RMS on APSL 295
We've all heard what Bruce Perens and ESR think of the APSL, so
it's time to give RMS a chance. Read what he has to say. He
brought up some very interesting things which I don't think have been
discussed before, and are very important (the copyright bit).
RMS is right on (Score:1)
European Patent Law == US Patent Law soon (Score:1)
has proposed to adopt the US Patent System
so businesses can compete on "even terms" and
because "The United States is, after all,
our largest trade partner and having harmonized
business rules can only be of good.". Microsoft
was used as an example of why the US Patent
System is so good.
Another thing the US has managed to stuff
down the throat of us Europeans, after
hormone grown meat and genetically modified
organisms.
All because of the European politicians
spinelessness. Bah. Stop the world, please,
I'd like to get off now.
The proposal is out for ratification in the
various governments right now. It is expected
it will pass without much fuss.
Censorship on Slashdot! (Score:1)
Isn't this a bit hypocritical?
Set your threshold down to -1 and search for "score:-1". You'll find a bunch of posts, many of which aren't inflammatory at all. The only thing wrong with them is that they aren't entirely negative about Apple.
Posts replying to them, that are negative about Apple, get elevated scores.
If Apple used the GPL... (Score:1)
Let's not pretend that people who base their opinions without reading the license ("I trust X's opinion more than Y's, but I won't actually read a small license.") actually care or would contribute. It's too KeWl to hate Microsoft and sneer at Apple.
Bruce raised some concerns--though I wish he'd done it privately first in hindsight, but he was quite honest and calm. I read the APSL the way that ESR did before seeing Bruce's concerns, but I viewed it as mainly giving me a better OS if I used Apple stuff. Then the personalities got involved and it's degenerated.
I think what this means is that you don't have a coherent picture of how the real world will coexist with your ideals. If you think corporations are going to wither away because you coded a nifty OS, oh, just stay out of politics--you're computer, not political, specialists.
here's what i wrote before... (Score:1)
I don't mean to get in to a philosophical argument here, but how would programmers expect to make a living if everything they coded was given away for free? You could say you'd sell it, but wouldn't that violate free software? Even then, once one copy is out, wouldn't it be okay for anyone to use it without paying you?
So, you say you'll make money on tech support? Please, think about this one critically. For one, do you expect companies to call each individual programmer individually, not to mention pay you? And if the software is so perfect, why would they even need tech support?
So you decide you'll work for a major distributer. But wait, they only have a certain number of job slots. You and thousands of other programmers can't get a job there. Oh well, maybe you'll get a job doing something else computer related, even though your true love is with programming. Now you can't devote nearly as much time programming as you wish you could, and are somewhat satisfied, or dislike your job. Is this how you want to live?
I am not arguing for proprietary software at all, but for those who are thinking realistically (and aren't living minimalistically without a family off of grants from the government), some sort of lisence (or multiple) needs to be created that allows for this. As long as the source is open, it's good. If you do not agree with the rules, do not contribute code for it. Pretty simple. Not that it isn't good to try to get such liscenses pushed further, but let's not be unrealistic, and possibly even causing companies to turn away from this.
Although he mentions it doesn't meet some sort of definition, he seems to totally degrade both the NPL and APSL completly. However, I expect the highschool and college kids on here to use this as fuel to flame Apple more and avoid thinking critically. Oh well.
i just dont trust Apple (Score:1)
Yeah. That's why Steve Jobs gets paid so much.
(He gets paid $1 a year, and that's just sp his family can be on the health plan...)
Taxpayer expense (Score:1)
A) Apple was a taxpayer too, so they paid
for it and should be able to use it.
B) It's not buried. You too can license
Mach and BSD.
Apple and NeXT made additions to BSD and Mach
which taxpayers did *not* pay for. Thus,
you can't have those except under Apple's
conditions.
Why are you so convinced... (Score:1)
I see them as all about the same. (A few, like Microsoft, are worse because of doing illegal things to control and stifle the market.) The company you bought that CD player from, whichever one it was, was certainly as "closed" and "proprietary" as Apple, but I don't see you moaning and sobbing about that.
People have this reflexive, knee-jerk reaction to Apple here, for some bizarre reason. Sort of a "my OS is better than yours, and I won't be happy until you stop using yours" fascism, I guess.
Wait... (Score:2)
So, you say you'll make money on tech support? Please, think about this one critically. For one, do you expect companies to call each individual programmer individually, not to mention pay you? And if the software is so perfect, why would they even need tech support?
So you decide you'll work for a major distributer. But wait, they only have a certain number of job slots. You and thousands of other programmers can't get a job there. Oh well, maybe you'll get a job doing something else computer related, even though your true love is with programming. Now you can't devote nearly as much time programming as you wish you could, and are somewhat satisfied, or dislike your job. Is this how you want to live?
I am not arguing for proprietary software at all, but for those who are thinking realistically (and aren't living minimalistically without a family off of grants from the government), some sort of lisence (or multiple) needs to be created that allows for this. As long as the source is open, it's good. If you do not agree with the rules, do not contribute code for it. Pretty simple. Not that it isn't good to try to get such liscenses pushed further, but let's not be unrealistic, and possibly even causing companies to turn away from this.
Although he mentions it doesn't meet some sort of definition, he seems to totally degrade both the NPL and APSL completly. However, I expect the highschool and college kids on here to use this as fuel to flame Apple more and avoid thinking critically. Oh well.
Two minor nits on RMS's position. (Score:2)
> Aside from this, we must remember that only part of MacOS is being released under the APSL--and it is the lowest level part.
This is true.
> The only practical use for this code is to run the non-free part of MacOS.
This is not true. Of the code that has been released, quite a bit is making its "debut" to the open-source/free-software community. Often cited examples are "netinfo", "HFS+", and Apple's version of Appletalk/Appleshare. Having these technologies out in the open, although not earth-shattering, can benefit all OS development.
> It will not help free operating systems, because they already have the low-level drivers for the PowerPC Mac.
This also is not true. The free OS's do not "sleep" well on PowerBook hardware. Some have sound problems. Granted, the current Darwin source release doesn't do any better in these areas, but according to what Apple's saying, they'll be releasing drivers for MacOS X [client], which _will_ have these things. The free OS's DO need this stuff.
In general, I believe the rest of RMS's and Bruce's points are valid. I believe that Apple is trying to do "the Right Thing", and with a few mods/clarifications to the license, they'll get it right.
APSL and AT&T (Score:2)
Quite recently another "Public Code" licence has been released by AT&T, concerning their DjVu technology. To me it seems quite similar to the licence that has been prepared for QT2.0 ( but even here there is the "export control" bit, alas!), but I would like to hear comments from people that are much more expert on these issues than I am. The url is:
http://www.djvu.att.com/open/attlicense.html
Problems with slashdot (Score:2)
Not that he (or any of the other people at this site) isn;t allowed to express his opinion, it's just I think his opinion influences the opinion of many of the readers of this site. If he reports a topic in a negative way, degrades, or attacks it, the readers of this site will likely go along. Then you'll have the opposite extreme defending against the other extreme. Then you get debates that shouldn't even exist. Discussion is healthy, but heated, flamatory attacks are ridiculous.
I think it's time for Rob to understand that his site is no longer read by a small group of people with similar beliefs and interests as him. This site is now read by NT fans, Apple supporters, Linux users, Be users, and BSD users. He doesn't have to do this, but I (and others) would really respect him more if the site became less one sided.
I love the way the site is structured, and it's highly impossible to make a competing site to this one (anyone willing to try? didn't think so). Just like we are pushing Apple to go a bit further, why settle for what we're getting here?
Perhaps pick up a few more news people who specialize in other subjects such as Be, Apple, BSD, whatever. Now that filters are set up, there's really no reason more news can be reported, and this will give a chance for all sides to get equal representation. Not to mention boost the site up another notch in respectability.
i just dont trust Apple (Score:2)
We can argue Apple's business moves and who thinks what for years, but sometimes you have to say to yourself "despite what has happened in the past, this is a step in the right direction." Rather than allowing previous hatred, or even not so previous (everyone else hates Apple, I should too without questioning their stance), control your thinking.
RMS is right (Score:2)
I wish RMS would express himself a bit better, and with a bit more... polish... than he's shown in the past. He's right about the vast majority of things he talks about, but just turns people off with his percieved arrogance/fanaticism.
--
Open Source = Free Software (Score:1)
The rules for the Open Source trademark are essentially the same guidelines (I think they edited a couple of names). However, by endorsing non-Free licenses like the APSL, the OSI is forcing the concept of Open Source Software to deviate from the concept of Free Software. If they persist in supporting such licenses, they will be discarded by the Free Software Community, and be left with only the half-hearted support of the fickle "Free Enough" software "community". I don't think anybody but the proprietary software giants want to see that happen.
Header was SUPPOSED to have OS <= Free (Score:1)
Have you read ESRs rebuttal? (Score:2)
http://www.lwn.net/1999/0318/a/raymond.html
It's unfortunate (Score:2)
"We also regret to note that that Eric Raymond, with the best of intentions, jumped a little too fast to embrace the APSL in his enthusiasm to welcome Apple to our community. He placed the Open Source designation on a license that wasn't quite ready for that. We invite Eric and other members of the Free Software community to join us in
requesting the few simple changes to the APSL that we have outlined in this letter. "
Being tagged on the end, implying he alone made the decision.
But then the common theme in all these editiorials is a lack of diplomacy.
Apple has already changed the world (Score:1)
---
twat. (Score:1)
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
I'm so ashamed - AS WELL YOU SHOULD BE (Score:1)
I come to two conclusions, either:
1) Apple/Steve Jobs is an idiot
2) Just another marketing spin to make a few of the light-hearted go "ooh ooh it's open source".
personally, i see no reason why i should waste my time on apple's code.
find freedom at http://www.gnu.org/
I'm so ashamed - AS WELL YOU SHOULD BE (Score:1)
How, specifically? BSD source is already out there, so is Mach kernel source. Without Apple's restrictions.
>Because it would be helpful to tother BSD users.
AFAIK it uses BSD source, how would looking at source BSD developers made be helpful to them? And they could never put it into a *BSD OS, because of the license.
>Because it would be helpful, period.
Yes, maybe, but you'll always have that nice feeling that Apple can terminate the agreement, huh?
Oops, typo (Score:1)
Back to the old half a glass of water problem, I guess.
I have a problem with the narrowness (Score:1)
I'm sorry- that's too narrow a view for me. With all the history of proprietary software- hooks to punish DR-DOS, secret APIs, the repugnant history of Aladdin Stuffit products on the Mac platform which continues being a serious problem to this DAY, you're telling me the _only_ merit of source auditing is if you also get to own it?
That's way too unparanoid a view, my friend
I for one am greatly pleased to see Apple opening source- even if they allow _no_ copying! Because that means we can play watchdog on 'em, and I'm afraid you have to play watchdog on proprietary software. All too often vendors have turned treacherous. There have been lovely hostilities lately- most fascinatingly, Microsoft's practice of hunting out private information like Emails and embedding it silently and invisibly into Word files. Many people have discovered such information in their files. MS claims this is just through writing entire disk sectors to RAM, but do we have any proof that's all it is? No, because we can't audit what they're doing: they could be doing anything, they could be trawling HDs for sensitive data quite intentionally for all we know, and there's no way to be sure.
Furthermore, there have been repeated tests that indicated that somewhere within the bowels of NT, it manages to give preferential treatment to IE for connections. How? Where? We don't know, we can't see, all we can see is the statistical data indicating that something is happening to cause this.
Well, Apple don't play that game- in fact, Apple has so little to hide that it can pseudo-opensource its code. Whether or not it goes to a license that deserves full cooperation and shared work, this is crucially important because we NEED to be able to audit code that might critically affect our systems or those we work with.
Link Link Link Link (Score:1)
Apple OS8 Developer Documentation [apple.com]
Apple OSX Server Developer Documentation [apple.com]
Apple Tech Info Archive For The Old 68K Stuff, Not To Mention All Kinds Of Other Stuff Up To And Including Pinouts For Those Weird Old Monitor Cables [apple.com]
The reason isn't about Apple. The reason begins with a prej and ends with ice- and it's about as warm and reassuring as the latter.
ALL! vendors suck. Apple has done plenty of asinine things, just like everybody else. To hold them as an example of arch-evil just because they don't make PCs is completely preposterous. How forthcoming is Compaq or Packard Bell about the twisty details of their more strange variants of the basic theme of 'PC'? How forthcoming is Toshiba about the hardware of their laptops?
Are you fscking kidding? (Score:3)
Are you kidding? Apple spent _millions_ on an internet suite that was bundled with the OS. It was revolutionary, perhaps too revolutionary. It was called Cyberdog. I used it for over a year... you know what? They never did a fscking thing to push it over the other web browsers/Email programs/ftp etc etc etc vendors. They spent all that money and then just put the result out there and left it to twist in the wind...
If you think for one second that Apple embraces and exterminates like MS does, you are just plain out of your fscking mind and, on top of that, have never even _asked_ anybody what the real truth of it is.
Apple's sin is lack of promotion- for years they just ran around making 'cool stuf' (Cocoa? Colorsync? Applescript? OpenDoc? Cyberdog? Project X/HotSauce/MCF?) and did nothing to try and promote it. Meanwhile MS was ripping off companies and ramming their choices down everyone's throats (read Crushed By Microsoft: What I Learned [news.com] for an example). Who do you think ended up winning? Now, who do you think really deserves your nasty fit of attitude?
You are incredibly wrong and the record shows how wrong you are- if Apple was as you think they are, they would not have been whipped so bad in '97 and '98. It's anybody's guess as to whether they will get fully into your 'power ring' but it's well to remember that Apple's culture is one hell of a lot more like the Linux culture than MS's is. It was an internal gift economy- a playground for Apple programmers to play with nifty ideas while the marketshare collapsed and Rome burned around them. Jobs put in some backbone and some ruthlessness, but man, have some sense of proportion! Do you want a detailed account of all the different ways Apple completely didn't even bother to ruthlessly crush their competitors? God! I don't know whether to laugh or cry- you should talk to some of the OpenDoc guys who got caught holding the bag when _that_ 'cool stuff' ended up unpromoted, un-whipped-on-customers, un-forced-down-everyone's-throat... geez... talk to some people who know the truth, will you?
Open Source means free software (Score:1)
Richard Stallman says that the APSL is not compliant with the FSF's definition of Free Software.
Eric Raymond says that the APSL is indeed compliant with the Open Source Definition.
Since the Debian president signed onto your letter, it appears that at least part of Debian doesn't consider the APSL to be compliant with the Debian Free Software guidelines.
If it is not Free Software, and is not compliant with the DFSG, how can it be Open Source(tm)? I was under the impression that the Open Source Definition was virtually identical to the DFSG.
GPL != Good of the Community (Score:1)
The GPL is not about communism. It is about personal freedom. If I am FORCED to republish code changes, that is a lack of freedom and therefore inconsistent with the GPL.
The Evolution of software... (Score:1)
Firstly, I agree with most of what your saying. To me, the most important point that you have made here is
"Steve Jobs never was good at letting his pets roam free in the wilderness".
What most of these big companies ( IBM, Apple, etc ) seem to have forgotten is that open source software development is evolutionary in nature. In short, it follows a Darwinian process of "survival of the fittest", rather than "ordained by management".
This is why I'm really not that worried by what the corporate sector does. If they try to impose a bureaucratic process of system development on the code, the only result of this will be mediocre systems that are inferior to open source code.
In short, they want the advantages of open source without the evolutionary process that actually makes it all work.
Just my 0.02c worth gang.
Goodbye ESR (Score:3)
I don't care enough about Apple and it's software to read the whole license myself, but my_trust(RMS) > my_trust(BP) + my_trust(ESR)--and since even those two luminaries *cough* disagree, I'm taking away a belief in the non-free-ness of the APSL.
Which is not necessarily bad. They are doing what they want to do which is fine. Just don't try to convince me they are trying to further the altruistic goals of the FSF.
When they release the *full* source... (Score:1)
Why? If the result is to be simply a different proprietary solution, and one that proprietarizes the hardware also, I don't see the point.
As long as part of the OS is proprietary, the whole thing might as well be proprietary. The practical effect is the same.
Even when RMS is right he gets dissed :`( (Score:1)
This time, he is very clearly correct, and made his case in a straightforward, sane manner. This has not always been the case.
When they release the *full* source... (Score:3)
The whole point of Free Software is that everyone has equal freedom to use and modify the software; no one has veto power. That doesn't seem to be the case with Apple's license.
The termination clause is the killer for me.
I don't usually side with RMS in these RMS/ESR debates, but on this one I think RMS is 100% right, and ESR is 100% wrong. Sorry, Eric.
open source == free software? (Score:1)
It's my understanding that your claim is untrue, and that the fact that these are different concepts is one of the few things that both camps agree upon. Open Source licenses need not have the concept of copyleft, whereas free software must. Note here that "free software" is taken to be FSF jargon that implies copyleft, not merely a label that denotes that the software can be obtained sans cost.
hmm... (Score:1)
The first principle (Score:1)
RMS has written a good critique (Score:1)
I don't usually agree with RMS, but I think in this case he has raised good issues. Hopefully Apple will consider his and Bruce Perens' comments carefully.
I'm a little disappointed in ESR. I would have expected a much more critical reading of the license - legal language must be very precise, and the mere fact that RMS/Perens and ESR disagree on the meaning of the termination clause indicates that it needs to be rewritten. I also like RMS' suggestion of allowing 3rd party challenges to alleged patent violations.
I am not really concerned with the 'practical' aspects - RMS' position in the GPL is so extreme that few companies will ever be willing to write compatible licenses. It is a good point that Apple is not giving away the 'crown jewels' here - all the stuff that makes Apple special is still proprietary.
And a note to the Rah-Rah crowd on both sides. Apple is not your friend, nor your enemy. They are out to make a buck just like every other corporation, and if some subset of the Free Software/Open Source world think that their license is not okay, then it is neither disrespectful nor unreasonable to call Apple on it.
This is not a 'giveaway' from Apple to the masses. They believe they stand to gain from this license. The question is, are the rights and responsibilities laid out in the license equitable for both developers and Apple?
- Ken
Wait... (Score:1)
Different people in the community have different views on this; it's not really possible to toss them all into the same "free software" bin. RMS is from the "all software must be free" camp, but some of us have more moderate views. IMO the real issue here is: Am I going to spend a significant amount of time working on code that Apple can take away from me? I think a lot of people would be happy with the license if a few of the grey areas were clarified a bit more.
TedC
Censorship on Slashdot! (Score:1)
TedC
Censorship on Slashdot! (Score:1)
Maybe you were reading something into it that wasn't there, or more likely some moderators looked into it and it got corrected. With the oodles of moderators there now are I expect things like this can get corrected fairly quickly.
(I didn't check non-top-level posts, but moderation/threshold doesn't work terribly well for that anyway)
Give them a chance (Score:1)
I think we should give them a chance. IBM was long known as a "bad" company. In recent times, we've seen them change their course and begin embracing free software. I see Apple as a company who's heard about this 'open source' thing and wants to get in on it. Rather than flaming them, I think it's more productive to point out to them, in a reasonable manner, things that are not in the spirit of free softare. If they're really intent on joining us, they'll change. If not, we wait and try again later.
Companies, especially companies steeped in proprietariness, will only change slowly. We need to be patient and show them the way to go.
--Phil (Optimist extraordinare)
pet peeve (Score:1)
GPL != freedom.
(GPL is free if your time has no value (slightly misquoted JWZ))
free != freedom.
BSD liscence is free.
However, the GPL is fair.
APSL is public source, meaning source tolerated in public use.
Use the liscence you want to use, use the software you want to use, or code your own.
I'm tired of liscence wars. Not everything can be or will be GPL. But everything I need at home can be.
and I do like what the above posts have to say, I agree with their misgivings and their expression of misgivings about the APSL, etc...
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
Who is really tearing this license open? (Score:1)
And that person is therefore responsible for any failures to follow the license terms in the distribution of his copy of the licenced source.
Non-copyright-based licenses probably do not have much chance of success...
That's interesting speculation. I assume that you would post the legal reasoning or case law behind it, if you had any.
RMS missed the boat on copyright (Score:2)
The APSL is a shrinkwrap, er, clickwrap contract. By downloading the code under APSL terms, the downloader agrees to give up certain rights that would be givens under copyright law.
Since the APSL isn't a copyright-based license, "fair use" and other copyright-based concepts do not apply.
-- Chip Salzenberg, a director of OSI
Another win for Steve Jobless (Score:1)
a17-202-32-93.apple.com - - [17/Mar/1999:19:15:15 -0500] "GET
melinux HTTP/1.1" 301 357 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows NT)"
To RMS and Others: Actually, it does help LinuxPPC (Score:1)
This is just a minor note on someting RMS said, which I'd mail to him if I knew his current email address.
The MacOSX bottom layer source release does help LinuxPPC; currently, they're still having problems with getting linuxppc to run on the "Blue G3's."
Apple should be doing what they can to help Linuxppc run on their machines, but they think they'd be losing OS sales to LinuxPPC. They don't understand that instead, they'd lose a HW sale to VA Research in addition to the lost sale of OS X, and not just an OSX sale.
Quite sad, don'tcha think?
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
To RMS and Others: Actually, it does help LinuxPPC (Score:1)
Apple has been less than forthcoming about the
spec's. Hopefully the Linuxppc people can find
the specs in the Darwin source code.
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Actually... (Score:1)
Uh.. Hello? (Score:1)
Second of all, Apple hss a long track record of innovation: far more so that most computer companies. IBM is a successful inventor - they have thousands of patents, but a spotty innovator: only recently have they really been taking advantage of their amazing research staff for innovative products (their new hard drives for instance).
Apple has released 3 successful "revolutionary" innovations: The Apple II, Macintosh, and iMac. Compare this to Microsoft.
Not everything needs to be free (Score:1)
The point here is not that there is a closed-source GUI on top of MacOS X Server. The point is that we now have a robust, fast, useful BSD-like OS for the Mac platform that we can build our OWN open source GUI's for if need be.
Apple has every right and significant business reason to keep the MacOS GUI proprietary, as it is their biggest asset. Not everything must be free.
Corporate trend bandwagon at whose expense? (Score:1)
In cases like Apple, where they have a very bright board of directors & top managment team, there usually is a method to their madness.
What is the practical effect? (Score:1)
The name of the game is *increasing personal freedom* to develop software. Assuming the APSL is changed in our favour, it matters not that the MacOS GUI is proprietary - it matters that Apple users have the freedom to extend, modify and support their core-OS in whatever way they please.
Does it really make logical sense to release the Mac OS GUI right now? They're overhauling Mac OS X for a client release by year end. Coordinating an open source effort would push the product release back by at least 6 months (as has happened with Mozilla). Open source has its advantages, but time-to-market of "production quality" products isn't one of them yet. (time-to-market of patches is unparalleled though, of course)
Sure, opening the GUI would be nice for us, but it would be tantamount to business suicide to open up the Mac OS GUI code *at this moment*.
Apple is flying high on the sales of its machines and its superior interface. Let them ride out the momentum & give them time... and *eventually*, there probably will be an open source release of the GUI, once there is real incentive to do so for both developers AND Apple.
Point of the patent clause? (Score:1)
The way I understand it, it is perfectly legal to freely distribute code which uses patented techniques. It is only illegal to make, use or sell such code.
I myself distribute a couple of free programs. If I would get a letter tomorrow from some evil corporation telling me that one of my programs violates some patent, I would of course stop making that program, and would probably have to pay some compensation to them. And I wouldn't be allowed to use that program anymore. They will have to sue the thousands of actual users individually if they want to stop the use of the program. That has nothing to do with me though. Similarly, if someone writes a derivative work based on my infringing original, they are at fault, not me. My license gave them the right to create derivatives, true, but of course that license cannot overrule the rights of third parties under patent law.
In short: anyone who has every distributed free software can live without the patent clause. Why can't Apple?
--
Two minor nits on RMS's position. (Score:1)
Copyrights protect the copying of the "expression of an idea". If you take, say, a story of "boy meets girl", change all the characters names, change the setting, change all the words in a non-mechanical way, but still have the same basic plot, then you are fine. You can use the same "idea" as long as you don't express it the same way. If you have never seen the original, but by some miricle come up with exactly the same words, then you are also OK because you haven't "copied the expression of an idea". If there are only a few ways of expressing an idea, then it is common to have most of them copyrighted, but that is OK.
So, by just looking at some source code, you are not bound by its license, unless you copy the expression of the ideas in that code. Companies often want people who have never seen the original work so that there is no chance that they can possibly copy the original work. That makes life much easier in court, but it is not critical. Companies also have to make sure that people haven't signed non-disclosure or non-compete agreements, which is not a copyright issue.
Patents, on the other hand, protect an invention. It makes no difference if you have seen the invention before, or if you came up with the same idea completely on your own. If the invention is patented, then you can't use it with the patent holders OK. So, in this case also, you can look at the source all you want, it won't change things.
I'm so proud (Score:4)
Bruce Perens says that he is talking with the folks at Apple about these issues. As in the case of Troll Tech and QT, I think there is a good chance that Apple will come around to a truely free license. Bruce, once a very vocal critic of the QT license, is now a vocal supporter of them because they did respond.
It is important to keep the flames down and only talk about the technical problems with the license. Other issues with Apple, whether it is the fact that they are part owned by MS, or they once filed the much hated (in the OSS communuty) "look and feel" lawsuit, or the quality of their GUI, or whatever, should remain seperate issues. IF they fix their license then Apple has done A Good Thing. If they don't, then we should consider it to be "not free software", but no worse than most shareware and as such, it should not get flamed, it should just get ignored.
To RMS and Others: Actually, it does help LinuxPPC (Score:1)
Daniel
Supreme Court chair for RMS ? (Score:1)
Daniel
Not quite. (Score:1)
Ack, bad formatting, read this instead. (Score:1)
>Apple using their own (and others) source, with
>some restrictions.
But it would be foolish to do so, since Apple has the right to make modifications without distributing them under APSL, whereas You do not, and Apple is guaranteed to see every proposed modification, whereas You are not.
>2) Apple now has to provide some additional value >added to make money.
Maybe not-- see above. But it is already apparent that Apple will be making money by keeping the source to the upper layers of MacOS X proprietary. If the past is any indication, then the efforts of the Free Software community will go toward cloning the upper layers before any significant contribution is made to the "Darwin" codebase. If that happens, then Apple will face a very tough choice:
some of their options will be:
1. Use patent litigation to slow the cloning effort, thereby earning ill-will in the developer community.
2. Realease the upper layers under an open source license, just as Troll tech changed the license on QT when the Harmony project threatened to make them irrelevant. Profits then have to come from hardware and services.
3. Play Microsoft with their APIs, changing things frequently and leaving large portions undocumented, thereby earning the wrath of third-party software vendors.
4. Release APIs and documentation only under NDA, thereby alienating the computer book publishers, and inconveniencing the small third party developer.
There are many other options, I'm sure, but those are the ones that jumped off the top of my head.
You misread BP, but maybe it is a problem, anyway. (Score:2)
But I think it is a problem. You are required to notify Apple of your Modifications, but they are not required to make those modifications available to anyone else. The license should require Apple to keep a publicly accessible database of all Modifications (not just those that are folded into later releases). Furthermore, as the license stands, you must notify apple before sharing any Modification with anyone-- otherwise, said sharing will be in violation of the notification clause. There is no "reasonable time" language in the license-- the words "within one week," e.g., could go a long way.
For the APSL to gain more respect, it needs to read more like a contract between Apple and the Free Software community, where both parties have rights and obligations, and less like a set of conditions imposed by Apple on its would-be developers.
Totally right! (Score:1)
APSL rather than GPL (Score:1)
The message we've sent is "Your licence is no good to us because it isn't totally free, change it to reflet the GPL because it's the one that works for the developers in the community." I'm interested to see what Apple's reply will be, because the ball is in thier court.
Did Troll-Tech eventually change their license? (Score:1)
I'm so ashamed - why? (Score:1)
We'll need just as many programmers (Score:1)
-russ
OpenSource / Debian Free (Score:1)
-russ
offloading dev work (Score:1)
It seems to me that is what ESR et all are pitching to companies: Let your user base fix bugs and help you with the development. Depending on the licensing, that's not a bad thing. But from the stories I've read about the Apple announcement, it seemed that it was their main goal to siphon off developers to help them fix their bugs. I certainly hope they modify the license to address some of these concerns.
What I wish Apple would also do is release the code (if it's still around) and the specs for all their M68K platforms (or even Newton). The hardware is all obsolete, so it's not like it would hurt sales of their new stuff. But it would certainly help the Linux m68K team. I like my SE/30 running debian and I would certainly like a version of Linux that would work on a Powerbook Duo.
temp workers. (Score:1)
Didn't Microsoft get in a lawsuit because they were abusing the temporary labor concept (ie. they were using temps to do jobs that obviously should be 'company' jobs to avoid paying benefits)? One of my wife's friends says she has a brother that works for MS. Her view is that they pay lousy wages, but give away lots of stock options. Given how much cash that company has on hand, that sounds really shitty. No wonder they try to make sure the stock stays up.
Now the company I work for contracts a lot of stuff out to overseas consulting companies because they can't hire enough programmers in this area (another national company in the area is also constantly griping they can't lure enough people here). Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of what I do is fix what the contractors screw up.
Rational? I wouldn't say that... (Score:1)
1) Disrespect for privacy, as he calls it. Other Open-Source licenses which he has accepted already require you to notify someone. I find just a hint of hypocrisy here.
2) The bit about not being allowed to use the code for your own private purposes. Completely untrue.
3) The termination clause. Again, sounds like Stallman didn't read the license very carefully, if at all: Apple cannot terminate the license to the full codebase. Only the bit of code which was in fact illegal to put into the code in the first place; were Apple not doing this they would be committing a crime.
Now, let's dissect his "other flaws":
1) He talks about it allowing the linking of files which may be proprietary. The GPL can be made to do this if the author desires; it's called a Section 10 excption, if I'm not mistaken (I've had to use this one before myself, actually).
2) "It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to your changes which Apple will not give you for its code." What rights? I don't see anything special about them. Not, at least, that weren't in the NPL, which RMS did in fact accept.
3) "It is incompatible with the GNU GPL." So are most Open-Source licenses that I've seen. I see an ego trip here.
Basically, what I see is an uninformed interpretation of what is only a draft of an Open-Source license. Stallman has to accept that he's no longer the only leader in this movement, and he appears to have been voted out.
i just dont trust Apple (Score:1)
Its hard to belive that suddenly they changed their mind.. And in fact they didn't, remember that most of the code they released under APSL actually comes from BSD.
Ok.. (Score:1)
I think all this hooplala over APSL is Apple's fault - if they wanted to do it correctly, they should have take the way Netscape did NPL - i.e. rise some public discussion and release several "beta" version of the license before releasing a final one.
Users fixing bugs (Score:1)
Everybody knows that the software we buy is full of bugs. And I don't think its such a bad thing for us to be able to fix them.
Sometimes it is worthwhile to buy a commercial piece of software for one reason or another. What is so wrong with being given the opportunity to fix these bugs? Even if we don't have complete rights to what we fix, we do end up with software that works.
Apple seems willing to address these objections (Score:1)
I'm not sure about the URL requirement. Is it a one time deal and then Apple provides mirroring or is it a perpetual thing, where you are responsible to provide your modified sources?
Considerations (Score:1)
Stallman makes good points, articulating them much more clearly than either RMS or Bruce managed to. He did such a good job at articulation and logic that I almost found myself agreeing with him by the time I was finished reading his thoughts.
Then I woke up.
Stallman, as always, places idealism before practicality and goes to far as to ignore the latter. Whether or not that's good is up to the individual. Idealism doesn't always work, communism being the classic example. Stallman's ideal is a far stone's throw from communism; his does actually work in the right circumstances. However, I think the point Stallman fails to recognize (or dismisses) is that Apple is a corporate entity that has a responsibility other than living up to Richard's ideals. It has a responsibility to its employees to make money so that it can comphensate them for their efforts; this is a virtuous goal. One of the most significant ways in which it currently accomplishes this is by selling software. Apple can't discard that business at the drop of a hat. Ultimately, it has to make money somehow. As such, I don't believe that we will see a license that agrees with Stallman's "copyleft" ideal from Apple in the near future. Indeed, doubt that you'll find in the near future one from any company that makes its money by selling its developer's time, as these companies have an obligation to their investors and to their employees to make money. This is why Apple retains rights under the APSL.
Another point that Stallman entirely neglects to mention is that Apple cannot currently release its entire codebase for OS X Server under an Open Source, Free, or Copyleft license currently. Most notably, it doesn't own Display PostScript, upon which the Yellow Box APIs (the interesting bits of OS X Server) are predicated. It is reported that. Other technologies that it has licensed are surely more common than I could recount, but, very significantly, all modern QuickTime codecs and all of the ColorSync color management modules are licensed code. In short, the Yellow Box doesn't work (currently) if you remove the licesnsed technologies.
Of the first three criticsms, as to why the APSL is not a Free software license, I agree with Stallman except on the third item, which is that the APSL can terminate at any time. The GPL provides a similar termination clause. The APSL shifts responsibility for patent infringement, however, from the individual to a particular Apple Computer, Inc. Whether or not this is agreeable is another individual decision, but the reasoning is sound--Apple cannot be sued for releasing code that infringes upon patents. Now, if it falls under a suit, it has a method to clear itself of infringement that does not involve broach of contract (that contract being the APSL, if it were not to include a similar termination clause). I believe it's clear from the license that Apple would make a good faith effort to clear the infringement, and it's also worth noting that only the code directly in infringement is affected.
The reason that this clause really becomes necessary, though, is that this software was not born and bred GPL. It's been extensively modified for more than a decade by both NeXT and Apple. If there is an intellectual propery violation in the code, the responsibility for that violation is not with the entire community (which is where the GPL places it), but instead with the entity which developed the original code that was released to the public, Apple; the company must protect itself from liability by allowing itself to back out of patent infringements gracefully.
In short, Stallman's idealism is incompatable with the corporate interests of Apple as well as the nature of the development of the code that is being released. This is why the GPL and the APSL are incompatable; they were written by seperate groups which have seperate goals.
RMS is right (Score:1)
And, yes, who the hell cares if they can see the source if they still aren't free to use it?
no cost != free software != copyleft (Score:1)
"if we take the very same tradition, the same people, and the same free-software licenses and change the label to ``open source'' - that, they'll buy."
What they disagree about is how to advertise it.
A fairly good, short definition of what FSF means by "free software" is the Debian free software guidelines [debian.org]For more detail see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categorie s.html [gnu.org] and the rest of www.gnu.org/philosophy/ [gnu.org]
APL only there to give Apple publicity!! (Score:1)
Apparently the new apple code released under the APL is limited to some low-level networking code for Macs. Now, if I remember correctly there have been independently developed versions of this for a while.
Frankly, I don't think Apple did this because they were either interested in contributing something, or to even implement OpenSource in a way were they get bug-fixes from the community. Who's going to mess around with irrelevant unnecessary, and useless (by the license, and by the existance of similar) code?.
This is not any kind of honest contribution, the only reason Apple did this was to get some publicity.
--fred
The community value (Score:2)
Besides all the semantical and legal issues, the key reason to oppose the APSL is that it exploits rather than contributes. Open source, free software, whatever you want to call it, works not because of some radical Maoist theory, but because the more one gives the more one gets. Pure and simple. The APSL and its ilk are zero sum games - Apple wins and you lose (even worse, if Apple loses, you lose even more).
The argument that working on the APSL will help those who use Apple hardware is spurious. LinuxPPC does just that and is truly free. It is also a better practical alternative, as it makes instantly available the huge and growing body of Linux compatible source code. The argument that working on APSL furthers the development of micro-kernel based OSes is even more spurious. AS RMS points out you can't incorporate Apple code freely into other products. Bettter to work on Hurd. In short, the only one who benefits by developers working on APSL is Apple.
As for criticism scaring away corporations from open source, I can only say big effing deal. Why are so many of you so insecure that you need the validation of a corporation to see the practical (if not the social) value in free software? Corporations that get it will learn to play by the rules and make a real contibution (that's why Netscape is good IMHO). A little flaming wont scare them away. Those who don't, well who needs them. Free software will continue to flourish and grow with or without these corporations. Those who buy into the model will flourish along with it. Those who want to toady up with the capitalist free-roaders should buy and use NT.
Flame Disclaimer:
For the humorless amongst you who probably wont get it, all references to "capitalists" and "socialists" in the above, was written using mild irony.
You have it backwards (Score:3)
Most important however: customers don't want code - they want a solution to their problem. More and more people are beginning to realize this and understand they don't want to buy computers or software, but want to buy a system or service that gets done what they need done. Hence the market is demanding service not products.
It is for this reason that major corporations like Oracle and IBM are moving into the service model. True they did services in the past, but now both these companies are positioning themselves as 100% ecommerce service companies (IBM has a double reason to do this, since hardware is also becoming a commodity).
What does an inidividual programmer to do?
If you are not cut out to work directly with customers you have two alternatives:
If you like the corporate environment, go work for one of the many major corporations following this trend. More and more of them will be supporting and developing open source projects. Or else find partners who know how to relate to people.
If you believe you are good enough to develop your own products, and have basic social skills, then choose a niche, develop a solution for that niche and give the source away. Customers will pay you for access to that solution. You can charge using a rental model, where you deal with all the upgrades etc. so they dont have to.
In short, making the code free does not mean you can't make money off of your efforts. On the contrary, it offers you the many free software resources that allows you to compete without having billions to spend on R&D.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Corporate trend bandwagon at whose expense? (Score:1)
I'm waiting for the day when an individual open-source project has the kind of coordinated consistency, elegance, and simplicity of Apple's platform efforts.
To paraphrase what ESR said in his famous document [tuxedo.org], both central and distributed development models have their strength. And Apple has developed a cleaner and more elegant integrated solution, from the non-expert end-user's point of view, than any open source effort to date.
I use OpenBSD daily, and sometimes Linux (SPARC, MIPS, & PPC), and see the advantages of their openness. But these things are still a chaotic hodge-podge of inconsistency. Lots of people have contributed lots of good ideas to these projects. But each different idea from each separate contributor simply adds to the inconsistency and complexity of the entire platform.
In other words, Apple is trying to harness the advantages of open-source efforts, and still maintain the advantages of a clear consistent vision that has been the source of their strength in the past. Not only has this not been done before, but it is a very difficult compromise to get right.
RMS makes some valid and thoughtful comments from his point of view. I think in the long run, if we give them the chance, Apple and other proprietary industry players will get there. Somebody has to be the extremist in order to make the rest of us look more moderate; RMS does a great job of that. I think the tone of the comments from the major players mentioned in other posts (RMS, ESR, BP, etc.) have been thoughtful and responsible.
Apple is taking a radical risk from their, and from their shareholder's, point of view. You accuse them of attempting to make ...a quick buck off the naivete of a bunch of geeks. Though I don't believe that this is their intent, only time will tell.
As for whether you or anyone else contributes to Darwin, it all depends on whether you value the unique elegance of consistency and integration that Apple's design philosophy represents. I'm convinced there is enough of a community of people who do to make contributing to code licensed under APSL worthwhile.
uhh gee (Score:1)
Overall, I think that Apple's action is an example of the effects of the year-old "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to business with the purely materialistic goal of faster development, while putting aside the deeper issues of freedom, community, cooperation, and what kind of society we want to live in.
Wow, we live in the US, the heart of the capitalist world, and you even flinch at this? As much as I may love many of Apple's products, they are still a company with shareholders, and their primary purpose is to make money.
I can't say whether that's good or not, but that's how this country of ours works.
Thanks! (Score:1)
Thanks
Bruce
I'm so ashamed - NOT! (Score:1)
Thanks
Bruce
Vote for our Leaders? (Score:1)
Thanks
Bruce
Wait... (Score:2)
What we are objecting to is that the license purports to be Open Source, but slightly misses the mark in its current 1.0 version. If we continue to accept licenses that miss that mark slightly, this slippery slope will carry us to the point where "Open Source" is really just a new name for shareware with source.
Notice that RMS says something like "would that the APSL did not have the problems of the NPL", and he accepts that the NPL is a free software license even if he does not like it. He is not totally deprecating it.
Bruce
This has nothing to do with the APSL, though. (Score:2)
However, this has little to do with the fact that there are a few easily-addressed problems with the license. Getting Apple to fix that will certainly not diminish their vision!
Thanks
Bruce
Apple seems willing to address these objections (Score:3)
Notification is a problem. In general, you can take a Linux distribution and just hack it a bit and re-distribute it, as long as you distribute the source code with it. Notification is a bigger problem when it's part of 100 licenses rather than one. Then you have to find and notify 100 people before re-distributing. Or 1000. That's a good reason to keep it out of our licenses.
Bruce
Open Source means free software (Score:3)
Thanks
Bruce
Vote for our Leaders? (Score:2)
When they release the *full* source... (Score:2)
Slashdot Moderation Refutes Your Thesis (Score:2)
Moderators: why did the above comment get a -1? Was it inflammatory or obscene? I guess it must have been, since the combined wisdom of no less than two moderators has deemed it unacceptable.
A reasonable option in user preferences would be "ignore ratings from moderator X", along with moderation info for each upgraded or downgraded comment (that is, the ability to see which moderator changed any given comment's rating).
I'm so ashamed (I disagree) (Score:2)
This is the way the technical community operates - by definition it evaluates, and judges, the technical merits of each issue in purely technical terms*!
Apple failed to create a true open-source license. And they just got plastered for doing so. Does that mean if they come back in a week and post a "real" OSS license we'll still flame them? Nope. It'll be as if the issue never existed.
If this bothers you, go find another field to be in, because this one ain't touchy-feely, and we don't take anything but the facts into account.
--
your so ashamed -- I'm not. (Score:3)
Doing it poorly, and not getting the free part right isn't going to get them very far with the community. Get over the fact that anything that looks like an attempt to purely take advantage of us will be harshly treated. It happens, it is part of the community. Which is what this issue is all about, is it not?
ph43drus
PS RMS is my hero
I'm so ashamed - NOT! (Score:2)
Louis Pierce
Not self-appointed. (Score:2)
People like RMS, Linus, ESR, etc., are respected by a lot of people in the community, and that is how they maintain positions of leadership. "Leader" probably isn't the right word--they fill a role similar to village elders in older times. They've been around, they've done a lot, and people listen to them.
Where we all disagree is in how much respect we think they each deserve. This, though, is a good thing as it preserves diversity of opinion.
Democratic elections, on the other hand, suck rocks because then everything becomes political. Let people lead who earn the respect of the community, not those who sway voters. Please, let's not turn our happy anarchy into a miserable "democratic" nation state.
Corporate trend bandwagon at whose expense? (Score:2)
Just because Apple or whoever says the words "open source" in front of a bunch of reporters does not mean that it is a step forward for gnu/linux, or free software, or anything. It just means that here is another corporation hoping to do the most minimum they can to get the support of a huge grassroots movement.
I'm waiting for the day when we realize the power of free software is in the technical merits of what we produce, not in the acceptance of a bunch of corporate sharks who are intent only on making a quick buck off the naivete of a bunch of geeks.