Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

OSI APSL Response 245

Posted by justin++ from the boatload-of-acronyms dept.
Rubinstien writes "Eric Raymond has issued a brief response in which he claims that Bruce Perens and others are mistaken in criticizing the Apple Public Source License and OSI's endorsement of it. " I knew this was going to be hairy.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OSI APSL Response More

OSI APSL Response

Comments Filter:
  • I've read the APSL (1.0), the OSD (1.0), Perens Termination letter, Perens APSL Open Letter, and Raymond's response. IANAL, but I think I've got a pretty good handle on things here. I don't think that Perens fully understands the APSL. Perens contentions are:

    1) Apple's death causes license invalidation.
    2) Termination clause not allowable under OSD
    3) Termination clause is overbroad

    He is wrong.

    1) The Severability clause (13.6, ESR's argument) kicks in. If Apple dies, the entire license is unenforceable.
    2) OSD (1.0) says nothing about termination clauses.
    3) APSL's Termination clause is not overbroad. Section 9.1 (Infrigment) clearly defines "Affected Original Code" as that which is "subject of a claim of infrigment." Termination is one of three options; Obtain rights; code around infrigment; or termination.

    The question then becomes, what do to about termination clauses? In the case of patent infrigment, a company needs to have a compliance mechanism, in this case, terminating the open license on the "Affected Code." To not try to prevent further infrigment on a patent could be interpreted as contempt of court. Without such clauses, companies (as well as individuals) open themselves to further legal problems. Regarding the possibility of a company asking another company to file an infrigement claim, such a claim would not have standing in American courts, due to the advisarial nature of our court system (ie there must be a real, identifible confict in order for the plaintiff to have standing.) What if a company manufactures "real" conflict? That's what amicus briefs (and I would suppose, OSI) is for!
    Should the OSD ban termination clauses? In general, I would lean towards "No." Companies, and individuals have to protect themselves from patent suits. Regardless of ideology, we still have software patents, and we can't pretend that they don't exist. IBM's license, however, appears suspect due to the "appears likely to be made" phrase. The APSL seems reasonable.

    But then again, I could be wrong.

  • Apple's attitude toward OSS (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 18, 1999 @09:39AM (#1973150)
    Not quite relevant to the whole ESR/Perens issue, but here's Don Yacktman's take on how to view the whole Apple open source issue [dejanews.com]. Don is a long-time NEXTSTEP developer, and has a reputation for being informed and sensible, with good contacts within Apple. The above link hasn't yet shown up in DejaNews so I'll just quote it below.

    The basic opinion is: Apple's testing the waters here; its further actions will be governed by the response of the open-source community. If people treat Apple as slime and "just as bad as Microsoft", as some people on Slashdot have been doing, then it's assured that Apple's open-source efforts will never go beyond what they are now. But if they see positive results coming out of their experiment -- like good outside enhancements or bugfixes, or market-viable porting opportunities -- then they may very well more fully embrace the idea of open source.

    Please, people. Be rational about this. Good can come from it if we avoid extremism and ideological jihads.

    From:
    don@misckit.com [mailto] (Donald A. Yacktman)
    Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.n ext.advocacy
    Subject: Re: The brewing QuickTime/Linux issue
    Date: 18 Mar 1999 19:33:01 GMT
    Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/ [xmission.com]
    Message-ID:

    "Michael J. Peck" wrote:
    >taiQ wrote:
    >> Yep, but it's still welcome news. Wasn't it Randy Rencsok who
    >> advocated this route in an essay on his web site? I'd be interested in
    >> reading about his opinions on this turn of events.
    >
    >I think it was Don Yacktman, if you mean the "OpenMach" proposal. And
    >come to think of it, if that's what you mean, you're right; that's
    >approximately what it is, but I never really thought of it.

    Both Randy and I wrote some things on this. Randy suggested opening up higher level stuff than what I proposed, such as the Yellow Box. He and I also consulted with each other somewhat, and both chose to take slightly different approaches to the same thing.

    I'll make a few rambling comments now; I do intend to put up an open letter thanking Apple on the Rhaptel site (http://www.of.org/rhaptel/ [of.org]) either today or tomorrow.

    I didn't go as far as Randy in my proposal for strategic reasons. I'd certainly like to see Apple eventually open up everything, but I just don't think that is practical to do up front.

    I'm looking more at the idea of driving in a wedge. Ask for something smaller, something that is easy to do. They do it. If it is successful, then you can ask for something a little bit bigger. Taking two steps--A to B and then B to C--is much easier than one big step A to C. Another analogy is to realize that to turn a large ship, you do it in smaller increments, taking its inertia into account.

    Apple's taken step #1--Open Mach. In fact, they've released two things beyond Open Mach, consider them surprise bonuses: SoundKit and Netinfo. So, kudos for Apple to have the courage to take that first baby step. Now they've passed the baton to us. We have to make it a success.

    And this "wedge" process is something that Apple is fully aware of. They are actually trying to turn the ship and this is just the first increment. I have very good reason to believe that if we take the baton and run with it--if Apple sees some real successes with Darwin--then we shouldn't be surprised if Apple opens up more things.

    I'm not making a promise here, just an "educated guess". But I do think that Apple is serious about Open Source and is looking *very* closely at how Darwin, ahem, "evolves" and that such evolution will shape the future directions Apple takes. I've got several good (NDA) reasons for believing this to be the case.

    >I think the issue here is that the lower levels were already pretty well
    >known. In any case, if one were to port the lower levels, one would have
    >Mach + BSD. It's not exactly the sort of thing one shouts "Hallelujah"
    >about, seeing as how the hue and cry these days, in the Open Source
    >community, is for more sophisticated *upper* levels (hence the KDE/GNOME
    >happenings, the XFree86 griping, the Berlin project, and the hardware
    >OpenGL push). It could be that someone will port Mach + BSD to other
    >platforms, but once you have the port, what are you going to do with it?

    I can see a few things happening. One obvious scenario is that Apple can *always* "port" their upper layers to any Darwin implementation that seems to be popular with the community. The beauty of letting the open source community take the wheel is that the marketing people can just watch how things unfold to determine which products are worth producing.

    There are other scenarios, but I won't elaborate them here or now. As I understand it, Darwin is the _beginning_, not the _end_, so assuming that the community does kick in, there could be a lot more to come.

    By the way, most of the data I've collected reinforces the point that Apple is fully behind this "newfound" open source direction. For example, in reference to Perens' arguments, if the APL needs to be modified slightly to make it work better, I get the impression that Apple is willing to make some tweaks. They've even said that, in effect, they are new to this whole thing and expect it to adapt to the community as needed. They're admitting that they are the students, and they're willing to learn. Apple _wants_ this to succeed, so they'll be flexible. Of course, there will also _always_ be people who are upset about some niggly detail--you can't please everybody--but I think Apple will be able to provide decent value to the majority of people.

    One thing that I find interesting that nobody else has mentioned. By open sourcing this stuff, they now have over 100 people working exclusively on code that is open source. Are there any other commercial entities which have thay many developers paid to work solely on open source? It is fascinating to think about how different the Apple of today is from the Apple of even just two years ago; like any large body there is a lot of inertia, but there are also some striking changes. I hope the community is willing to allow Apple to change and willing to give them a chance.

    While Apple is certainly going through a learning process, you have to give them credit for having the guts to actually start the process. They certaionly didn't _have_ to do Darwin. Now I dearly hope that the community follows through...if we all work with Apple and ease them through the learning process, we will probably succeed in not only changing Apple, but also in transforming the entire industry. That's a cool thought...

    --
    Later,
    Don Yacktman
    don@misckit.com [mailto]

  • Bruce is not the only one bitching about it. Crawl out from under that rock and you may notice that. Bruce was simply chosen to be the one to write the letter up, just cause everyone doenst have their story posted to slashdot doesnt mean they arent happy with it.
  • For what it's worth, here's my take on the issue. It looks to me like the 2.2(c) reporting requirement issue is annoying, but it won't lead to the license disappearing. They've got that one satisfactorily covered.

    The 9.1 point is still a problem. I don't care what Apple intended Affected Original Code to mean. It is not clearly defined in the license, and I can see all sorts of abuse that can come from a loose definition of the term.

    I don't care whether it is technically Open Source or not, I don't want a license which can end my legal use of a program on a company's whim. I think there is a clear need for a "No Termination of Use" clause to be inserted into the Open Source guidelines. While there is not one, the Open Source definition becomes pretty useless to me.
  • Anonymous Coward wrote:

    So basically you want the freedom to ignore other developers' intellectual property rights? Yet you demand that developers honor your pet license?

    No, I want the definition of Open Source to include a carefully worded statement regarding Termination of Use. I think termination of use clauses are contrary to the spirit of Free Software, and I think the Open Source definition should reflect that.

    I never asked for the freedom to ignore other's rights, that's not freedom at all. I asked that the license we call free be what I consider free, and the licenses that can terminate your use on a corporate whim not be called free. Currently, the Open Source definition is the yardstick we use, and I think it needs a mark for these clauses.


    Somebody steals some code, adds it to Linux without permission of the author. You have no problems continuing to use that code?

    Of course I have a problem with that. Unless the author assigns copyright to someone else, only the author has the right to copy or license their IP. What sideways reading of what I wrote made you think I was advocating plagarism?!?


    Face it: If you expect people to honor the various free software licenses, you'd better be prepared to honor other licenses. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

    I do honour other licenses, and you implying that my views are hypocritical without taking the time to understand them is very short sighted. If a program has a license that I find too objectionable, I honour it by not using the program. This is why I haven't purchased any proprietary software in three years.

    Apple is probably not losing a customer by me disliking their license, I had no plans to get MacOS X. On the other hand the Open Source Initiative is potentially losing a supporter if they continue to encourage licenses like this.
  • Exploiting Open Source software like Apache and then being "generous" enough to open some tiny portions of their new OS in some half-hearted attempt to look like some sort of longtime friend. Wow gee thanks! So, what's up with not allowing the Xanim people to even distribute a binary codec of a more recent, and, maybe, for once, useable, Quicktime? Oh, I see. You get nothing out of it.

    I guess as long as it's making Apple money, Open Source is great.

    At least Microsoft has the decency to just shun us outright.

    - A.P.
    --


    "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad

  • I know one thing for sure: it definatly isn't free software!

    find freedom @ http://www.fsf.org
  • Posted by Art Pepper:

    Looks like this is where the lawyers usually come in.
  • Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:

    We give BP a waffle iron and let ESR use Jedi mind tricks. Lock them in a room. The first person to leave the room gets to call it "Open Source", the second person has to call it "Open Sores".
  • Posted by Hackin Bey:

    obviously you live in a less cultured region than northern california...harumph!
  • While there are the standard irate messages on Slashdot, in general the tone seems pretty calm to me. Bruce has asked for relatively minor changes and clarifications, and has in no way impugned Apple. From Bruce's page, it looks like Apple is willing to work with the license to bring it to everyone's satisfaction. Bruce and Eric could perhaps have been marginally more polite to each other, but I think they'd both admit they're not diplomats.

    I think this move by Apple is big. There's a real possibility of a lot of sharing between LinuxPPC and OS X, such as drivers. Apple will be selling basically their GUI and their high-quality machines.
  • Clause 2.1 of the Apple license states that

    "You may use, copy, modify and distribute Original Code, with or without Modifications, solely for Your internal research and development,..."

    which is pretty clearly in conflict with the Open Source definition's clause 6, "no discrimination
    against fields of endeavor". (see www.opensource.org).

    ESR?

  • That's a good quote... thanks.

    On the other hand, the Apple license says 'discontinue use', while the GPL says you must not 'distribute' it. So if I write code on top of some GPL code and there's a conflict, I might have to stop publishing it, but I can keep using it myself.

    The Apple license requires me to destroy even my copies. Am I reading that right?

    --Chouser
  • Or perhaps even (shock) *before* the announcement, since these are issues that he raised with apple? and which apple no doubt bounced off counsel? Who in turn would have explained matters?

    But then, that's just a wild from my profesional experience as an attorney . . .
  • Funnily enough after the hype about MacOS X look what Apple program was surfing the web:

    a17-202-32-93.apple.com - - [17/Mar/1999:19:15:15 -0500] "GET /quicktime/quickti
    melinux HTTP/1.1" 301 357 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows NT)"
  • Besides opening source code & ensuring it will always _be_ open, what more is free software about?

    Eric has made it clear that the APSL *will* keep all contributed code in the open if the author didn't infringe on patents.

    Unless of course, you want to overhaul the whole patent system (which wouldn't be a bad idea), but freedom should be fought for _one step at a time_, imho.
  • Then don't use their stuff. If they create something, they have every right to keep it closed.

    Free redistribution of intellectual property is a _CHOICE_ (today, and probably tomorrow).

    The battle should not be "everything must be free", rather, "everything can be free, if we choose to". Attempting to restrict one freedom in order to increase another can be viewed as hypocritical.

  • Even if the GPL doesn't explicitly state it, what happens if it violates a (past/present/future) law or is proven unenforcable? Does it supercede the law? I think not.

    Stop spreading FUD.
  • I'm not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be one, But I get the notion that today's law is so microspecific that writing a nice license that doesn't give the company away is a hard chore.
    I wouldn't assume a bad intent on the part of apple that is connecting to us. They know they came from here. We always have loyalists on the inside, BTW, anyway.
  • The "fields of endeavour" clause is about things like saying you can use, copy, etc. for writing shopping cart software, but not for genetic engineering. You can use it for R&D in any field of endeavour you choose.

    -cfw
    --
  • It's a trademark, not a copyright. Bruce filed as an SPI officer for the trademark on behalf of SPI, who is listed as the official trademark holder. Some paperwork needs to be submitted in Bruce's name, which he has refused to do unless SPI makes him an officer (at least temporarily), and SPI refuses to do that.

    Even better, the OpenSource domain name is registered in the name of SPI at Bruce's home address.

    Yes, it's a big fat hairy mess. But to answer your question, the trademark rights probably reside in either Bruce or Eric or some combination of the two, even though the registration is in SPI's name. So yes, Bruce might be able to make a case for owning the trademark.

    This is all totally aside from the question whose answer you're assuming -- whether OSI is doing a good job of managing the mark or not.
    -russ

  • Sounds like Eric's got a point. I am looking forward to BP's response to this.
    --

  • we need annotated versions of all of these licenses in a centralized place, managed by a real lawyer

    otherwise people like myself are going to keep falling into the trap of believeing the first RMS or ESR who tries to explain it to us.

    help

  • Bickering and animosity aside, we're encountering a fundamental issue here in "open source" licensing... severability clauses. The real distaste for both the Jikes and APSL licenses lies in the fact that the companies can revoke the licenses, and the work of independent developers will be lost. This is a valid concern for developers, who are spending their precious time (how many of us can and often do sell our time for over $100/hour?), and priceless emotional effort on open source projects.

    The distinction i see here is between revokable (APSL, Jikes) licenses and irrevokable (GPL, Artistic) licenses. Developers will be much more willing to work on projects when the license guarantees their work will remain free. For terminology's sake, i call the two types "Open" and "Free" (as in free speech!).

    I think the concerns about licenses which are merely "open" are valid and important. On the other hand, i don't want to see companies like Apple and IBM bashed for trying to do the right thing, within their limitations. Moreover, i do NOT want to see a split within the open source developer community over this issue - a split which will surely come if things are not changed.

    I strongly suggest to the OSI that they consider making a distinction in the Open Source Definition between revokable and irrevokable licenses (open versus free), so developers know clearly where these corporate licenses are. If OSI does NOT do this, they risk losing credibility with developers (who have valid concerns, especially with self-appointed spokespersons), and also with the media and corporations (who will readily point to any infighting). At worst, we risk having a second "Open Source" certification team, one alienated and radicalized.

    Think about it, OSI.
  • My point about revokability is that it CAN happen... regardless of circumstances or restrictions. Think of it this way - a revokable license is one where the original license holder can revoke your rights to any or all of the code, even if YOU have not in any way violated the license. An irrevokable license is one where the license holder may only revoke your rights if YOU PERSONALLY violate the agreement.

    I agree that revokation clauses are pretty much necessary to protect corporate legal interests, and that they are unlikely to ever actually be used within the near future. Nonetheless, they exist, and as such limit my will, and the will of other developers, to work on the code.

    I'm not some Stallmanesque radical insisting that corporations are bad, or that licenses such as the APSL are inadequate. I'm just saying that there is a real, significant distinction over revokability here, one that affects developers' will to work on a project as well as our personal political stances. And i am very, very afraid that if OSI does not explicitly address this, that it will become a wedge issue which forks the "code base" of OSI (the Open Source Definition). This will make the movement look bad in public, cause unnecessary friction, and force us all to choose sides.

    Again, i really think the best thing to do would be to have multiple levels of "Open Source"... one for source which is open, but bound by the legal practicalities of corporations; and one for truly "free" software such as the GPL. Will OSI consider this? I hope so.
  • MS has closed software, can't stand competition, is overpriced, and likes to bump off rivals.

    Agreed. It's been documented more times than most believe.

    Apple has closed hardware AND software, can't stand competition, is grossly overpriced, and likes to bump off rivals.

    Wrong and wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Let's dissect your arguments one-by-one...

    Closed hardware - give me a break. I can gets the specs on absolutely anything I want, with the exception of the Mac ROM, which is itself being phased out (which you would know if you'd bothered to actually LEARN anything about Apple, but your hatred apparently blinds you to such possibilities).

    Apple can't stand competition - No company can stand competition, that's the way of business. Some are more, shall we say, demonstrative of this hatred than others (MS being a prefect example). But Apple? Nope. Tell me the last time they bumped off anyone.

    Apple is grossly overpriced - Al, we have a PC lemming who's still clinging to the idea that superior hardware should cost the same as inferior. Apple's prices are perhaps a bit high, but quite fair when you consider what you get. You get a machine which'll outperform a PC at the same price, in a more reliable configuration, and to top it all off it looks better too. That's the hardware I'm talking about, by the way. If you talk about software, I remind you that every single piece of software Apple makes is at most half the price of its Microsoft counterpart, so why is it that Apple is "grossly overpriced" while Microsoft is just "overpriced"?

    Now, the bit about bumping off rivals, I'm seeing some very contradictory evidence here. To start with "QTW" (which I can only assume means QuickTime), you're likely referring to the Sorenson thing, never mind that a beta of the Java port of QuickTime was just released, and the fact that Apple has been planning a Linux port of QuickTime for some time.
    As for the killing of the clone market, you forget that this had to be done (while the idea of Mac cloning was a Good Thing, it was done at a Bad Time; the mistake had to be rectified one way or another). Plusyou have the fact that, as I mentioned before, the Mac ROM's are fast disappearing plus the fact that two of the three most important parts of the OS (the kernel and drivers, the third being the interface) were recently Open-Sourced; it seems to me as though Apple will soon be back in the cloning business (they're certainly making it a hell of a lot easier to clone, and I doubt they'd do that with no reason).
    Now, as for Apple's refusal to cooperate with BeOS: I see little if any refusal at all. Everything Be needs to get their OS ported to the recent Macs is right there; all they have to do is use the stuff and stop whining about how Apple won't hand it to them on a silver plate, wrapped up with pretty six-colored ribbons and Bondi Blue paper.

  • You're full of it. :) After the quoted section 2.1 of the APSL, you will find section 2.2, which describes what you must do if you are to deploy the code. Section 2.1 grants you rights to tinker with the code, but not find a web space, notify Apple, and put out your modifications so long as you do not deploy it. Deploy is defined near the top of the license, and includes internal use for purposes other than R&D as well as distrubution.

    The Apple Public Source License [apple.com].

  • Beer has been open-source for millennia.

    Grow grain
    Malt grain
    Ferment malted grain.

    Beer takes a bit longer to compile than most software, but well worth it!


    --
    As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
  • Well gee.
    MS has closed software, can't stand competition, is overpriced, and likes to bump off rivals.

    Apple has closed hardware AND software, can't stand competition, is grossly overpriced, and likes to bump off rivals.

    (Here I'm thinking specifically of QTW, the killing of the Mac clone market, and Apple's refusal to cooperate with the BeOS people)


    --
    As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
  • Mm-hm. Advocating freedom limits your choice to not be free?



    --
    As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
  • It's the newest flavor of the iMac...haven't you heard?
  • I can't see how a trend towards free software is going to be encouraged by the assaults launched against anyone releasing source under anything less than the GPL. If the QT war hasn't been enough to convince people not to bother, this might be. (For some reason, Netscape largely got a free ride on this issue.)

    Honestly, Apple is possibly the company with the least inclination towards openness. Anything that encourages them is good in my book. Personally, I suspect this Darwin thing is going to be a fiasco - but I'd hate to see that happen because of religious issues.

    (My theory - they want to have an OS for Intel but don't want to have to support it. The plan is to keep the Mac hardware and relevant information locked up while giving the hackers control on the PC side.)


  • In the past several weeks I've ported the Proxim wireless modem drivers to the 2.2 kernel, I've written a script to interface the Mailman mailing-list processor to virtual domains without using aliases, and I've developed a log rotation, compression, and analysis script to drive Webalizer from a large Apache site. All but the last are already released to the public.

    Bruce

  • I spoke with the entire Open Source board, but Eric was offline (as usual, he travels almost continually).

    Bruce

  • If I gave you a license that was "Free until the year 2000", would you accept it as Open Source?

    How is a "Free until we take it back" license different, then?

    Termination implicitly violates the OSD because a terminated license means "All Rights Reserved", and thus fails all 9 tests of the OSD.

    If we're going to accept a license with termination at all, it makes sense to be very careful about the conditions in which termination is allowed. Apple seems to feel there is room for tightening this up and making it unambiguous, I look forward to their next license version.

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • It's your modifications that are sub-licensed, not the original code. In other words, if you add 10 lines, those 10 lines are sub-licensed.

    Bruce

  • Nope, read the next paragraph. It says you are still bound by the license in those cases.

    The GPL allows you to stop distributing the code if you are bound by court order, etc., it does not say anywhere that you can compel third parties to destroy their copies or stop distributing them.

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • You can't stop Slashdot from having a flame war. Too much unutilized testosterone around here :-)

    My letter was non-confrontational, and it was taken that way by the people it was addressed to. We had a little laugh together about the inevitability of us all being chopped to giblets on Slashdot.

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • I'm not a lawyer. I'm interested in licensing issues, and I'm soliciting real lawyers to help me with them.

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • I guess these things are relative. I am glad we do not behave in person as we do on slashdot, or I would have to bring a trauma kit to Linux conferences. :-)
  • Geez, guys. I wrote a very polite and non-confrontational letter asking Apple for a few small changes and clarifications. The folks at Apple did not find that unreasonable.

    I really wish you'd all stuck with the tone I established. Fortunately, the people who count in this matter seem to understand how to ignore the flames.

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • One license with a special notification clause isn't that much of a problem. 100 licenses are. Right now, the volunteer hacking on free software knows a few rules of thumb like "distribute the source code" that keep them in compliance with all of our licenses. If they have to get a read from their lawyer on 100 different licenses, each with their special things to do: send a postcard, post to a web site, etc., it's going to become very difficult for that volunteer hacker.

    So, I guess you could say I'm fighting creeping complex-ification of licenses.

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • I spoke with Apple's director of operating systems development, and with the specific person responsible for Open Source development at Apple.

    They acknowledge that they have not defined Affected Original Code well, and they should do so. That would help with the termination issue. We also discussed the notification issue, and they seemed receptive about that.

    One point I try to make with every company is that these licenses are executed by hackers, not lawyers, not even people who have easy access to lawyers. Those hackers have to be able to read the license, and it should be unambiguous to them. The folks at Apple accept that point.

    So, at least Apple isn't telling me that I'm blowing smoke. It wouldn't hurt Eric to help ask for these simple changes.

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • ...only Eric Raymond could go to Apple.

  • ...I was going to email this but for all the others who didn't get my little joke: in one of the Star Trek movies, I think it was VI, Spock says there is an old Vulcan saying; "Only Nixon could go to China". Now, if you don't get that, you shouldn't have skipped so many history classes :-)

  • ...I watch it occasionally.
    I prefered Bab5.
    Whatever happened to that anyway?
  • Hmmmm. Will this is at first pass a siff idea, some serious mileage needs to happen first....

    1. GPL/APSL cross contamination. Until the two licences are compatible, it can't/won't happen.
    Read the section on linking in the GPL. Thou shalt not link to non-free code.

    2. Different driver model. Linuk has funky monolithic protected mode kernel modules. OSX has DriverKit with funky hardware-server userspace modules. It may be possible to make them talk to each other - and once 1. ceases to be a problem, crib code from each other; after all won't Hurd be using Linux driver modules?

    Of course the major benefit of this is yep - an Open Source 1394 layer - Yeeha!
  • Perhaps your family doesn't share my family's (how shall I put this) 'passion' for politics. People enjoy this sort of banter, myself included. To the "can't we all just get along" group it looks bad, but in reality it is simply the free exchange of ideas. When we must get along to avoid "this bickering" I would call that totalitarianism -- which is present in many corperations.

    Open source debates take place in public, not in closed board rooms. I like it.

    The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.

  • The error in ignoring a problem is that it never goes away. It locks itself into a cycle of getting larger and larger untill it's almost to hard to deal with later when the problem effects you MUCH more then it did earlier. Therefore we have to speak up.
  • SPI owns the Open Source trademark.

    Therefore, Bruce is ipso facto correct and Eric Raymond is ipso facto wrong.

    However, I will disregard the trademark issue for a moment and say that, through my own careful reading of the APSL and subsequent perusal of the areas OSI outlined in their response to Bruce, I agree with Bruce's view. Plus, it's better to be safe than sorry.
    --
    Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
  • I still see a lot of light and heat being released, but no code being produced. Funny, that. =)
    --
    Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
  • Apple is no better than MS. If Steve Jobs could, he'd become the new Bill Gates with his plump-and-juicy Apple army replacing Gates' drones. The effect is the same for us: no freedom.
    --
    Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
  • I was actually picking on ESR, not you, but I guess I didn't make that clear enough.

    There are lots of people that have earned my respect through their actions and maturity, and their understanding of the issues of the free software community. Your move away from the OSI and back to the core of free software community made a lot of people like me very happy. IMO, Eric doesn't "get it," or rather, he "gets" a different view than I do.

    Free software is about ultimately freedom, not being able to see source code. Opening the source is but one component.
    --
    Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
  • To me, it seems like this is just a way for Apple to get free beta testers who are smarter than the average mac user.

    Remember when we were all were stoked (or at least I was) when companies started releasing beta software for us to try out. Now Apple does this, and EVEN with the source code, and people get pissed?

    I get the arguments about those people who want to possibly write their own code and don't want their license revoked, but for me (a hardware guy, and Apple USER), I'm just hoping people will help Apple make their OS better. I'm not really hoping for YET ANOTHER OS OS. We have Linux, which is probably a lot less spaghetti-ish than any Apple code. In fact, there are TWO flavors of Linux on the PPC.

    I think the code will be useful even if just to help me figure out what went wrong when my mac crashed for the 10th timt of the day.
  • >Why does anyone who isn't an Apple employee have
    >any interest in whether apple contines along these
    >lines or not... it's not like anyone who doesn't
    >run Apple hardware is going to get any benefit
    >from Open Source advancements to the MacOS.

    1. It can be ported elsewhere.

    2. There are many of us out here who do run Apple hardware, or a clone thereof.



    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • >This whole issue seems small to me compared with
    >the closed source media formats... Apple is
    >apparently a fair-weather friend.

    'gimee gimee gimee'.

    What have you offered Apple lately? Do you care to pay for the time their engineers spent on the code you want. Do you have any idea how a company runs?

    Apple is moving in the right direction. But expecting them to do something that doesn't add value to their own business is downright stupid. Of course they are hoping to get something out of this - that's how businesses work. They don't hire experts to figure out how to best lose money, after all...

    (well, there was a time when I would have thought Apple hired experts to help them lose money, but that was during the Amelio administration - things have changed)

    Right now, if I were an Apple executive, I'd be highly tempted to take my code, close it back up, and say 'screw it'. Given the amount of whining going around, I don't see how they can justify this release for a bunch of ingrates.


    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • >The free software community gave them the BSD that
    >they're using as the core of MaxOS X.

    Huh? I tend to think that the kernal is the 'true' core of an OS. My understanding is that they are using MACH with some of theith own NuKernal stuff thrown in for good measure.

    Tevanian, who works for Apple now, was the head honcho behind Mach (correct me if I'm wrong).



    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • Paraphrased from the late, great PowerComputing itself.

    Right?


    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • Bruce wanted clarification, and OSI gave it to them. It would be nice to see if Apple can officially clarify these points in version 1.1 of the APSL, something I think they planned on releasing.
  • It doesn't really mater what the license says if the code is found to be infringing it is then illegal to use, because you are breaking the patent.
  • All the GPL require is an allegation of infringement to make the code undistibutable. By requiring Apple to loose the case is puting them at a very high liability, and prevents settlements.
  • No, he has a lot of stock, and a salary from Pixar, he makes no money from Apple. Also since he is worth billions, I am sure he has some funds in sound investments that should pay him millions a year
  • Well, I haven't looked at any of the code yet, and do not intend to until there is a definitive answer to due skepticism. However, I'd like to point out that Darwin is *not* 'MacOS'. Darwin is an 'improved' Mach + the BSD layers, + NetInfo and SoundKit, and the Objective C runtime. Tevanian is the guy who designed Mach in the first place, and apparently he has learned a few things over the years since, and incorporated some good ideas from abandoned Copland kernels. I'd like to see an improved Mach. I'd like to see it on Intel (and other) hardware. Also interesting is the Objective C runtime. Past posts on gnu.gnustep.discuss indicate that the Apple/NeXT ObjC runtime is much faster than the GNU implementation. The GNUStep Kits however actually seem to be faster, given the same runtime, than the Apple/NeXT ones. If it is safe to use their runtime improvements for the betterment of Gnu ObjC, I'd like to see that done. Those are my interests. Also, I hope the old Motorola '030 and '040 code is still around, 'cause I'd like to see if Darwin could run on my old NeXT cube(s). --Rubinstien
  • Like, Hockey Night in Canada, Eh.

    Beauty.
  • This is a usefull debate with questions being asked and answered. This is how it should be.
  • Tangerine Dream's defunct as a band, IIRC. I don't know about the other members, but Chris Franke keeps himself very busy with his Sonic Images label.
  • Things like this do indeed need to be discussed, but it would be better to discuss them with less acrimony and more emphasis on out common goals. The various Bruce, Eric and Richard shouting matches are destructive and they shouldn't be encouraged (even if all the rest of their work is excellent). Apple, IBM and all the rest are trying (from our point of view) to do the right thing. They should be encouraged and bickering about what is and is not and OS license to try to take the 'good words' away from them is not going to help at all. Bruce did the right thing in contacting Apple when he felt there was an issue, but the wrong thing in trying to deny that the APSL is an open source license when it clearly meets the guidelines.
  • Well all this Open Source (tm) is great... except it's not free! And on top of that I'm still stuck on the QT codec...

    Sure just use us when you want and ignore us the rest of the time...

    This whole issue seems small to me compared with the closed source media formats... Apple is apparently a fair-weather friend.
  • What argument? GM (Chevy/GMC/Pontiac/blah) 0wnz. Ford isn't worth a fraction of what I spent purchasing food to generate the energy I wasted typing this sentence.

  • Profiles? I thought (guessed) that a cookie based mechanism was used.

    BTW, I browse slashdot with KFM (from KDE 1.1), the login is automatic.


  • I'm none too happy that all these developments come out of thin air actually. A bunch of back room handshaking goes on and *boom* we have another big investment.. or another new license. 'Open' Source companies aren't very open. IMHO.

    Having freesoftware in business is a good thing, but having business in free software is perhaps not.
    It would be nice to have these companies blatantly violate the traditional closed business models, just like they violate closed source models..

    Well, I'll dream.. :-)
  • >Forcing logins to use user preferences is useless
    >and a big liability. Get rid of it.

    How else would it be done? Simply a cookie on the local machine? That would not be multi-user friendly. What if two people want to use the same machine, but with different prefs? This could happen often with computers which multiple people use (either at home, work, or school). It would also not support transporting prefs to different computers.

    Logging in to use prefs is the only thing that makes sense to me.
  • 'scuse me, but what about the point Bruce made regarding Apple's use of their "APSL" on code that was originally licensed under the Berkley license by other writers?

    This whole license thing is turning into a maze, and I expected it to happen as soon as Raymond et. al. came up with the Netscape "public" license. Let's see how "public" *that* stays now that AOL has put all its money and clout behind Netscape.

    Oh, and BTW, why are we ingrates? Which company was it that made things impossible for cloners of Apple products for so long. If I have anyone to thank for anything, it's Xerox. And God knows what Xerox would have done had they realized what their engineers were trying to show them...
  • The difference, to this non-lawyer's eyes, is that the GPL terminates your right to distribute patent-covered code after you become bound by a court order or an agreement with a patent-holder.

    Section 7 of the GPL uses the words "consequence of a court judgement or allegation of infringment [emphasis mine]". I'm not a lawyer either, but to me that says a court decision is not "required" for the copyright-holder of the code to decide to yank the code.

    The only differences between the APSL and the GPL that I can see is that the APSL says that Apple still has the rights to do whatever they want with the code, whereas the GPL says that you can't do anything with the code (except probably using it yourself).

    Jay (=
  • Nope, read the next paragraph. It says you are still bound by the license in those cases.

    The GPL allows you to stop distributing the code if you are bound by court order, etc., it does not say anywhere that you can compel third parties to destroy their copies or stop distributing them.

    I re-read the section, and I agree. Thanks for setting me straight.

    Jay (=
  • I would first like to say that I am not disputing most of the points that you made in your post. However, I am not sure that your statement about the APSL is accurate:


    The real distaste for both the Jikes and APSL licenses lies in the fact that the companies can revoke the licenses, and the work of independent developers will be lost.


    As far as I can tell from reading the license carefully, Apple cannot revoke your right to do what you want with "Your Modifications" unless you explicitly break the license yourself. Clauses of concern and my take on them are as follows:

    • 9.1 Infringement

      The worst that Apple can do here is (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code. "Affected Original Code" is "Original Code" (from Apple) that becomes the subject of a claim of infringement. So all of your modifications are still yours, under this scenario. You'd just have to code a replacement for the missing part, or use whatever replacement Apple winds up producing (which corresponds to Apple taking option (b) modify the Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing).

    • 12.1 Termination

      The relevant clause here is a referral to other clauses: (b) immediately in the event of the circumstances described in Sections 9.1 and/or 13.6(b). 9.1 we've already covered (though it could perhaps be stated more clearly that clause 12.1(b) applies only to the extent described in the clauses indicated). 13.6(b) is discussed below.

    • 13.6 Severability

      The relevant clause here is: (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if applicable law prohibits or restricts You from fully and/or specifically complying with Sections 2 and/or 3 or prevents the enforceability of either of those Sections, this License will immediately terminate (...). Section 3 basically states that you let any interested third parties use your code under this license, and let Apple incorporate it back into its development tree. As long as Apple exists, that's not a problem (I'll get back to the case where it doesn't exist). Section 2 places conditions on the use of code internally and externally. Internally, you have to document your code well and include the license and other relevant information. For code or binaries released externally, you also have to make sure that people obtain the source, and make sure that Apple can obtain the source. This is another clause that raises potential concerns.



    So, the only real concern seems to be that Apple could disappear, making it impossible for you to grant them a license to your code and making it impossible to fill out the information required on their web page. IMO, these can be reasonably addressed as follows:

    • Granting Rights to Apple

      If Apple dies and is bought by someone, I would argue that their buyer takes the place of Apple in the clauses mentioned, because Apple is now a part of the buyer. This means that the buyer must be able to obtain, use, and further modify the modifications that you made - just like everyone else. I don't see this as a problem.

      If Apple dies and drops off the face of the earth, then I would make two arguments. Firstly, as Apple no longer exists and nobody picks up their IP claims, then I doubt that anybody is going to bother enforcing termination of the license. If somebody picks up the IP and complains, then I would argue that they are now Apple, and there is no violation. I'm a bit hazy on what happens to IP that isn't picked up by anyone. I suspect that it would devolve to the public domain (anybody care to check this?). This would IMO make the public domain "Apple" for the purposes of sections 2 and 3, and again there is no violation (as you are most certainly making your modifications available to the public).

    • Filling Out Apple's Information Page

      The exact clause, 2.2 (c), reads: You ... must notify Apple and other third parties of how to obtain Your Deployed Modifications by filling out and submitting the required information found at (url).

      Note that this doesn't say that you must submit the information through the web page - just that you must fill out a version of the form presented there and get it to Apple and "other third parties". If you're worried about the site going down or about Apple removing the site to void the license, fear not - just print out a version of the page and fax the completed form to whoever winds up with Apple's IP rights when the dust settles.



    Or, these are the arguments that I would use in court if somebody tried to pull the license out from under me under the above scenarios. I think that they'd stand up reasonably well.

  • My point about revokability is that it CAN happen... regardless of circumstances or restrictions. Think of it this way - a revokable license is one where the original license holder can revoke your rights to any or all of the code, even if YOU have not in any way violated the license. An irrevokable license is one where the license holder may only revoke your rights if YOU PERSONALLY violate the agreement.


    By that definition, the APSL is not revokable, then. It only is terminated (for your code, at least) if you violate the license. Apple's code is only revoked if _Apple_ violated the law when it wrote it. Where is the problem (with the APSL)?


    I put a disclaimer at the top of my message, but perhaps I should have stated it more clearly - I am not touching the issue of revokability in general - only the specific comment made that said that Apple could revoke developers' rights to their modified code at whim.


    So, I'm having trouble seeing what specifically in my message you are responding to. The revokability-in-general issue is interesting, but not what I was writing about.


    I'm not trying to be impolite, I'm just trying to clarify what I was and was not saying in my previous post, and to figure out what in that post you are addressing here.

  • "revocable"/"irrevocable"


    Whoops. You're right. I ascribe it to bit rot caused by sitting too close to my monitor :).

  • Well, this is the whole point of the licensing debate. Some licenses, such as the BSD (if I recall correctly) allow the use in proprietary products. Others, such as the GPL, expressly forbid this. In other words, once something is GPL, it can never be anything but.

  • Well, it sounds like Perens' concerns have been addressed. I'm glad to see that, just as glad as I was to see Perens address them. Still, I could do without Raymond's apparent desire to make the whole thing look like a confrontation:

    ". . . alleging that the Open Source Initiative acted incorrectly . . ."

    "It is OSI's position that the claims in this open letter are entirely mistaken"

    Jeez, Perens' letter was laid back and non-confrontational. This pompous, pseudo-legalistic attitude-copping is ridiculous. It's hostile and defensive. Why? I'm curious.


    The OSI Board requested -- and got -- substantial changes from Apple before the APSL was made public.

    Am I the only with left with a bad taste in my mouth by this part? Quick, what does the 'O' in "OSI" stand for? "Oblong"? "Orthogonal"? "Ophidian"? If it's "Open", as rumor has it, I'm depressed by the fact that they offer their endorsements on behalf of the "community", without consulting or even informing the community until after the decision's been made -- and then turn hostile if anybody dares to question them.

    Do we need that?

    We should all chip in to buy Raymond a nameplate for his desk:
    "Eric Raymond: Head Nerd in Charge."


    -j

  • So did you talk to Eric before you made the public statement?

    Is the APSL a private agreement between Apple and Bruce, or Eric? Realistically, no. It's more of an agreement between Apple and the community. Where is the harm in public debate? Bruce clearly bent over backwards in his letter in an effort to start a public discussion, not a flamewar. My opinion of Perens went up several notches on that. Unfortunately (unless I badly misread the tone of Raymond's third-person statement) Raymond seems to perceive it as a challenge to his "authority" -- which doesn't exist anyway, as he himself has never (to my knowledge) denied. If people want to throw around the word "open", they should be willing to do it in public, with public input.

    Hey, if Raymond speaks for the community, then I can't imagine why he wouldn't be willing to listen to input from the community. What kind of sense would that make?


    -j

  • (Score:-1)? Why?


    Why do I feel better all of a sudden? (Score:-1)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 18, @03:34PM EST


    I think they're trying to find out what the next lowest form of life is after lawyers and estate agents...

    Open Source gurus...


    -j

  • You think Apple is doing this out of generosity?

    Nonsense. They have shareholders. They're doing this because they think they'll make a buck out of it -- that being their legal and moral responsibility to their shareholders. The free software community gave them the BSD that they're using as the core of MaxOS X. Now they're asking for some more help, and they're offering some quid pro quo for it in the form of showing us their source. It's not a gift. They're asking for help, and they're offering us something in return. It's a trade. We've got a perfect right to negotiate, just as they do.

    This community, in the aggregate, produced the Linux kernel, GCC, Apache, perl, etc. "Take, take, take", my ass. What has Apple contributed yet? I'd like to find out, but I won't be kissing any asses without due cause.


    -j

  • As long as the community is represented by the typical /.'er then I'm glad we weren't asked...

    Well, you've got a point, but there are fora with better signal/noise ratios than Slashdot. There are also a lot of rational people running around loose in this "community" -- some of whom do post on Slashdot, I'm sure -- whose input would be worth hearing.

    What bothers me is the implied attitude from Raymond. To overstate it a bit: "Butt out, I'm in charge here. Who asked you?" If Raymond had accepted Perens' dissent a bit more gracefully, I wouldn't be bothered by that.

    Realistically, if Apple wants to work with the community, they'll address all valid concerns, not just those that Raymond agrees with. They don't stand to gain by pissing people off unnecessarily.


    -j

  • If we're going to accept a license with termination at all, it makes sense to be very careful about the conditions in which termination is allowed. Apple seems to feel there is room for tightening this up and making it unambiguous, I look forward to their next license version.

    This is in line with your other statements about this issue: Careful, reasonable, open to discussion, etc.

    But that's all beside the point. The depressing truth is that all the yelling here is about Perens vs. Raymond, which is (or I sincerely hope it is) total crap. Of course, maybe it's just Slashdot, and the "conflict" is just a lot of smoke around an imaginary fire.


    -j

  • I strongly suggest to the OSI that they consider making a distinction in the Open Source Definition between revokable and irrevocable licenses (open versus free), so developers know clearly where these corporate licenses are.

    This sounds like it would be a win for everybody. It respects the valid interests of free software developers and the valid interests of companies like Apple and IBM. Everybody knows where s/he stands and there's very little to fight over. I dig it.


    -j

  • drop the f*cking acronyms.

    Yeah!


    -j

  • the real secrets in Cupertino are along the lines of "Which SUV-driving, yuppie-wanna-be, middle-manager w/ two kids & a husband did seven lines of coke off her boss's backside then nailed two -boys- in the bathroom at comdex back in '89?"

    A. You keep returning to this. I'm not gonna ask. :)

    B. Um . . . Is Apple hiring?


    :)


    -j

  • Isn't the point to have a board of clueful people who are trusted by the community to make rational decisions, thereby saving a lot of time and bureaucracy?

    Um, do you trust people who don't care to hear your input, even though they claim to represent you?


    If everything has to go to the Community, then why have OSI at all?

    . . .

    Do people *really* want to have OpenSource policy guided by /. poll?

    There is ample middle ground between a star chamber and a Slashdot poll.

    And, as I said, I wouldn't be complaining if Raymond had been willing to accept debate more gracefully. Apple is Apple. I doubt that they would have been willing to negotiate with Raymond in public anyway. Being who they are, they want secrecy followed by . . . an ANNOUNCEMENT! Drama! PR! Humor, pathos, tragedy! Etc. Okay, that's the game they're in. But if that's the case, it's especially important for there to be open debate after the cat is out of the bag.


    If you don't like the decisions, lobby for a change in the membership of the OSI board.

    In other words: "If you're pissed off, bitch and moan!" This is good advice :) I think it's being taken.


    -j

  • My letter was non-confrontational, and it was taken that way by the people it was addressed to.

    I don't think I'm the only one who's very relieved to hear that.

    Thanks.
    -j

  • But there are still a lot of people watching.

    TANSTAAFL, I guess. We get free parallel debugging, but we also get this crap :)


    I thought Bruce . . . tried as hard as he could
    not to start a flamewar. I think Eric was pretty reasonable too.

    I agree about Perens. Raymond's response got on my nerves a bit, but Raymond always does that to me. Oh, well.


    And look! It still started one around here.

    Can you name anything that wouldn't? :)
    -j

  • it might be argued that from a dedicated free/open software perspective, one would be hypocritical to accept/respect/etc a licence that contradicts the ethics and spirits of the open software movement.

    "Ethics and spirit" indeed! I couldn't agree more. Now find a minyan to back us up. "This, too, shall pass".
    -j

  • Can't posts like that be close-captioned for the Trek-impaired? Some of us are totally perplexed by that stuff.

    :)
    -j
  • Use a real browser, Netscape has profiles

  • we need annotated versions of all of these licenses in a centralized place, managed by a real lawyer Hear! Hear!
  • I would suggest that evil breeds bureaucracy; if everyone were trustworthy, there'd be no need for lawyers (the creators of bureaucracy)- or gov't, for that matter. Consider this..

    What an interestingly narrow minded view of government you have.

    Last time I checked stuff like disaster relief, coast guard rescue operations, and humanitarian aid didn't have much to do with trustworthiness. Isn't there a quote about how only criminals think the world is made up of laws?
  • No, no, you don't understand. What you want is the PepsiCo distribution (v1.0) of the Open Recipe version of Mountain Dew. Everyone would be able to compile their own version of Mountain Dew, if they wish. One could disable caffeine, enable NutraSweet(TM), or whatever desired for your own platform needs!

    Seriously, the parallels of the food industry and the software industry are suspiciously close...
  • The difference, to this non-lawyer's eyes, is that the GPL terminates your right to distribute patent-covered code after you become bound by a court order or an agreement with a patent-holder.

    The APSL's termination clause applies if Apple Inc. decides that it would rather yank the patent-covered code than resolve the patent dispute or write a patent-free version.

    Perhaps Apple's lawyers were afraid that using a GPL-style termination clause would expose them, in the event of a patent suit, to additional damages, or would make it harder for them to settle such a suit.

    A legal question: Suppose I use code covered by the APSL, some company (call it "Unisys") sues Apple for patent infringement, and Apple withdraws the code I'm using from circulation rather than fighting the suit. If I felt that Unisys's patent claim was bogus, would I have grounds to take Unisys to court?

Slashdot Top Deals

A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you. -- Ramsey Clark

Close