Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Open Source Apple (part 2) 404

Posted by CmdrTaco from the hey-check-this-out dept.
Several people followed up the today's earlier apple Open Source article by pointing us to Apple's Official Website on Open Source. Features Yet Another License, the Apple Public Source License but requires a login to get much more than the license and a faq. Update: 03/16 07:52 by CT : Virtually unrelated, thanks to darren wilson, the original creator of the crystal apple icon there.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Open Source Apple (part 2) More

Open Source Apple (part 2)

Comments Filter:
  • Read section 12.1 "Termination"

    If anyone files a clam against apple at any time they can force you to remove all copies from your machine and prohobit further distribution but it does not prevent apple from continuing to distrubute it.

    This means they are allowed to leech off the opensource community then at any time they can pull the rug out from under us. This is clearly not "Open Source" I prefer the term Free Software anywa.y..


    9.1 Infringement. If any of the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement
    ("Affected Original Code"), Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (a) attempt to procure
    the rights necessary for You to continue using the Affected Original Code; (b) modify the
    Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing; or (c) terminate Your rights to use the
    Affected Original Code, effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on
    the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License.

    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 Sections 9.1 and/or
    13.6(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.

  • Couldn't have said it better myself. All this non-free crap should go away, the sooner the better too.
  • uhh no this does not rule

    apple can terminate your license at ANY TIME. Meaning when they say so you have to remove the source from your machine, yet they get to keep distributing it
  • Yes, it is terminated by YOUR violation of the license. The APSL is can be terminated through anyones actions. Bill Gates sues apple, woops there goes your license...

  • Wrong (Score:1)

    by Crow- ( 35 )
    No, all someone has to do is even threaten with a patent infringement. There is nothing saying the case has to be won in court... and it doesn't matter if apple would do this or not. It's the fact that the possibility exists. What if management 5 years from now doesnt like "opensource"? Then we are screwed.
  • Well, the GPL clause is only because of a *court decision* forcing you to stop distributing it.

    Apple retains the right to revoke the license if they are even threatened with a patent infringement, it says nothing about a court judgement.

  • Wrong (Score:1)

    by Crow- ( 35 )
    I know there has to be a filing first. And this is bad. The license should be terminated only AFTER they have lost a court battle.
  • "Modifications and/or Larger Works may require additional patent licenses from Apple which Apple may grant in its sole discretion."

    You took that sentence out of context. They are saying that while Apple is granting use of any patents they own which cover the code in question, you don't get a free license on all of their patents if you happen to include some of their code in a larger work which would otherwise still infringe on some patent of theirs. Arguments on whether software patents are A Good Thing or not aside, this is reasonable. If you have code which would infringe on their patent(s), including some of their code does not change that.

    "or (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code, effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License."

    This would be them covering their asses, and rightly so. If they have infringed someone else's patent in their code, they can't really continue to license it to anyone else, now can they? A more relevant and distressing clause is 12.1(c) (12.1 is the section on ways in which the license can/will be terminated):

    "automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple."

    This says that if you sue Apple for patent infringement, however unrelated to the current code, you lose any license to use the code. This means that Apple can blithely infringe on any patent held by anyone using their code and, if sued, can sue for copyright infringement on the code covered by their license since the license terminates the moment the (first) lawsuit comes up.

    I am much more bothered by this clause than any other. I am not sure if this qualifies as open source or not... the source is free and open AFAICT, but its use weakens the position of protecting one's patents from Apple. Oh, and incidentally, IANAL.

  • If Darwin is the core of OS X (everything below gui) then what is to stop someone making a Finder replacement? Maybe someone can port X11 to the mac in this form. Personally, I would love to be able to boot into my G3 and choose to boot into the Finder or not. How cool would e or gnome be on a mac??!! (or better yet sheepshaver!!)

  • The Apple license is not Open Source. Read the Open Source Definition, read the Apple license, and ignore ESR for a minute.
  • The result of a question about the apple license on the debian-legal mailing list came back with two findings:

    • Having to tell Apple about your mods before you can make them is non-free
    • Apple being able to at any time terminate the license is non-free (we have the same problems with IBM's jikes and securemailer licenses)

    If Apple is willing to work with the community to make their licenses actually Free Software (according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines) and Open Source Software (according to the Open Source Definition) then there's probably not much to worry about yet and most likely it will not be long before the community and Apple both reap the benefits of the source being truly Open Source.

    If Apple is unwilling to work with us on this, we just have one more company trying to cash in on the community without supporting it. I don't know about you, but I don't mind them making money off my efforts provided that they're giving something back. MacOS X has been looking pretty damned cool and it would be SWEET to have an x86 version. It's possible and Apple has come a long way toward that goal already. Yeah Apple, the water's fine, hop in.

  • Ouch! (Score:1)

    by knghtbrd ( 593 )
    I take licenses very seriously. I'm sorry you don't. And I hope you never have to find out the hard way why I am.
  • Posted by necros coitus:

    http://www.stalker.com runs MacOS X, Intel edition on P166 with 32Mb of RAM.
  • Posted by mkultra:

    If you read the specs on OSX SERVER it mentions that Web Objects has the yellowbox stuff plus the web specific stuff yellow box

    over&out

  • Disagree (Score:1)

    by echo ( 735 )
    "If all the reports of the high web server speeds on Macs are true, this is truely awesome. We'll have access to some of the
    most efficient network code there is. We'll also get to see the base that X server will need to run off of, if you want to kill the
    Mac Finder, and run an X Server instead. Does that make all you Mac Haters happy? You can have the high speed /and/
    your X."

    We already do. It's called LinuxPPC. I doubt that anything running UNDER Mach could be as fast as a native monolithic kernel ;)
  • After all, it's what we do best around here.

    Don Negro
  • Her love of money was always second to her love of productivity and the capacity for creative work. If you want to sell it, fine, give it away, fine.

    She'd hate software licences cause you don't get a thing of objective value in return for your money.
  • I'm with you.
  • You're confusing this with the IBM license. There has to be a filing first, although IANAL. Read the license to be sure.

    Don Negro
  • The price was cut by 50%. It is $499 for a 5 user license. $250 for edu purchases.
    It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
  • The price has been lowered over 50%. As cheap as $250. A 5 user license is $500
    It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
  • They meant 1st OS company. Netscape doesnt have a OSS OS. Neither does IBM.
    It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
  • ... because all it says is that only Affected Code may be withdrawn from use if there's an IP claim against it. Not all of Darwin.

    Guess what -- that's what would happen anyway! Apple is just spelling out what others leave unsaid.

    While Sun's and IBM's licenses threaten to pull entire products if there are IP claims against them, Apple's license doesn't. This is good.

    The APSL is praiseworthy, and it is Open Source.

    -- Chip Salzenberg, a Director of Open Source Initiative

  • Apple's termination clause only applies to the specific code affected by a specific IP claim.

    IBM and Sun pull whole products. Apple pulls a subroutine -- and replaces it.

    So, something here is ugly, but it's not a termination clause...

  • Hey, BSD is cool, but even it can't make a quadra fast =)
  • what's scary about it? Don't support it if it doesn't benefit you or entertain you.
  • Quit dreamin' bud. Be either doesn't want to spend the money to support G3s or they have reasons from intel not to. The specs aren't that secret and it's not that hard without them (OSS linux guys are doing it...) Especially since they have all this talent to create such a superior platform...

    Does full support from apple consist of money?

    My bet is that funds are tight at be, but that's just a guess.

  • Apple values their OS as one of their crown jewels, this is an incredible step in the right direction for them. It's not perfect and there are still going to be tons of anti-mac biggots but this is an incredible move on their part.


    Ignoring the few license restrictions, if you write a finder then you've essentially got the complete source to a MacOS. Which means that if you're a mac user and your motivated enough, your platform will outlive windows, be, and all the other closed systems regardless of Apple's fate (which looks remarkably good compared to 2 years ago)


    We can argue and discuss the limits and the problems (I'm surprised how many people are worried about using up all the OSS talent, like the pool is shallow or something...or like anyone does it for any other reason than because they want to) but if you or your org. uses macs then you can now mold mac to better fit your organization, fill your needs, etc.. I used to use OS/2 and I've wondered if I still would or where it would stand if it was OSSed, I'm inclined to believe I'd still have it on a partition.


    We're winning the war. The only stumbling block I can see right now is the potential that MS would wake up and release their source code with an even more liberal license... Fortune 500 would be right back in their camp unless the code is so twisted that it is useless. Congratulations apple and congratulations mac users. This is becoming the only way to compete and competition is good, MS spends a billion dollars a year on OS R&D and they are getting beat by Linux and soon they will be getting beat by Linux and Darwin... If it works, I bet they will open the license even more.

  • Success requires trust in the people you work with.
    Trust requires sacrifice, because no one is completely trustworthy.

    Is the solution, then, to completely distrust those who've been untrustworthy in the past? Not by a long shot. It's about taking prudent risk, given an adequate reward.

    The power of the MacOS desktop and Yellow Box development environment is PLENTY of reward to consider trusting Apple again.
  • The license is a fair and equitable one, and it meets the OSD requirments.

    Their actions increase the freedom of Mac developers to improve their platform.

    WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?

    You can either be a complainer, or a coder. Pick one.
  • Not as quickly as Apple, though. While I'm in favour of GNUStep and would definitely work on it if I wasn't bogged down with work, I don't believe they'll have as powerful a system as Mac OS X is now, and will be by year end.

    GNUStep has been churning for a long time, and it has sort of lost a lot of its glamor because of that.
  • ESR and the Apache team are contibutors to this community in both code & ideas

    all I see here is complaining. Show me the code.
  • Excuse me, but Apple *is* going along with the obligations of being an Open Source (tm) company. Or at least OSI says so. It's not exactly an us vs. them situation.

    Apple's intention is not to be evasive, it is to embrace the model while protecting their rear-end against shitty software patents.

    • Modifications and/or Larger Works may require additional patent licenses from Apple which Apple may grant in its sole discretion.
      Apple may or may not patent bits of its code and may or may not grant you the right to use that code
    • or (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code, effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License.
      If any other party sues Apple for patent infringement on bits of "Original Code" Apple may completely withdraw all license to use this code

      • These two specific parts are not compatible with the Open Source Definition - there may be other parts which I cannot identify

  • Nearly the whole dang thing.. Most of the libs, along with the core kernel itself.. Basicaly, nearly everything the OS itself would have, minus stuff that is under copywrite..
  • I've skimmed the license and it seem pretty okay, anyone did read more and found something wrong or everything seem just fine?
  • In addition, Apple will announce Mac OS X Server's price has been dramatically reduced from the $995 price tag announced in January. The new cost, depending on configuration, will be less than $300 to less than $600. Mac OS X (as in the roman numeral for ten) Server was originally scheduled for release in February.

    Full Article [netscape.com]

  • Doesn't sound too bad at all if you ask me - a port of XFree, gtk and Gnome, and why would we be running Linux?

    Because all of those things are already ported to Linux/PPC.

    More generally, I think the question should be "Why use Darwin when Linux already works?"

  • Apples and Oranges, so to speak. Try comparing with LinuxPPC on a 400 MHz G3 and get back to me.

    I would believe that the G3 is faster than the PII. The OS is probably not the bottleneck (at least in the case of Linux and possibly Solaris).

  • Doesn't the gcc have objective c support now? I thought so. -P
    --
  • MauiMail.com [mauimail.com] is running Rhapsody, which I believe is an early version of MacOS X Server.
  • Look at what it says. If you violate the license, either your software's going to get legit with Apple's help (possibility A), be modified so it's legit (possibility B) or become illegal (possibility C).

    Those seem to be the same things that happen if you violate the GPL. The difference is that Apple's enforcing it instead of the FSF. That and the fact that Apple spells out quite plainly what it will do right in the license, which the FSF doesn't do.
  • First, consider that, stupid as it may be, Apple still considers itself a hardware company.
    Second, consider that this is in fact the first time this has been done with an operating system (Linux and *BSD do not count, since their chief maintainers aren't computer companies).
    Third, Netscape did this, but with with a browser which wasn't making money, IBM did it with a Java VM which isn't making money, etc. Apple intends to make money from this. I personally think it'll be a great experiment in the commercial viability of Open-Source software. Even if whoever wrote that press release did, admittedly, word that particular phrase quite poorly.
  • Apple's move seems quite pointless. "Darwin" boils down to a Mach-/BSD-Kernel, for which there's no need. We already have Linux, three BSDs, MkLinux (=Mach+Linux) and GNU Hurd (also Mach-based) as free kernels. I can't see a single advantage of "Darwin" to the above, except that it runs the (still proprietary, still close-source) Yellow Box/Open Step GUI APIs.

    Apple could have down the Free Softare a _huge_ service by freeing the code of the Yellow Box/OpenStep which will be marginalized in MacOS X anyway. The free Unixes would have gained an open standard, technically supreme desktop which would by far surpass the reinvented wheels of KDE and Gnome. The GNUstep project [gnustep.org] is trying to accomplish this since years, but it doesn't seem as if their effort would benefit in any way from "Darwin".

  • But I don't see how this 'hits linux between the eyes' (as the cnet story said)...

    Mainly Nextstep/Mac developers will be interested in getting the source. While I think it's a good move I doubt a signifigant number of linux users are now going to go buy a G3 and start hacking away...
  • I gave the license a quick once-over, and it seemed okay. What parts did you have a problem with?

  • It'll be interesting to see how this turns out in the long run, but I'm quite pleased for now, as:

    • Apple's made a clean, well-architected operating system, Darwin, available to us for no cost and placed it under an open-source license, although not a free software license.
    • In a reasonable model to derive software revenue, Apple supplies server software (including WebObjects, Mac-centric file sharing, and NetBoot), an advanced set of APIs and development tools, and a state-of-the-art GUI to run on top of Darwin.
    • The DriverKit--an object-oriented driver model--is listed on Apple's Public Source Projects page. This is something that could potentially benefit the entire OSS UNIX community greatly.
    • Apple is considering placing more software under its OSS license. Obviously, Darwin is a test of the waters. If the results are poor, then the project will die out slowly, and we'll only be yet another UNIX clone poorer. If it is a success, though, Apple will place more and more code under the APSL.

    This seems very reasonable to my eyes, and I can't see how it's anything other than either a positive--or perhaps irrelevant for some--development for the industry. It's certainly not a negative turn of events, though.

    But, still, I've got a few comments in response to the various recurrant threads.

    Termination and Liability
    First of all, regarding the license's termination clauses in case of an intellectual property lawsuit, I do think that you all have to think for a moment about the forces at work. Apple's a large corporation; they have to protect their employees and stockholders. I think that it's clear enough from the license that they would make a good faith effort to work around the dispute if possible. All licenses issued from large companies will most likely harbor similar clauses to protect the company from liability.

    Liability from Termination
    In that same vein, I believe that it's not especially reasonable to expect Apple to use that clause to terminate your licenses on a whim. The APSL protects Apple's interests, certainly, but it doesn't make it easy for Apple to back out, either. If Apple were to bribe a company to sue for intellectual property violations, it would certainly create a scandal and perhaps even a class action lawsuit. (I am not a lawyer, however.) In my eyes, it would be more likely that, if Apple wished Darwin to go away, it would simply let the project languish instead of risking condemning press and exposing itself to even more liability. The company is under no contractual obligation to synchronize the Mac OS X and Darwin projects, so letting the project die out is not a difficult path to take.

    OSS vs. Free (Again)
    Thirdly, those of you arguing against Open Source and for Free Software should perhaps take a dose of pragmatism. Apple is has just taken a very large step closer to your ideal; that they have not acheived it yet is an invalid justification for criticsm in the face of the fact that they are working toward that end. Given, they are moving cautiously, but that is as any entity of this company's scale should. Multibillion-dollar corporations do not turn on a dime.

    Issues of Trust
    Finally, the arguments against trusting the company certainly have their justifications, and I won't pretend to contest them. Apple has a long history of turbulent management. From the Apple II, to clones and PPCP, to OpenDoc and the Newton, there are many instances of about-faces that were damaging to third parties. Looking at more recent history, though, I think that most of you would find that Apple has kept far more of its new commitments than it has broken in the past two and a half years since Steve Jobs assumed the titles of interim CEO and chairman of the board. The projects that died early in his reign were those which bogged down the company, spread its resources, and those which were not profitable. The company's management seems to have stabilized greatly, as Apple's "iCEO" Jobs has lent to it spark, focus, insight, and, not least of all, charisma. While it is not advisable to ignore the past when passing judgement, it is neither wise to dwell entirely there, ignoring in fact the present. In the end, investing even the smallest bit of faith in this company is a personal decision, but it is best to consider both the present situation and history instead of rejecting a concept out of hand.

    Concuding Remarks
    With that, I'll conclude my discussion. Obviously, I'm fairly upbeat and optimistic about this all. My biases are that, admittedly, I own a G3, I run both LinuxPPC and the Mac OS, and I enjoy following Apple's moves in the market; few companies are as continually interesting.

    Before I go, I do have a major gripe, though. There is no bug-tracking service or CVS repository! :) I'm sure Apple will rectify that in short order, though. Otherwise, Darwin might just die immediately. :>

  • Methinks she'd regard the GPL as evil and collectivist, in that it takes away one's right to crush the competition, as Gates (a true latter-day John Galt) does.

    See www.moral-defense.org.
  • The Apple licence, whilst a step in the right direction, has some worrying provisions. For one, the BSDish copyright clause, and the requirements for registering modifications with Apple. And then there's the termination clause, a significant Achilles hell.

    If parts of Darwin are integrated into the base of Linux, all it would take would be a patent/licence dispute, and Apple (or plaintiffs) could order all affected code (i.e., all copies of Linux with the Darwin code) destroyed. Linux would recover, after a fashion, but it would be painful, and would make Linux and OSS look unreliable.

    Therefore, Darwin should be kept as far as possible from the base Linux tree. Which is not to say that there shouldn't be experimental patches or kernel modules based on Darwin; by all means there should. Use it as an ornament but not a cornerstone.
  • GNUStep would be a pretty cool alternate UI for Darwin, IMHO.
  • I agree with you wholeheartedly. The issue is not BSD vs. GNU; the issue is mostly the termination clause. If Apple has a change of heart about open-source and decides to revoke its license, it should not affect the base Linux kernel, or anything critical.
  • I think the operative word is _buy_. Whereas with Linux, you simply need to "get" the OS.
  • Yes. A few years ago Apple and IBM announced several joint development programs, including Kalaida (sp?) and Taligent both of which died quite ugly deaths.
  • I've browsed through these comments and here is my take: It is clear that anyone who ever worked with Apple knows what a sucky company it is. Only the naive and truly innocent seem to be enthusiastic about this.

    Apple is a company that changes directions every 6 months. Its headquarter's name, Infinite Loop, is quite an accurate description of how the company is run. But I don't think this is a reflection of evil. I don't think Apple screws its developers and partners on purpose. While others might see conspiracy, I see absolute incompetence. Apple has raised incompetence to an art form. I won't regale you with the details of a meeting I had once with Apple. Suffice it to say I left open-mouthed, in awe of the level of incompetence displayed from the minute I walked into one of the Infinite Loop buildings. One amusing anecdote - I had to wait 45 minutes just to get to my meeting, cause the guy had moved desks (as part of one Apple's infinite loo-reshuffles), and the phone system just couldn't deal with it. It was downhill from there....

    Why argue over this? Anybody who wants to waste his/her time coding yet another Unix clone just to help Apple slow down its inevitable slide into oblivion - the force be with you. You'll end up in the mire along with Apple. Moreover, all that code will go down the tube, when some corporation buys up Apple's assets and closes off any free aspect of it.

    Darwin is an apt name here. The lower life forms will migrate to the loser Apple, and end up as an extinct species. The more realistic and intelligent species will work on the only free OS around - Linux, which will continue to evolve from strength to strength.
  • ...and neither do all of you who are involved in detailed arguments of the license terms.

    GNU/Linux is a raving success not because it's open source. Open source is a neccessary but not sufficient condition. Even the GPL is only a necessary not sufficient condition. GNU/Linux has succeeded because everyone who uses it and everyone who CONTRIBUTES to it benefits equally. This is the community benefit factor, and it is the necessary and sufficient condition. It is more important than the exact terms of the licence. I think this is the point RMS tries to hammer home with his use of the term free. Free benefits everyone.

    Take Mozilla. Since the browser client is essential to the Internet economy, having a free version of it was critical to the future growth of GNU/Linux. So Netscape's putting it out there had 100% community benefit. The license, while it may not be perfect, is good enough. Even if AOL/Netscape kills Mozilla.org tomorrow, the code is out there forever. The GNU/Linux community will take it over and make it grow, cutting lose any proprietary strings AOL/Netscape might hold. But the key point is the community benefit. Netscape did us all a huge favor and deserves our thanks and kudos.

    Darwin is YAUC - yet another unix clone. BSD-variants, Linux, MkLinux, that other Mach project someone mentioned (not to mention all the proprietary UNICES) - these aren't enough? Who needs YAUC? No one but Apple, to get their truly sucky hardware to work. (don't jump on me for this statement: PPC is a Motorola/IBM product - not an Apple product. Apple boxes suck big time). There is zero community benefit from Darwin. So even if the license is pristine GPL who cares? Apple is looking for free developers without giving anything back. Go make LinuxPPC better. Go make MkLinux better. That will at least help the community of people (like us btw) who are stuck with old Apple's and don't know what to do with 'em. But Darwin? Puhleeese!

    So in the future, when you see some corporation putting something out there as open source, don't niggle about the license details. If the license is good enough to allow some future fork to be liberated and GPLed that's all you need. The key criterion whether to praise or damn should be the community benefit.
  • Whose benchmarks are these? From what I understood these come from an Apple arranged demo, not some independent tester. Are you sure the machines compared are indeed "comperable"? Are you sure Apple didn't do some special tweaking to the OS X while leaving the rest out of the box? One benchmark hyped by Apple does not mean this is the "truth." You have to be out of your mind to base any decision based on a marketing benchmark by ANY company.

    And I never said you shouldn't look at the code. I just said you shouldn't waste your time developing it.
  • Because I wouldn't have to shell out $300 for the "Nexstep-derived" GUI and live with the million and one bugs the proprietary GUI wrapper will add to the stable UNIX base. Actually, from what I understand the GUI is MAC-derived. For an open-source Nextep-derived GUI try Afterstep. And as I said in another post those "indications" about performance, are Apple marketing hype, not the real thing. Finally, if you want a really elegant user interface, try GNOME/icewm.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • I for one feel that there's plenty of room in the world for the BSD-style and the GPL-style licenses to co-exist.

    I think distributions of NetBSD and OpenBSD have more to fear from entanglement with Darwin, which is primarily a nice BSD distribution, than Linux or any other GPL distro does.

    For those of us who prefer a BSD style *NIX, Darwin holds a lot of promise. For those of us who already have Mac hardware, it'll probably be the best straight *NIX distribution we'll be able to get our hands on for some time (though my home server is an OpenBSD Mac68k machine that chugs along quite reliably).

  • Server: Apache/1.3.4 (Unix)

    May be it's still "StarWarsed"
  • They copied the termination clause from IBM. It's somewhat better worded, but essentially the same in meaning.

    Well, at least it makes good hardware documentation.

    Bruce

  • So who is going to want to dig through the (x) million lines of code once M$ comes out with their own License? I bet they will try to put more spin on it then this also...."How do you want to commit suicide today?"......Anyone know how big OS X is, lines of code that is? Gotta give Apple some credit.....I think they got big brass ones, and encourage them no matter what.



  • Finally, some common sense on /.!

    I've never seen so many people get so upset for such a stupid reason. You'd think that Steve Jobs himself assassinated RMS or something. What has Apple done to open source? Did they take anything away from open source? No. They are giving the community some of their software. They didn't have to, they could just keep it closed-source. They had every right to keep it closed source. If you don't like their software - DON'T USE IT!!!

  • >Hear us, Apple. Open up the hardware specs to the
    >G3 machines. Let Be compete with your prized Mac
    >OS X Baby. I guarantee BeOS could run rings around
    >OSX when it comes to media development. Open

    Oh, blah. Be isn't keeping their BeOS up to standard on the PowerPC platform because Be doesn't want to. Yes, they make a killer OS and everyone I've communicated with from Be seems to be really cool, but don't tell me you buy this "We are sticking with Intel because Apple won't give us the necessary information to do so" garbage, are you?

    C'mon, think about it.

    1. Intel has invested untold fortunes in Be.

    2. MkLinux, LinuxPPC, and now ANOTHER OS (Darwin) has appeared that works on such hardware. Open source. Since when is Apple 'holding out' on Be? just because Apple isn't willing to subsidize Be's R&D efforts doesn't mean they're holding out.

    3. Be used to tout the PowerPC platform as the best thing since sliced bread, a "cutting edge OS running on cutting edge hardware". Now, you can hardly get them to say a decent word about it, instead they tout whatever legacy crap Intel is pushing. If their reason for not staying with the PowerPC is political (bad relations with Apple), how did that make the PowerPC so technologically inferior to the Intel platform ?

    >Source doesn't mean shit when your product is only
    >available on one architecture.

    Too bad Be has practically dropped any future plans for the PowerPC, no? Not to mention it's closed source (not that I consider that a 'mistake' in every situation, but you mentioned it). very shortly, the BeOS will be mono-platform.


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

  • Ouch! (Score:1)

    by edgy ( 5399 )

    Interesting license. Especially this part:


    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) 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;

    (c) must notify Apple and other third parties of how to obtain Your Deployed Modifications by filling out and submitting the required information found at http://www.apple.com/publicsource/modifications.ht ml


    Deploy, from earlier in the license seems to mean any production use at all within your company, with any lines of code changed.

    This is quite a bit more anal than the GPL in that regard, since the GPL only stipulates that you must make the source available if you distribute it.


    There's got to be more in here that stinks. I just haven't had time to look at it all.

  • I thought deploy was exactly that without the not....

    I guess it's not as annoying as I thought.

  • I don't like that clause, then. Why do I have to release my code if it's for an internal project?

    This will keep commercial interests from modifying the code for internal projects, since many of them will not want to release the code. This takes away some of the usefulness of the Open Sourcedness.
  • good. we'll get our work done faster and better than you with your slow free bloated xwindows
  • people paid alot of $$$ on their mac clones. open source means nothing to these consumers-it's peanuts. Open hardware is much more important than open source.
  • Last time I check you needed binaries to install Linux or any OS
  • Supporting and making it run are two different things. I have read that it will run on every PCI PowerPC, just don't annoy Apple with bugs if you don't have a current machine.
  • 1.3 "Deploy" means to use, sublicense or distribute Covered Code other than for Your internal research and development (R&D), and includes without limitation, any and all internal use or distribution of Covered Code within Your business or organization except for R&D use, as well as direct or indirect sublicensing or distribution of Covered Code by You to any third party in any form or manner.
  • They can get Multiple Processor boxes for Solaris, they can't get production boxes for their own server OS yet.
  • It is open so there will be a binary distrubution in no time at all
  • Check your facts, there is $250 educational version, and you are only paying for the GUI, the OS is open. Very much like buying CDE from Metrolink
  • What is RedHat, but a for profit company. What about all the for profit companies who use gcc, apache, gzip, etc. Apple and Netscape have decided that there is no reason to keep that part of their code propriatary, lets support them on this, the more code that is freed the better we all are.
  • They were the ones that did MKLinux at least 2 years ago
  • according to Alexa www.omnigroup.com has 1483 Alexa visits www.apple.com has 160790 Alexa visits I can understand needing more power than a G3 to run Apple's site
  • Oh you mean apple is going to not require licence fees for the portions of its patented QT software that make it into MPEG-4?

    If Apple owned the Sorenson Patent they might
  • 9.1 Infringement. If any of the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement ("Affected Original Code"), Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (a) attempt to procure the rights necessary for You to continue using the Affected Original Code; (b) modify the Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing; or (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code, effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License.

    If I were a large multi billion dollar company that employed thousands of people, and I was releasing large portions of code I would certainly want to protect myself from liabilty that said code could inflict. Anybody who thinks that Apple is being a jerk for doing so needs to think about the janitors that Apple employs, they too have to eat.

    That portion of the Licence seems very liberal
  • This rules!
  • 9.1 Infringement. If any of the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement ("Affected Original Code"), Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (a) attempt to procure the rights necessary for You to continue using the Affected Original Code; (b) modify the Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing;
    or (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code, effective immediately
    upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for
    implementation of this License.

    --
  • Beowulf is about compute power. Even if the crunched numbers display as a rendered pic, what diff does the GUI make? Like rejecting a honking powerful engine for your car because you think the radiator hose is the wrong color.

    --
  • (sic) Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (sic) (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code,

    I edited the original, but if you read the paragraph, it can be simplified to this. The rest is not very concrete and open to broad interpretation.

    -Steve
  • Termination clauses as yet do not stop something being open source. My take is that its just a description of what would happen anyway in the case of patent violations being dragged through the courts. At to your other point, all that says is that apple may or may not open the rest of its source code. That is their right.
  • What is this Darwin thing? Apple's page claims that it is an "operating system." I thought they were only opening the source to the drivers, not a complete kernel or OS. Can anyone shed some light?
  • of course , there's nothing stopping them from selling the mac os x gui - the workspace manager - as a linux gui , and sell it as 'linux for the rest of us' .
    would anyone out there pay $50 or so for a kick-ass gui ?
  • do you suppose they could make some of the gui open source and get it on a red hat distro ?
    that would never happen , realistically , but then again , i never saw darwin coming - and i run mklinux on my g3 .
  • It's just about everything below the GUI.
  • Agreed. Linux benefits from these things: Microsoft's bungling of NT (they lost the plot after 3.51) and the Unix hardware vendors' bungling of OSF/1 and damn near any other interoperatbility standard.
  • They don't manufacture or design any of it.
  • From the FAQ:

    Q. Do I have to post back my modifications to the original source code?

    Yes, in most cases--unless you are using the original source code purely for internal research and development--you must make source code of your modifications publicly available under the terms of the APSL. Please read the APSL for details.
  • Tuesday, March 16th updated 9:25 pm EST top stories Apple today announced the availability of Mac OS X Server for $500--with an unlimited client license and single-server license. The AppleStore (which incorrectly lists a 5-client license) expects availability by March 23rd. --from macnn.com
  • Just keep repeating it over and over, and it'll be true...
  • But it is not even a BSD style license.

    You have to register distributed modifications with Apple, you are not allowed to close off your modifications (which you can do in BSD), but Apple is allowed to close of their modifications, even of code you distributed.

    This whole thing is just good for a press release and will not have much impact on Linux or other *Nixes.

  • I'm waiting to see just how much is released.
    i.e., what they mean by "Mac OS X Server foundation".

Slashdot Top Deals

Established technology tends to persist in the face of new technology. -- G. Blaauw, one of the designers of System 360

Close