modification into something stand-alone that is not derivative, you may also separate it from the Apple code and dual-license it.
I think APSL 1.2 is an Open Source license, and I told Apple I'd endorse it as such after I reviewed it. I am not putting my personal code under it, for the same reasons I don't put my personal code under the BSD license - both licenses leave the code open for someone to take it private. Some people care about that, others, like the BSD folks, consider it a virtue that the code can be taken private. Both sorts of license are Open Source.
Thanks
Bruce
Re:As Linus Said... (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:2)
I endorsed the license. Richard did not, for good reasons that define where his own philosophy differs from the Open Source definition. I tend to generally agree with Richard on Free Software issues, but I stuck to the definition that we wrote rather than my personal preference.
It happens that I own two PowerPC Macs. OK, they were hand-me-downs from my in-laws, but you can't put me in that "never owned a Mac" contingent :-)
Thanks
Bruce
Re:You, sir, are full of it (Score:2)
This is pure marketting [sic] forces coupled with monopolistic behaviour.
Define your articles, please. What exactly is "this" referring to? The DMCA? Reverse engineering? M$'s attempted Kerberos embrace-and-extend?
You're blaming the origional [sic] kerberos authors for bad behaviour actually originating from microsoft that may get accepted by the market.
Articles, please; pay attention to your articles. Is your "that" referring to the alleged bad behavior of the Kerberos authors? M$'s behavior? And where, exactly, am I casting aspersions on Kerberos developers? I'm trashing M$ for trying to hijack Kerberos. Not - let me repeat: NOT - for implementing dormant features already in the spec, but for trying to keep their enhancements proprietary.
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We should do away with licenses (Score:2)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:As Linus Said... (Score:2)
Um, linking to code is using someone else's code. It doesn't matter if it's a library or an executable. If you don't like their terms of use, you can write your own library. If you don't want to write your own library, but you want to claim they should have different terms of use, you're a whiner.
Re:As Linus Said... (Score:2)
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't actually pointing my finger at the FSF or Apple. RMS was just clarifying terminoligy, and that is fine with me. I was pointing my finger at all the posts that implied Apple was obligated to release their stuff under a more open license, and those who were calling GPL software communist. Both sides were just playing armchair critic, and I find it tiresome. Cheers.
Re:As Linus Said... (Score:2)
The GPL forces subsequent programmers to use the GPL for the code they write. This is the price of interoperability with GPL'd code.
To me, at least, it seems silly to call code "free" when it quite clearly comes with a pricetag attached.
Re:As Linus Said... (Score:2)
Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see how this is the case. The only time the GPL interferes with code that I write is if I use someone else's GPL'd code, right? Well, I'm using their code so where do I get off complaining about anything at all? No one is forcing me to link or embed the GPL'd code into my code, it's just a convenience because I was too lazy to write the libraries or objects myself. So my complaining is whining. I should link and GPL, or code and shut up.
Now, if you want to argue that the use of the word "free" is innacurate, you may be right, but is it really worth arguing about semantics?