Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

APSL Violating the OSD (Round 9) 157

Posted by CmdrTaco from the battle-rages-on dept.
nickm writes "Seth David Schoen of CalLUG fame has written an essay entitled The APSL and Export Controls. This goes beyond patent craziness and nit-picking about legal details but rather shows a direct violation of the OSD in that the APSL adds a bit of US law to the license (adding additional burdens for those outside the US). "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

APSL Violating the OSD (Round 9) More

APSL Violating the OSD (Round 9)

Comments Filter:
  • > Of course i may just be whining needlessly here,
    > but would it really be _too_ much trouble for
    > apple to give us some FTP access to the files
    > (a list of http links on a web page isn't the
    > most efficient way to download 30+ files)

    ftp://ftp.apple.com/devworld/macosxserver/Source s/

  • Export Controls (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As an EU citizen I am entitled to export software to the Cubans. In fact the EU has repeatedly stated that US action against non US companies exporting to Cuba will be regarded as an act of
    trade warfare (read 100% surcharge on all US
    products about a day later).

    Apple are obliged to follow US law. They are not obliged to lumber me with the stupidity of US law.

    Given the choice of using software that is free or crawling up the US govts cavernous backside I'll
    choose using free software

    The usage restrictions in the APSL go beyond the powers in US law, the export restriction is unneccesary and the termination clause should have everyone running to avoid Apple code.

    Sure most of this isnt Apple's fault. But quite a
    bit of it is.

    Apple are also being completely two faced about it. They provide Linux which has no "go away cubans" clause yet claim they cannot take that clause out of the APSL.

    Alan
  • You're literally correct, but your point is moot. True, a software license is not literally a copyright law. However, the only legal mechanism that forces people to respect software licensing terms is, you guessed it, copyright law.

    In most cases, copyright law is the only thing stopping me from copying, say, MS Windows or Lotus Notes. Only in rare cases (e.g. patent restrictions, export restrictions) is there some other thing that stops me from copying software.
  • Of course not, but the law exists and as a US corporation Apple is required to ensure that its products obey it, and it will probably be held responsible if someone breaks that law with their products. Yes, they're just covering their own ass, but that particular clause is just a repeat of a US law that would hold even if it wasn't written into the license.
  • So why quote Shakespeare? He wouldn't know the GPL if it bit him in the ass. Gibson may not be addicted to the net or even base his technology on reality, but that doesn't make his writing bad or any less relevant. The particular quote was very applicable here.
  • Posted by dirkx:

    While the OSD is a nice position paper, it is not something you can use as a legal paper. Depending
    on your country and which jurisdiction applies you
    are usually bound by laws and constitutions. Anything in these 'override' whatever you state in
    for example your licence.

    For US companies, US export laws applies. Now one could hide that fact, and rely on the implictness that they apply anyway. But what apple has done is
    more 'honest' so to say.

    So if you have issue; you will have to take up the
    issue not with apple, but with your legislation.

    Dw

  • (Score:1)

    by PHroD ( 1018 )
    altho it IS a clause that violates the OSD, the limitation is not on ALL foreign countries, but only those that the USA has embargos on etc. I have no idea what the ramifications are legally, but i REALLY wish Apple could clean up their APSL.

  • Re: (Score:1)

    by PHroD ( 1018 )
    nitpicker :P
  • In my book, good intentions count for something.

    Sorry to be so cold... but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Also, good intentions (IMHO) don't count for shit if you're working to misuse something like the term 'Open Source' strictly for weaseling your way into a new market.
  • As the linked article takes pains to point out, Apple's obligation to discriminate is not an obligation to force all licensees to perpetuate that discrimination. US law does not require you to copy then-current US law into your licenses.
  • Well, here we have it. Another definitive reason why almost unlimited access to proprietary software source code is not "open source."

    Apple now has two options to comply 100% with open source purists: they can 1) send Steve Jobs to prison for breaking export law and allow Apple to be fined out of existance by the Govt. or 2) Not release any source code so you can go back to griping about how nobody in the corporate community really takes Open Source seriously.

    The third option is to tell the lot of you to take your OSD and do something pysiologically impossible with it.

    It is very interesting to note that the Gnu/Lickers are almost entirely responsibe for the "backlash". Most of us *BSD types are ecstatic that we get a chance to see what Apple has done with Mach and BSD.

    I expect there will be a lot of cross-polination of ideas and fixes to nagging problems on both sides, and that both Apple and *BSD will prosper from the arrangement.

    I expect long-harried Mac/NeXT MIS staff and developers will be thrilled at a chance to hack away at their favorite system's foundations.

    I expect the Gnu/Lickers to continue sniveling about evil corporations, and spending countless hours trying to reverse engineer the Win/98 "look and feel" in another desktop enviroment and/or window manager.

    If the ASPL isn't open source, then Open Source is dead, strangled by those who loved it best. What is left isn't totally free software, but it -is- software that allows for more freedom than anyone had ever expected from a major corporation.

    So screw OSD. Screw Open Source (TM). Screw SIP. Screw FSF. Screw RMS, ESR, BP, and any other free-software swami I left off the list.

    WE DON'T NEED YOU ANYMORE.

    William Gibson wrote that "The street finds its own uses for things". We found our own use for open source, and if it is at odds with your narrow political agenda, then too fucking bad.
  • If the Open Source people are Stalanists, what does that make the Free Software people? Nazis?

    I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. This conversation is now over. One point goes to your opponent.
    --

  • Uninformed speculation is not helpful.
    -russ

  • If the US export laws are not written into the license, software that finds its way out of the US (for example, by being printed in a book and mailed -- very legal) can be used and distributed outside the US without being restricted by those laws. This is how PGP was legally exported from the United States without perpetuating the export restrictions present under US law.

    The same situation could apply to Free Software. Software is not free if discriminatory laws are written into the license. Furthermore, writing _any_ law into the license of a software packages risks prepetuating that law for the purposes of of the software in question even if the law is found invalid or gets repealed.

  • But from a realistic point of view - does this effect any of us? No.

    You wrongly assume all users of Free Software are in the US. The person you're replying to may very well be outside the US and thus affected unneccessarily by US laws written into the license. Writing laws into license agreements is unneccessary, often discriminatory, and can make otherwise Free Software non-free.

    ...but you miss the fact that the person in the US (the original exporter of the code) can still be held responsible if that code makes it's way to Iraq (or wherever).

    Are you a lawyer? Somehow I doubt a retailer could be held responsible for anything that was bought from them and then subsequently exported to an embargo'd nation. Ditto for Free Software developers. Any real lawyers or law students out there care to comment?

  • Your point is moor anyway: Apple is not a retailer. Apple is making the software available for export via its FTP servers. By the laws of the United States (laws to which Apple is subject, even if the user is not), Apple cannot allow the software to be exported into certain nations and must take every step that it can to ensure this.

    MIT handles this situation for PGP and other cryptographic software by requiring users to complete and online affidavit before they can dowload the software. It is not neccessary to write the export restrictions into the software license, since they do not neccessarily apply to everyone. In particular, restrictions resulting from US export laws do not affect people outside the US who have rekeyed Apple's source code from printed books.

    I seriously doubt MIT would be responsible if someone subsequently exported PGP in electronic form -- a highly prestigious school like MIT would not open itself to such liability if they knew it existed. Since a school with as much money as MIT has access to some of the finest lawyers, I doubt there is any liability that they are not aware of.

    It probably didn't need to reiterate the law in its license, no. But the fact remains: it holds true. It also holds true for every software license for software written by someone subject to US law, even the GPL.

    These restrictions are not part of the software license unless they are explicitly written there. MIT writes export restrictions into the license in a way that prevents it from applying outside of the US. While MIT's method is not optimal, it's better than Apple's method of requiring assurances to enfoce US law even outside of the US.

    If I print out my cryptographic source code and snail-mail it to Germany, US crypto laws no longer apply to that copy unless it's imported back into the US.

  • CodeWarrior includes a MacOS-hosted OSX compiler, if I'm not mistaken. It is possible to compile it that way. Since OSX uses HFS+ it can even be transferred to an OSX drive via that same Mac.

    You still have to tinker with Open Firmware to get it to boot, of course, but that's another story.
  • Are you a lawyer? Somehow I doubt a retailer could be held responsible for anything that was bought from them and then subsequently exported to an embargo'd nation. Ditto for Free Software developers. Any real lawyers or law students out there care to comment?

    Your point is moor anyway: Apple is not a retailer. Apple is making the software available for export via its FTP servers. By the laws of the United States (laws to which Apple is subject, even if the user is not), Apple cannot allow the software to be exported into certain nations and must take every step that it can to ensure this. It probably didn't need to reiterate the law in its license, no. But the fact remains: it holds true. It also holds true for every software license for software written by someone subject to US law, even the GPL.
  • Three, because those of you who claim to be running fully-Open-Source systems actually aren't.

    Because I'm willing to bet that every single person who reads this message uses at least one piece of software which was written/is maintained by someone subject to United States laws. They are forced by the law to discriminate and therefore violate the OSD, Debian Free Software guidelines, or whatever definition you may use.

    At least, this is the case if Apple's license does in fact violate the OSD. If it doesn't, and no other license is said to violate it because the original author has no choice but to respect the law, then it doesn't violate the OSD at all.

    By the way, I am no fan of US export laws. They are for the most part idiotic, paranoid, and harmful to both US and foreign businesses. But the law is the law, and even if you figt to change it, you've got to follow it to the letter until it's changed.

  • Hold it! (Score:4)

    by Millennium ( 2451 ) on Friday March 26, 1999 @04:07PM (#1960764)
    This cannot be considered a violation of the OSD. Let me explain why:

    You see, Apple is a US-based company, and therefore is subject to the laws of the United States. Because of this, it cannot export software into those countries, nor can it allow the software to be exported there. This goes for every entity subject to US law, I might add. Therefore, Apple is doing nothing more than reiterating the laws to which it is subject (which is in fact necessary or it would be allowing the software to be exported into those countries and therefore breaking the law).

    Now, let me state something here: this law does in fact affect all licenses for software written by US suthors. Therefore, if Apple is violating the OSD, so is every single piece of Open-Source software written by US authors, including the Linux kernel (or at least all versions written since Linus moved to the US), at least two of the *BSD's, and every single thing RMS, ESR, and Bruce Perens have ever written.

    For that matter, KDE and Gnome both violate the OSD. In an ironic twist, GTK does but Qt does not (it's not done by US authors, though some add-on widgets might be). Netscape and Mozilla do too.

    This is rather unfortunate for two three reasons. One, because the OSD does not take into account the laws of the land in which the software is written. Two, because US export law sucks. Three, because those of you who claim to be running fully-Open-Source systems actually aren't.

    My proposal: either amend the OSD so that the law can be taken into account, or renew the fight to change US export law. Both should be done, actually (the first as a temporary measure until the second can be done). The only other option is to move all Open-Source projects overseas.

    By the way, when I mean "written by a US author" I mean "maintained by a US author"; the maintainer would be considered to be the primary author and therefore (probably) the one responsible under US law.
  • I can explain, in a very few words, why writing export restrictions into a license does indeed violate the discrimination clause of the OSD.
    • People who are not US citizens are subject to the software license (through international copyright laws), but they are not subject to US law. By adding provisions of US law into the software license, international developers are subject to US laws that do not otherwise apply to them.
    • Contrary to what you might expect, US export restrictions do NOT automatically mean there is no legal way to transmit the software to international developers. For instance, PGP is subject to cryptography export laws, yet it was legally transmitted to the outside world through export in book form. If the PGP license had restated US export restrictions, then PGP International [pgpi.com] would not be able to distribute PGP today! The reason is simple: PGP International is not subject to US export law, but they are subject to international copyright law.
    Your post blindly asserts that all software written in the US is subject to US export law, which is wrong. Only US residents are subject to US export law. International developers have absolutely no exposure to US export law.
  • I posted the gist of this comment already up above. It is relevant here, so I'll post it again.

    You apparently think that writing US export law into a license doesn't add any more restrictions to the software than US export law already imposes. This thinking is simple-minded and wrong. It assumes that US export law applies universally, when in fact it doesn't, and it assumes that US export law is logically written, when in fact it isn't.

    • People who are not US citizens are subject to the software license (through international copyright laws), but they are not subject to US law. By adding provisions of US law into the software license, international developers are subject to US laws that do not otherwise apply to them.
    • Contrary to what you might expect, US export restrictions do NOT automatically mean there is no legal way to transmit the software to international developers. For instance, PGP is subject to cryptography export laws, yet it was legally transmitted to the outside world through export in book form. If the PGP license had restated US export restrictions, then PGP International [pgpi.com] would not be able to distribute PGP today! The reason is simple: PGP International is not subject to US export law, but they are subject to international copyright law.
    Your post blindly supposes that software written in the US is subject to US export law, which is wrong. Only US residents are exposed to US export law. International developers have absolutely no exposure to US export law, no matter where they obtained the software or how they got it.
  • This is stating the obvious here, but there is a relationship between copyright law and software licenses. Let me state it precisely.

    When I buy MS Windows, copyright law by default prohibits me from copying the software. If I want to copy the software (for example, by installing Windows) I need to obtain permission from Microsoft. The only way I can obtain permission to copy from Microsoft is to accept their software license, along with whatever it says (for instance, the license might require that I not decompile the software).

    So you see that copyright law has everything to do with software licensing. The only reason most people agree to licenses to begin with is that if they do not agree to the license, they may not copy the software (because of copyright law). Nobody would agree to a Microsoft license just for the hell of it. They agree to the license because otherwise they cannot copy the software at all.

    That, in a nutshell, is the reason why respecting copyright law requires that you respect software licenses as well.

  • It's a mistake to embed bad law in your license, because the bad law still applies even if it is not in your license.

    This one is difficult to understand, though, because there doesn't seem to be encryption involved, and it would be silly to consider the operating system a "munition" of itself.

    Probably just an excess of CYA.

    Bruce

  • Apple is still sincerely listening to discussion. I think they need some time to continue doing that. I expect they will do some re-wording of the APSL, but I don't know how much.

    Eric Raymond is at the moment still SPI's designated manager of the Open Source trademark. I am not party to SPI's future plans regarding that, but I'd bet on some sort of change eventually. Note that the OSI board made the right decision to not designate the Bitmover license as "Open Source", which was good to see. I wish they'd handled the APSL as carefully.

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • No, they don't have control. He can export his crypto wares very easily. He just can't do it legally, and will therefore have trouble making money off the transaction. A software company in, say, Iceland, is therefore in a better position to compete than he is. The point he's making is that the export controls do not make it significantly harder for an embargoed country to get the software. Contrast that with export restrictions on, say, mortar rounds or land mines, and the distinction should be quite clear.
    --
  • If someone says a licence is an Open Source license and it isn't, then that is inappropriate, don't you agree?
    --
  • It would affect any developer outside the US who wanted to give the software to someone else, who happenned to be on the US "bad" list at the time.
  • The only reason that the GPL is so successful is that it ensures freedoms, and the one restriction is enforceable (if someone decides to add new restrictions, then someone can always hunt down the original author, theoretically).

    The reason the GPL is successfull is that somebody has managed to convince people that it serves some purpose beyond killing commercial software. There are very, very few circumstances where it can do this. A useful excercise is to try to work out the exact conditions that will result in more free software due to the GPLedness of software. The clue here is to remember that people do not do development of source bases irrespective of the licenses the source bases are under, and that a company will only do something if it is good for the bottom line (or it has charitable employees).

    Eivind.

  • Good god, someone finally said it. Thank you, thank you.

    This whole open source 'movement' has gotten out of hand. It has turned from a nifty way to produce and distribute software into some sort of religious jihad. Anyone who falls into step with the goosestepping open source heroes is fine, but if you stray from The Light even by a few degrees, you are instantly branded as an Evil Capitalistic Baby Butcherer (R) and are suddenly compared to Microsoft or Bill Gates.

    ...And the rhetoric keeps flowing.

    C'mon, people, is this an example of this 'freedom' you keep talking about? Mac and BeOS dev's seem to get along with their fellow developers quite nicely - whereas in the Linux community, there's so much infighting it's no mystery that it has the reputation it does. So many people bicker endlessly about whatever involvement a commercial entity (ie. Apple) has with their precious community. Heaven forbid someone doesn't want to give away their entire product line, or if they want to make a *gasp* profit.

    Yeah, Apple has its cloudy history, but don't put them on the same slippery slope that says that all corporate entities are identical to Microsoft.

    I prefer a freedom where anyone can do anything they want with their own code, without stepping all over someone else's. Think the APSL is stupid? That's fine - it's your option not to use it. I for one am looking forward to the day when the hottest devs out there can help out with Apple's product line, and people such as myself can tinker with it when desired.

    This religious dogma is very unbecoming. I purposefully have avoided the 'Microsoft platform' specifically to avoid this kind of thing. It's ironic that the 'open source' platform has so many shocking similarities...

    I thoroughly expect this to be an interesting experiment in moderation. Let's see where my score ends up... Negative numbers, anyone?


    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
  • Schoen seems to be making a pretty thin argument here--that Apple is violating the Open Source spec by requiring that exporters of its software abide by US law.

    Personally, I'm not much of a fan of either our bizarre software export restrictions or of the rather strange series of countries we seem to hate. Cuba???

    But Schoen is probably wrong to say that by incorporating US law (however stupid that law may be)into its license, Apple is violating open source rules.

    US companies have to abide by US law. And like it or not, that's what Apple is doing here. If abiding by US law precludes companies from participating, Schoen and the rest of the Open Source Stalinists should probably move to Russia. Or wherever.

    More importantly, Schoen et. al. ought to realize that the neat thing about open source is that it CAN withstand a bunch of big, evil corportations wading in. That's fundamental to the whole thing.

    And who knows, mac-heads might even end up with a better operating system to boot. Protected memory on that new iMac anyone?

  • So what if for example Microsoft gave you for free all development tools, you made some new ICQ and at the end of the day it will appear that you got no rights whatsoever to distribute your work???

    The whole point of licenses in my view is to clarify what will happen when, to secure developer in this case, to ensure that hard work will be rewarded (in either money, fame or even both).

    Just think, you can download anything pirated, but without rights, clearly written down you got nothing but to be doomed to stuck with all that software on your computer, trying not to show anyone that you've got it, fearing legal action.

    Most importantly, since APSL is not just license for one or two products, but instead it's intended to become a COMMON BASE for many programs, it's important as hell to make it legally bug-free.
    Errors in it will doom whole bunch of develpers, few of whom can protect themselves with highly paid lawyers in case if APSL didn't clarify something right.




    AtW,
    http://www.investigatio.com [investigatio.com]
  • No, what the author is trying to say is that the software is *already* coverend under US export law, due to it's being written in the US. However, that doesn't mean that complience with those laws needs to be a term of the license agreement.
    It's as unnecessary as putting a clause in the GPL restricting users from beating someone to death with the manual!
  • I think a big thing that everyone has been missing throught all of this is that Apple is already an established corperation. Think about it. They have to make money. They have to sell something make money. They have to keep their shareholders happy. They have to abide by the law and sell stuff to keep them happy. They have to comply with the goverment. Its much easier to start off as a entity that does Open Source. The ideology of open source sees to not want a goverment or goverment intervention. Going backwards has so many hurdles, that Apple even attempted it is truly amazing. Think of the logistics, look at Apples attitude to change, then if you still feel you can blast Apple for their attempt, more power to you.

  • Does anyone know what's going on "behind the scenes" in regard to this whole controversy? Is Eric Raymond still working with Apple to modify the controversial aspects of the license? Is Apple even considering modifying the controversial aspects of the license? Has anyone been listening to Richard Stallman in regards to this? His accusation that the APSL is "incompatible with the GNU GPL" is pretty damning. What's the OSI doing in regards to this? The SPI?

    Doesn't the whole "Open Source" trademark dispute throw rather a pall on this whole thing? According to what I've read (if I understand it correctly) no one at the OSI has the right to officially declare anything Open Source because the SPI continues to be in control of the trademark in spite of the fact that the OSI claims, on the front page of their web site, that they control it.

    I'm new to the whole open source/free software movement, what having set up my linux box only 5 or 6 weeks ago. I have, however, been doing my best to try to understand the philosophies, ideologies, politics, and history of the movement. I really do want to understand, but this APSL fiasco ("fiasco" might be too strong a word) has really got me confused.

    If anyone cares to explain (Bruce? Eric?), I'm more than happy to listen, and it would be very much appreciated.

    - deb (off to buy Open Sources now)
  • Thanks for the response Bruce. It's reassuring to know that Apple is still working on this whole thing...it would have been easy enough for them to grab the "open source" label, slap it on their license, then just ignore the ensuing chaos (well...at least until someone legally contested their use of the trademark, if that ever happened).

    I think that Apple is sincere about all of this. I don't think that it's just a matter of them trying to take advantage of the growing Open Source hype to further their own ends. Sure, that's part of it, but it can't be the whole story.

    It's exciting to see the community rise up and do such a rigorous 'peer review' of the APSL...it is, after all, what has made the Open Source thing so great. It's also exciting to see such a major player as Apple revise their thinking like this and actually have the guts to actually give this a try. Sure, they have some corporate interests that must be served...they are accountable to their shareholders after all...and it shouldn't surprise us if they try to leave themselves a backdoor escape route in case this experiment comes crashing down around their ears. It would be massively irresponisble of them to do otherwise, really.

    It's up to us ("us" being a pretty loose and all encompassing term referring to the OSS movement as a whole) to help make sure that the Apple Open Source Experiment (AOSE :) is a success. No, this doesn't mean just kowtowing to the wishes and commands of a host of corporate drones (ew...that's quite a visual). It would be irresposible of us to do so, even if we were able.

    What we can do to ensure that the AOSE is successful is to voice our concerns in a calm and rational and yet persistent manner. No one wants to come play in the sandbox if they end up getting kicked and bloodied every time they show up. But if we calmly and rationally work with them until they understand the rules we play by, and if they're willing to change how they work so their goals are not incompatible with our own, then we could very well end up with a major ally in this ongoing drive towards a world of free and open software.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is this: in a just society, people are innocent until proven guilty. Apple, however, is in many ways being treated like a criminal in spite of the fact that their "guilt" has yet to be determined. That's not doing anyone any good.

    Oh, and thanks for clearing up the SPI/Raymond trademark control thing. That really had my brain in a knot for a while.

    - deb
  • Please forgive me if this is a wrong or stupid observation.

    It is not illegal to import certain software into the US, but it is illegal to then export that same software back out of the US, right?

    To access a European site from my location in Australia, the packets pass through networks located in the US. So, to download software from a European site, I must first "import" it into the US and then "export" it to Australia.

    Do you think the US government could or would ever do something about this?
  • Hey...the thing to focus on here is that apple is TRYING to support open source. If there are issues we'd like resoved in their license, we should help them draft a new version, rather than just bitch about it. That's what we're about, isn't it...helping each other???
  • Would anyone hazard a guess on how many developers this is likely to affect?

  • I agree with mr. fly's points, except

    And who knows, mac-heads might even end up with a better operating system to boot. Protected memory on that new iMac anyone?

    ...Darwin, aka the lowest-level parts of Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server, aka OpenStep for PowerPC, aka BSD 4.4 on a Mach kernel, already has protected memory. It's pretty thoroughly buzzword-compliant.

    Not to say Apple and Mac users don't stand to benefit from availability of Darwin's source, but improvements will be incremental -- it's already modern by any definition.

    bumppo

  • Two points:

    Apple has always had offensive business practices, and this little PR move to stem the flood of development rushing away from their platform doesn't change that.

    It's not as simple as a PR move. OS X Server depends on code protected by the GPL, among other licenses. The company is legally bound to release its changes. They could have done so all but silently; instead they chose to make it a public commitment, and to open-source far more than they had to (e.g, the decade of changes made to Mach since NeXT got off the ground).

    If they were interested in the values or real benefits of any "openness" they wouldn't have killed Rhapsody on x86. (Which rocked as beta 1)

    It rocks as a final product, too. It just happens to rock on the cool blue and white '99 G3.

    Take a look at Apple's published statements to the SEC, and examine how much of Apple's revenue comes from software, vs how much comes from hardware. Jobs' decision to eliminate clone licenses was a hard call, but it was a business decision based on Apple's inability to continue to pay its engineers if it became a software company.

    If its flagship products ran on commodity Intel hardware, Apple would become a software company, as most of its revenues would go away. Then it would either become a bankrupt company, or a division of AOL.

    I don't think the doctrine of "openness" serves anyone if causes its proponents to go bankrupt.

    bumppo

  • Export restrictions in the US (Score:3)

    by Taral ( 16888 ) on Friday March 26, 1999 @04:05PM (#1960786) Homepage
    This is yet another example of the US export restrictions causing problems with software. The whole idea of software as some kind of material object which can be restricted by laws is entirely out of date.

    I have to deal with this problem daily in my work with encryption, since the export restrictions are even tighter for software of that type. And it is wholly absurd to me that the only thing keeping me from releasing my software is a bunch of short-sighted legislators who are too afraid to acknowledge that they have lost control.

    I find it equally hard to believe that companies are still, after all this hubbub about open source licensing, relying on the license to protect their collective butts. The only reason that the GPL is so successful is that it ensures freedoms, and the one restriction is enforceable (if someone decides to add new restrictions, then someone can always hunt down the original author, theoretically). Companies persist in thinking that they can get away with mixing old licensing restrictions with new open source licenses.

    It doesn't work.
  • It is moderately amusing to see Gibson cited as relevant to anything technical. He is a technophobe opportunist whose writings have nothing to do with reality, past, present, or future, and even less relevance to the issues surrounding Open Source.
  • Shakespeare didn't make an opportunistic living writing of things about which he was ignorant.

  • good arguments on a serious matter... (Score:3)

    by wmeyer ( 17620 ) on Friday March 26, 1999 @04:29PM (#1960789)
    Not being an attorney, I cannot claim competence to comment on the technicalities of law, but the case as presented is as valid and as real as any other discrimination case I have ever heard. As ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violation of that law, it would not seem necessary for a licensor to restate existing law in a license agreement.

    Neither, as has been stated, is it the responsibility or right of a licensor to self-deputize for the enforcement of local law. And, folks, U.S. law is local law, in the context of the planet.

    U.S. policy on encryption has already damaged U.S. business, and it cannot be demonstrated to have increased U.S. security. It's past time for the U.S. to develop an intelligent foreign policy (of which export laws are a component). Meantime, licenses should reflect the valid concerns of the licensor, and not of the home country of that licensor.

    As to the ultimate bottom line: If Apple chooses to word an agreement in any particular way, that is a business decision appropriate for them to make. But if it leaves them non-compliant with the terms of the OSD, then they need to stop co-opting that jargon. And after all, it is difficult to make the case that they have written the APSL for any reason but to jump on the Open Source bandwagon.

    Just as cheap a tactic as their claim to have invented the personal computer.... I'm old enough to know better.
  • My guess is that apple is covering their butts on this one. The US government is a bit nuts about software exports, as we all know. Cryptography in particular, but exporting anything to, say, Cuba, would bring them down on apple like a ton of bricks. Apple can't control where all their downloads go so the have to transfer responsibility to the user. The government would kick their ass whether the section was there or not. This just means a mild tap, rather than a severe boot.
  • AFAIK, US export law does not require embedding itself in your license.

  • The license is fine, it just doesn't meet OS criteria. Since it does not, Apple claiming it does weakens the OSD trademark, making things more confusing than they need to be.

  • They should say nothing about the law. Not including some law in your license doesn't exclude the user from abiding it. Including some law in your license OTOH, extends the jurisdiction of that law to places where there was no previous jurisdiction.


    If you think this is boring, filter it away in your preferences. I don't think it is.


    Cheers,

    Rob

  • Despite the inflammatory nature (screw *.OS) , I found that this actually made me think about some things I hadn't before. Isn't that the idea? Got a point off for indelicately missing the party line?

    Can't wait to try *.BSD, and BE, etc.

    move to new place, get more boxen.

    John
  • > Can we just say the APSL is crap and Not Good Enough(tm) for the Open Source community?

    No. The APSL allows for access to some Apple Source code, and permission to modify it. I like that; it means a chance to fix bugs (something I probably won't do, but other people will) which means a more stable, better OS. Period.

    If you want to debate the merits of the APSL as it relates to Open Source, feel free to do so, but please keep the distinction clear.

    Most of the posts I've read about the APSL are bitching about all sorts of problems and coming up with the conclusion that the APSL sucks rocks. It might not meet various qualifications, etc, but it _still_ provides source, and will give _me_ a more stable (even just a little) OS as a result. (This is assuming that I ever get a chance to use MacOS X Server)
  • > Apple are also being completely two faced about it. They provide Linux which has no "go away cubans" clause yet claim they cannot take that clause out of the APSL.

    Could you point me to where that information resides? All I've heard so far is that the APSL has this clause; where did you hear that they "claim they cannot take that clause out"?

    I talked with Seth (name-dropping etc etc)about it, because I was annoyed that he had not presented it to Apple before making this document, and he told me that he had in fact mailed Apple about it a week ago, and received no response. That doesn't, however, mean that they say they can't remove that clause.

    Again, don't post a comment unless it adds new information, and please be sure of your facts (presenting links to evidence when necessary/if available.
  • I personally do not condemn Apple for re-interating U.S. export law in their licence.

    Some expert in both U.S. export law and knowable about licensing should explain whether it might be necessary for Apple to have export restrictions in the license, or whether it might be sufficient to restrict distribution via some Web form (or some other mechanism).

    There is one additional point: anyone exporting anything from the U.S. must comply with U.S. law, including the restriction to re-export the product to any country on the list of banned countries. From a practical standpoint, Apple only formalizes the recipients obligiation to U.S. law in the license (as opposed to having the recipient to "sign" a seperate contract). So your rights under this license are not any worse as they would be anyway. Nonetheless, Apple would be doing many people a favour if they only included restrictions in the license which are neccessary by law.

  • Freedom is about making choices, and if someone down the line decides to break the law it is his choice, and responsibility to do so, and not yours, and any license that prohibits thise choice cannot be about freedom, and cannot therefore be open source in the terms most people understand it, and in which OSD defines it.

    If someone is "free" to break export laws, they are certainly "free" to break a licensing agreement. Your argument is about as logical as thinking someone who is about to murder someone is going to worry that his firearm isn't registered.
  • People who are not US citizens are subject to the software license (through international copyright laws), but they are not subject to US law.

    Software licenses and copright laws are two separate things.
  • I don't really see how this helps anyone, since the only thing apple is releasing is the source to the mach kernal, some BSD stuff and the apache webserver.

    It's enough to build a fully operational web/file/email/ftp/dns server.

    As soon as someone modifies the kernal to support nubus I'll be able to install it on my 8100 (which I hope to have upgraded with a G3 by then).

    What it doesn't do is help Linux hackers clone the MacOS--which is what is prompting most of the Apple bashing this time around, IMNSHO.
  • MD: Software licenses and copright laws are two separate things.
    ---
    AC: You're literally correct, but your point is moot. True, a software license is not literally a copyright law. However, the only legal mechanism that forces people to respect software licensing terms is, you guessed it, copyright law.

    Coyright law has nothing to do with software licencing. True, copyright law comes into effect if you pirate some software--but that has nothing to do with the licence.

    For example, MS's licence includes a prohibition on decompiling the software, copyright law has nothing to do with this, if MS wanted to "nail" you for decompiling their code they would have to proceed through civil court on a licensing violation. The Burne Convention would have no impact.

    The only thing about a license that applies under copyright is if the license grants you rights you otherwise wouldn't have.
  • Mmmm.... Sure, you or Apple can't export software to Cuba, for instance, without being smacked hard by "the proper authority".

    However, if I get GPL'd software from you (a rather simple USA->France, or actually, USA->EU/Schengen export. There aren't any bananas in your software, are they ?), I break no law (you have the right to export any software to me, barring your stupid encryption ban [*]). Then, if without your knoweldge, I re-export this stuff straight to Cuba, this is none of your business, and none of your government's. And AFAIK, I won't have violated a fed.. oops, Brussels law (I might be in serious trouble if for instance you s/Cuba/Iraq/g, because of the UN resolutions, of course).

    Naturally, your law specifically forbides you to use me as a middleman to sell your stuff in Cuba, but Seth points out that as long as you don't control me, and I don't tell you in advance I'll make you breach your law, you aren't going to breach it.

    IMHO, you should read the GPL (or any other OSD license) as a source code. You have to compile it with your local compiler (the body of laws governing the place where you are) in order to execute it locally (know what set of rules you must abide to). Now, the GPL asks you to pass on the source code[**] along with the binary (if I request so). If your runtime execution environment allows you to pass software to me, I now have a copy of my own of the binaries, the source, and of course, the license. Now the stuff is outside your runtime environment (the USA), I might not trust your compiler (governement) and recompile the GPL with the compiler I have access to locally (EU+French laws). (actually, I have to. I can't suddenly decide to apply here the US or Kenyan or Vaticanese law just because I decide they better suit my needs). Now, if my runtime environment doesn't segfault if I re-export the software to somewhere yours does, this is not your problem.[***]

    Three, because those of you who claim to be running fully-Open-Source systems actually aren't.
    Could you please elaborate on this ? Why would the copy of GPL RedHat I run currently not be fully-Libre ? What would I have to think about Mandrake/Bero (GPL, RedHat derived, but maintained on both sides of the Rhine), Debian ? *BSD ?

    -- Cyrille

    [*] French cryptography laws, although in the process of being de-moronised, are still more stupid than the US ones. At least rumour is that the decree lifting the maximum key size to 128-bit passed this week. And anyway, we're all subject to the United States-imposed Wassenaar "Iron Curtail" Agreement :-(

    [**] The analogy between the GPL itself and source code unfortunately ends here : I can obviously not modify it and still apply it to code you (or others) wrote before. Unless of course I'm the FSF, which I'm not :-)

    [***] In fact, I've gone probably a bit too far. Okay, let's say the GPL is p-code and we have two runtime environments claiming to be more or less compatible, and which actually aren't better than more-or-less compatible. Oh, well, it's way too late this evening [evil grin]

  • I hadn't noticed this section before... For once, I think I'll most likely agree with all of you. This is not good news at all. If Apple wants to get the full support of their community, a large part of which is international, they /need/ to get rid of that paragraph.

    I hope Apple sees that this is bad news, and does something about it. If they don't, they're going to kill over 50% of the market of people who /like/ Apple, let alone the rest of the world who doesn't like them to begin with.

    Maybe we should get some kind of a petition together here, folks. What do the rest of you think? Start mailing Apple about this?
    --
    Matthew Walker
    My DNA is Y2K compliant
  • I should have read Millennium's comments first. Can anyone else confirm what he said, that they are required by law to put that paragraph in?

    If someone could please confirm that...
    --
    Matthew Walker
    My DNA is Y2K compliant

  • Okay, let me see if i understand this right. The whole point of Open Source is to expose ideas to the greatest possible knowledge base, right? I mean, who cares if I'm going to use an Apple based system or not. What if Apple had a Good Idea(tm) somewhere in their software? What if someone else running on another platform has a Good Idea(tm) for Apple? Both scenarios benfit everyone, right?

    So yes, I agree with the article. Yes, the US government has some weird ideas about restricting knowledge, we know that. But doesn't the US government also have some notion of what freedom of expression is? Maybe somewhere along the line I misunderstood it, but I thought that US law garrantees freedom of expression and freedom of choice.

    Silly me for thinking that that would include the freedom to share ones ideas.

    APSL is close, but still not even in the same time zone...

    --Quiet rantings from the Great White North

  • If the Open Source people are Stalanists, what does that make the Free Software people? Nazis?

    There's a fundamental point you seem to be missing here. US companies must abide by US law, but those in other countries don't. "Open Source" is a philosophical movement as much as it is a trade name, and is hardly confined to US borders. It is possible for US law to conflict with the Open Source definition, and that does not automatically invalidate the definition.

    What I want to know is whether or not that provision in the license is dictated by our laws, or if it is just Apple going to extreme lengths to cover it's butt. It seems absurd that we require all importers of US goods to abide by our trade restrictions. I mean, how do you stop someone from selling bread made from American wheat to redidents in Cuba or Libya? Are there shrink wrap licenses on every bag of Colonial we ship to other countries? :) And if there were such a thing, how the hell do those buearocrats think they can enforce it?
  • If someone is willing to break the law, then they probably wouldn't have a problem breaching the license, either.
  • Please delete/moderate this inflammatory and offensive post into the oblivion it deserves.
  • This appears to be nothing but extreme nit-picking by open source zealots. What is Apple to do? Say US Laws do not apply? Should the open-source 'certification' be denied to them for this reason?

    This is all very interesting... to those who are completely ungulfed in the OSS lifestyle (tell Eric Raymond I said 'hi')... but for the rest of us... this is B-O-R-I-N-G.

    Apple isn't doing anything that is inappropriate.
  • > No no no..Then opensource will become
    > as bastardized as the word "free" here
    > in the US. "Free" means nothing today.

    Then TRADEMARK "open source" or come up with a new moniker and license it out to people who can run the treadmill. I would think that the Open Source
    movement is in trouble if anyone could claim they've got something that is "open source", and dilute the meaning of the term.
  • I'm not sure if someone in Pakistan giving the software to Bin Laden would be "good", but the license prohibits this, and the OSD requires the license to allow this. Even if it said "if you are a Resident of the United States" that would still be discriminatory even though it would have no effect!

    So much for my claims that it is Open Source. Using U.S. FTP sites I see this so much I take it for granted.

    Can we just say the APSL is crap and Not Good Enough(tm) for the Open Source community?
  • Apple is clearly abusing the Open Source name by calling the APSL Open Source when it clearly violates the spirit of Open Source. Before this you could make a case that the APSL followed the letter of the Open Source Definition. Now, however, the author points out that Cubans are discriminated against by the license itself, making the APSL fail even the letter of the current form of the license!

    I'm not sure that it is legal to export the software to Germany (assuming they don't have an embargo), modify it, then export that software to Cuba, but the license would prohibit this regardless.

    It would be interesting to see Eric Raymond's response to this, as he is the one who claims that the APSL is Open Source. But why dump on Apple? Simple, if they make a mockery of Open Source (and they are, as their license contains so many conditions, you might as well be another employee of Apple), then other companies will surely try the same shennanigans, or worse!

    If they didn't call it Open Source, then I would have absolutely no problem with it. But it's the abuse of the name that gets me fired up.
  • Allowing licences that exclude distribution to specific countries as Open Source is a bad precedent to set.

    Potentially this could mean accepting licences that exclude significant nations (and any country is significant to the people that live there).

    If a Ruritanian student writes a program today, with a clause restricting distribution to countries that Ruritania has on its embargo list, then 10 years down the road that program may have been built on by thousands of people, possibly relied upon by millions. If at that point Ruritania fell out with (Finland / United Kingdom / USA / France / or whatever country you feel matters) and added them to their embargo list then this could mean that the licences for all derivatives of that original program were prohibited from being distributed to a significant part of the community.

    I don't think that making an exception because it's a big company or because it's America's embargo list is a good idea. Licences with these types of restrictions should not be considered Open Source.
  • According to Rupert Battcock of Nabarro Nathanson lawyers, who specialises in intellectual property rights, the GPL and other open source licences would not protect someone from being sued in the UK if the software they have "provided" causes problems. IE - the fact that software is "provided without warranty" simply wouldn't wash with the UK judiciary. This means that organisations who want to use or recommend open source software for their clients would have to tread very carefully indeed. Rupert Battcock gave this talk at the "The Alternative Highway" a seminar delivered by the UKUUG in London last Tuesday, at which RMS also did his thing.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda

Close