APSL 1.1 Released 139
blaster writes "Apple has released version 1.1 of the APSL which has revisions to the notification and termination clauses. " Can we sic debian-legal on it? Hopefully, Apple has addressed all the concerns of
the community, but I am no lawyer, and that thing looks waaay too long.
This is the third Apple thread within 48 hours (Score:1)
Licensee's Patent Rights? (Score:1)
12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate:
(a) automatically without notice from Apple if You fail to comply with any term(s) of this License and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of such breach;
(b) immediately in the event of the circumstances described in Section 13.5(b); or
(c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple.
IT'S COPYLEFTED!!! (Score:2)
Section 6 only says you can charge for distribution and stuff like that, so once again, although a bit more ponderous than the GPL, this sucker is a step in the right direction. Glad to see something good come of all the bitching and moaning that was done, besides embarassing all the self-proclaimed leaders of the Free Software community.
Why do I care what Debian or the others think? (Score:2)
And it still isn't.
And...this is the best part...get this...there was a post in the original thread saying there wouldn't be a debate until the list of approved initials comment on it. That until BP or ESR or OSI or Debian tell folks what to think no one will know whether or not to love it or to hate it. And yet that's just what the repost says..."Hey, what does somebody else think of this?"
Without an "official" response from the approved list of "leaders" the discussion has been light, informative and intelligent.
I think there's a story in here about how sheep like many of the commentors here are. Without direction from above about how great or terrible this revised liscense is people are forced to think for themselves.
Well, I'm capable of making my own assessment. Thanks. Thinking for myself, coupled with context clues pretty much get me by. And here's what I've realized.
Linux/GNU and OpenSource and free software are about making your own way, the freedom to code to use, to speak, and to think without commercial constraint. What I've gathered so far is that the "leadership" within Linux is more involved in the politics than the ideals.
Well...Leadership Sucks. Apple has in my opinion set me free of concerns I had. Now I'm going to go code.
What a wonderful night.
yeah so what (Score:1)
I apologe to all the other debian developers for making debian as a whole look bad.
yeah so what..oops (Score:1)
Termination remains the same.. (Score:1)
If you fear that you will have to sue Apple for patent infringement, stay away from the APSL. Otherwise, the termination clause is no problem.
I made a fatal error... (Score:1)
Not speaking for debian, or employed by it, although I am a debian developer.
Waaay too long (Score:1)
Remind me never to ask Justin for legal advice.
Way too long (Score:1)
2) Most of us already understand the other licenses. Understanding the GPL will enable you to work on literally thousands of projects without learning another license. Same with BSD. Having to learn a license for every project will get quite tedious after a while.
3) Being "able to contribute with all the blessings of Apple" is not my goal, unless I know what type of project I'm contributing to, and what type of license the code is put under (i.e. How Free is it?).
Way too long (Score:2)
I don't think many developers want to have to figure out a new license for *every* project they want to contribute to, so as more and more new licenses proliferate, the projects with established licenses that are already well-understood (GPL, BSD, Artistic License, etc.) will probably have an advantage.
clue phone calling you back (Score:1)
Hmm well...
not everyone in Debian is on the Apple Mailing
lists. In fact I would hazzard to guess that MOST
are not.
How many "debian.org" adresses did you see?
It should also be mentioned that not everyone
in debian uses their Debian.org adress for
everything.
Since I am not on the Apple mailing lists
myself...I really can't comment further.
However...at least on debian mailing lists
I have seen a very low instance of what you
talk about...flame wars yes...but
mindless name calling...well...not till after
all the usefull agruing is over
Why do I care what Debian or the others think? (Score:1)
The various leaders of whom you speak spend much more time contemplating licencing issues than most people do. They have access to various lawyers who are trained to see and understand all the implications of these sorts of licenses. I can read the text of the license and I can pass my own (positive) judgement on it, but passing final judgement before reading what these experts have to say is silly. Of course, you are free to disagree with some or all of them, but it seems awfully short-sighted not to listen to what they have to say.
Nope, not the same (Score:1)
California law was a peculiar choice, though, even given that Apple is based in Cupertino--it changes to damned often for no sensible reason. [for those not familiar with the California initiative process, it has conclusively shown that you can convince 51% of californians (and often 2/3) of *anything* forthe 24 hours or so needed to win an election]
APSL is NOT Open Source (Score:1)
If Apple was accused of violating a patent, lost the case, and had not made "best efforts" to stop its violation *at the time of the claim*, it would be in extra-deep legal doo doo.
APSL is NOT Open Source (Score:1)
Way too long (Score:1)
Way too long (Score:1)
Clueless Apple bigots? (Score:1)
*All* projects which tries to create their own Open Source(tm) compliant license, rather than using one of the already established licenses, are being critizised on
Original licenses only separate for GPL'd tools. (Score:1)
The bulk of the tools separated out and not covered by APSL are separate because they are covered by GPL, and Apple can not legally apply the APSL to them. None of the source in the non-apple tree is required to boot a system, though it might be nice to have a shell...
There is a substantial amount of code in the "Apple Projects" tree that was developed by the BSD project, and is largely unmodified. There is other code that has been more heavily modified, but the bulk of the development, at least a decade of it, was done by the BSD project (or the Mach project). For those files that are not heavily modified, some of us feel that Apple should simply assume stewardship, without modifying the license, rather than co-opt more than ten years of public money and research for their own ends (though it is perfectly legal for them to do so).
You don't need to be a lawyer... (Score:3)
1) Cumbersome notification requirements. It has been pointed out that the notification requirement is an obstacle to rapid development-- the model of: "grab a bunch of code, combine it in nifty new ways, and hang it out on the net" becomes: "grab a bunch of code, combine it in nifty ways, check all licenses involved, fill out all necessary virtual paperwork, write all legally required documentation, and hang it out on the net." Much less appealing, but probably necessary for Large Corporate Entities.
2) Non-reciprocal notification requirements. You are required to notify Apple of your modifications, but Apple is not required to share them in turn with others. This violates the spirit, if not the letter of the DFSG/OSD
3) Disclosure required for *deployment*. While I can understand Apple's position here, I think that there are many instances in which a company might internally deploy modified code covered by GPL/XFree/other only so long as the license does not require them to disclose their modifications to any external party. Code covered by GPL/BSD/other licenses fits this requirement, while code covered by the APSL does not. While some might percieve this as making the APSL more open, others will percieve it as making the APSL less free. Both views have merit.
4) The new license has not been accompanied by any indication that Apple might be willing to shift code that they have not substantially altered back to its original BSD license, or in any other way acknowledge the contributors to the BSD project who did the bulk of the work behind the "Darwin" product. There is, by design, no legal obligation to do this, of course, but I think there is a strong moral obligation that has not been addressed.
There are other issues as well, and I encourage you to find them and bring them to light as you consider or debate the points enumerated above.
Someone will be a FAQ version of the license (Score:1)
--
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
I think it's the filters (Score:1)
--
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
Ok, so now it's a flaw with Open Source (Score:1)
To promote a type of license which doesn't provide sufficient protection for the licensor (licenser?) is bad, IMHO. Anyone who promotes the GPL over the APSL is basically saying, "I'll take your source code, but I want you to bear the brunt of any legal action." That's plain unfair. If you're going to take my source code, the least you can do is agree to help me if I get in legal trouble because of it.
--
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
It's a flaw in the GPL, not the APSL (Score:2)
Say I write some code and release it under the GPL. Hundreds of people download it, modify it, and release their versions. Then, I'm informed that some lines of my code infringe on a patent. That's where the problem starts.
I'm no lawyer, but I believe that the patent holder could sue me, and the lawsuit could be stronger (for lack of a better word) because I allowed other people to use this patent-infringing code without any way for the patent holder to know who they are. With the APSL, I could then tell the patent holder, "Hey, it's not such a big deal, I know everyone who's using the code and I can tell them to wait."
If I ever release any code as "open source", I will definitely use the APSL instead of the GPL, because the APSL will protect me more in a legal battle.
--
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
Applying US law worldwide ? (Score:1)
Unfortunately the US patent office has a tendency to grant totally bogus patents, which would not apply outside the US because either we have more sensible patent officers, or simply don't recognise software patents to the same extent.
This gives rise to a possibility my rights to use code which is perfectly legal in my country, will be restricted because of some dubious judgement in the US.
Assuming that my reading of this is correct, I'd say this is just enough for APSL 1.1 to fail to qualify as DFSG free.
You don't need to be a lawyer... (Score:1)
Better licensing: perhaps.
Better OS: Are you so certain? Though it will likely pain the Linux community to hear this, every Linux user I've talked to who actually tried OSX was an instant OSX convert (though not all switched due to price concerns). Your words imply that you've never tried OSX; you therefore lose all right to call it better or worse than anything else until you've tried it.
Apple has been the king of propieitary for since it was created, don't you people know we still can't run linux on a lot of there hardware?
You can run LinuxPPC on a lot of their hardware, including every PCI-based PowerMac ever made except for the odd Performa model or two (last I checked the Blue G3's just got support; iMacs have had it for several months). Add MkLinux into the mix and you have almost every PowerPC-based Mac ever made. Throw the m68k port in and you have still more; granted you don't have all 68K-based Macs but you have quite a few.
To the Mac users: Run LinuxPPC if you want Open Source. Fuck Apple.
I do run Linux. I'm also going to run OSX when it's released (Server's out of my price range, unfortuantely). I don't have this odd prejudice you seem to carry.
Applying US law worldwide ? (Score:1)
12.1(c) is a huge pitfall. (Score:1)
Now suppose I use some APSL code in a mission critical application, without which my business would fail.
Now, if Apple were to violate my patents I would have a difficult choice to make. I could commence an action for patent infringement again Apple, and loose my APSL license, or I could let Apple continue to violate my patents.
I have no idea how this relates to APSL being Open Source, but I don't see how any business with patents could allow themselves to use APSL 1.1 code in anything at all important.
Good!, Now... (Score:1)
Bruce
Copying the APSL for your own software? (Score:1)
Thanks
Bruce
Looks much better (Score:4)
Alan Cox and I are in Reykjavik, Iceland speaking at a Linux and Open Source conference. It's been an adventure. Pictures next week.
This version of the APSL looks much better. I've downloaded a copy and will go over it in detail, but from my first reading, the things I complained about (with Debian and SPI folks) seem to have been addressed. Thanks, Apple!
I'll be back on Sunday.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Discussions ongoing at license-discuss (Score:1)
Sujal
clue phone calling you back (Score:1)
>Getting half a clue helps.
>Next time you bad-mouth ppl, make sure you understand exectly what's going on, who is involved, who >said what, when and where
You ought to have been on the Apple's Public-Source Mail List so you can get a clue I guess.
Anyone with debian.org in their email tended to be rash insulting foul-mouthed jerks. They ripped on people for their beliefs, insulted people by calling them names such as moron, made vague generalities that such-and-such 'sucked' and never backed up any claims except to say that if you disagreed with them, they called you names again.
YOU CALL THAT PRODUCTIVE!?!
Not one of them made a _single_ helpful suggestion.
NOT ONE!
I've got every digest from 2 archived
so I probably would have noticed.
clue phone calling you back (Score:1)
I made a fatal error... (Score:1)
That should now read:
"No thanks to certain debian affiliates!"
or how about:
"No thanks to certain people named Crow and others with debian.org in their email address who like to spam Apple's public source mail list"
:-)
Debian-legal has been sicced on it (Score:1)
this "Darwin" thing (Score:1)
In other words... You wanna make KDE your WM? Go ahead! You wanna make your own WM that's 3d with all kinds of bells and whistles? Go ahead! You want a WM that's Java Based? GO ahead!
You wanna port it to the Palm Pilot/Intel/Alpha/ARM? Go ahead!
Free Openstep! (Score:1)
Would you suggest that Apple also take a flamethrower to their cash reserves as well? Remember, they still need to provide something to sell. $39 distro CDs won't sustain a company with an R&D budget like Apple's.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
Free Openstep! (Score:1)
>business.
...and go out of business?
I doubt it - Apple has had enough of that already. If Apple doesn't make any cash, their stockholders get pissed. If their stockholders get pissed, the members of Apple's board get nervous. If they get nervous, Jobs (who seems to be doing well right now) gets booted and is replaced by Yet Another Ineffective Apple CEO. That's assuming Apple is even still around by the time that happens.
Considering Apple's recent financial track record, I don't think any of us are in much of a position to tell them how to remain successful. I suggest taking what they are providing and making something with what you've got - it's no good at all if Apple is gone a year later. I for one would rather not be stuck with the substandard standards and cruft of the Wintel world, thank you.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
You don't need to be a lawyer... (Score:1)
>better OS (Linux or a BSD 4.4 light) that has
>better licencing anyway?
Both 'better OS' and 'better licensing' are subjective. There are things that, despite the rhetoric, Linux does not do well. There are also those who find the GPL too restrictive.
>This is just the mac users trying to bring there
>little platform back
Note the use of 'little platform' as a derogatory statement, aimed at belittling the OS and its users as some sort of inferior and/or unimportant faction. That's a term that a Microsoft exec would use in describing Linux and its users. Oh, how the resemblance sometimes peeks through...
>don't you people know we still can't run linux on
>a lot of there hardware?
What are you talking about? Have you looked at the Linux support on Apple's machines? I'm willing to bet that percentage wise, Apple's modern machines have BETTER Linux support than the average knock-off Wintel clone out there. Almost all PowerPC based Macs out there run some form of Linux. The only reason why support doesn't reach down into most of the 68k line is because many of them PREDATE Linux and nobody has cared.
In case you didn't know, Apple writes Linux code and has well before it became the new buzzword.
You are spreading FUD pure and simple. Apple has been comparitively supportive of Linux. Once again, a tactic normally reserved for those in Redmond.
>This ASPL is apples way of getting free
>development (Thats exploitation) out of you.
No kidding. Apple isn't denying that either. Surprise! Apple is a company. They try to make money and cut costs. They scratch our back, we scratch theirs. This isn't exactly a socialist country. Considering, I think they're doing fairly well. Instead of Microsoftian 'embrace and destroy' technique, Apple is giving to the community and gaining something in return.
>...and save us a lot of trouble smashing there
>shitty MacOS X into the ground with linux
>bsd4.4light.
Have you even used MacOS X? Neither have I - it's not even done yet, and won't be for several months. Perhaps the next time you open your mouth, you'll refrain from providing an enclosure large enough for your foot.
>To the Mac users: Run LinuxPPC if you want Open
>Source.
I do. It's not terribly hard, either, as it works on most modern Macs.
>Fuck Apple.
My response to this is so obvious, I think I'd better leave it to your imagination.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
You don't need to be a lawyer... (Score:1)
>little platform back
BTW, Another correction:
Our 'little platform', my friend, IS back.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
Wow (Score:2)
I'm sure a whole mob of people (anonymous cowards and non-cowards alike) will descend on this story with all sorts of Apple-hate postings, but it's nice to see that some of the people here are willing to recognize a good thing when they see it.
Good deal!
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
Free Openstep! (Score:1)
Free Openstep! (Score:1)
Yeah... (Score:1)
Already exists. (Score:1)
GNUstep [gnustep.org]
Available via http, ftp, and cvs without any
annoying licences to agree to, or registration to
sign.
Most importantly, it compiles, and most of the
test applications run successfully.
They could use some help, if you are willing
and able.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
Re: You don't need to be a lawyer... (Score:1)
If you do not trust Apple, or do not like the APSL, the answer is simple: don't develop for it.
no thanks to debian! (Score:1)
Next time you bad-mouth ppl, make sure you understand exectly what's going on, who is involved, who said what, when and where.
--
we're not all like that really (Score:1)
talk to debian developers on #debian (irc.debian.org), crow's nick is crow_
--
This is the third Apple thread within 48 hours (Score:1)
in a nutshell - quit yer whining !
uh apple is cool?? (Score:1)
not only did this lazarus rise from the dead - but it's throwing a bitchen party , too .
side issue.. (Score:1)
if nothing else comes out of this whole issue, i'd be willing to bet that the APSL has been read and considered by more people than the "screw reading this, just click the Accept button and get on with the install" licenses of every web browser ever released.
for that matter, how many people would you say have downloaded and read the GPL, the OSD, and all the other 'pure' open source licenses for the first time in their lives, strictly because they wanted to cite the authoritative documents in this battle?
Re: (Score:1)
It's a flaw in the GPL, not the APSL (Score:1)
APSL is NOT Open Source (Score:1)
bye
schani
APSL 1.1 seems to be Open Source (Score:1)
regarding the GPL: the GPL has no clause about a lawsuit against the original author because such lawsuits are irrelevant. only the outcome of such lawsuits matter! should the supreme court rule that some code in GCC violates some patent then US law automatically forbids the use of this code without a licence for this patent. the GPL does not need to state that explicitly.
bye
schani
APSL is NOT Open Source (Score:2)
becomes the subject of a claim of infringement, Apple may, at its option: (a) attempt to
procure the rights necessary for Apple and You to continue using the Affected Original
Code; (b) modify the Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing; or (c)
suspend Your rights to use, reproduce, modify, sublicense and distribute the Affected
Original Code until a final determination of the claim is made by a court or
governmental administrative agency of competent jurisdiction and Apple lifts the
suspension as set forth below.
this means, in other words, that if someone claims that any part of the source infringes on his copyright or patents, then apple has the right to suspend your use of this piece of code. note that it is not necessary that this someone actually proves that the code infringes! all apple needs to take the code away from you is to find someone willing to CLAIM an infringement. then apple can suspend your rights until the case is settled, which can take a very long time, as we all know.
bye
schani
Licensee's Patent Rights? (Score:1)
Theoretically, that's true. But in practice, if you want to build a bussiness based on APSL-code, you cannot defend your patents should Apple decide to use them without securing a license agreement with you.
It goes to show that the GPL is a lot more friendly towards commercial use than those "commercial open source" licenses.
If I had a company that was going to create products based on "open-source" software, only the GPL and the BSD license would be my choice as secure enough to build a bussiness on.
waaaay too long my ass (Score:3)
APSL 3231
GPL 2491
MPL 2909
NPL 3359
Judge licenses by content, not word count.
Apple seems to be listening (Score:1)
uh apple is cool?? (Score:1)
Back this up. (Score:1)
I keep seeing this, and I keep seeing flawed justifications for it. Many of the ideas have merit, but I have yet to see a workable implementation proposed.
So, if you see a way that a _large_ truly open company can afford to pay _many_ (hundreds to thousands) full-time programmers decent salaries, please draw up a _detailed_, _complete_ business plan and post it somewhere public.
I'd love to see this done. If I could look at neat code that other people have written and modify it freely but still get paid a good full-time wage for the code that I write, I'd be ecstatic. Unfortunately, I can now only afford to write free code in my spare time, because proprietary code is the only code that my employers can afford to pay me for.
Post a _detailed_ business plan like this and businesses will listen.
Code reuse (Score:1)
(1) embed some GPL-ed code into a change;
(2) submit it, passing along the GPl-ed license in accordance with GPL; and
(3) apple publishes it.
You couldn't get past step (1). The APSL makes it clear that you can't add any licensing that invalidates any of the APSL. Including the GPL in Your Modifications would certainly do this, and if I understand the GPL correctly (I may not), including it in any part of a Larger Work would too.
Not quite. (Score:1)
However, they added section 11 (Ownership) which states that code written for Apple or on behalf of Apple is not auotmatically covered by the AAPL. What this means is that any code added to an another author's code or any code written originally by Apple and licensed under the AAPL can have the AAPL revoked.
No; the exact wording is "such Apple Modifications will not be automatically subject to this License.". They don't _have_ to license their own modifications under the APSL, as any other modifying user would, but once they tack a license on there, it stays.
Exhibit A assumes that portions of the code licensed under the AAPL are already copyright by Apple. What happens if someone writes completely original code and has to display this notice? Also, does it not also mean that section 11 is *always* enforcable even if the code you wrote doesn't have Apple code in it.
The terms of the licensing agreement say that you have to apply the APSL, and hence Exhibit A, to any source files that contain Original Code or a modification thereof. However, you can distribute other files, that are completely free of Apple code, under whatever license you want, as long as the APSL applies to anything containing variants of the Original Code (which means that you couldn't GPL anything in the project, but you could LGPL or BSD it if I understand correctly). This is covered in section 2.1 (c) and in section 4.
I do agree that having to destroy code would be a Bad Thing, but nothing that I would use the code for would be grounds for termination of the license.
The patent issue still needs to be settled, though.
Better OSs? (Score:1)
I would imagine that the AFP services in Darwin would be much better than Linux/BSD, for example.
Open Source is only part of the reason to run Linux, many people run it only because it's a good OS.
--
The more the merrier (Score:1)
Funniest thing about it all.. (Score:1)
Also, love the prematurely negative assessment of it before it was read. If someone did the same to Linux the community would be up in arms.
'At first glance, the Open Source Licensing for Linux appears to be an improvement but its waaaay long and I'm no lawyer'. You'd all be spamming that reviewer ASAP and using your
Lame bias. Friggin read it before you start putting a negative spin on it. I don't care for any OS over another ( well, I can't use windows at all so thats not true ) but there is an obvious slant here. Apple == Totally NEgative , FreeBSD == Mostly Negative , Linux == Godlike. Its moronic. You folks need to get over this lame ass schoolyard mentality and get on the boat, realize that OS's are NOT one size fits all and to claim so and disparage other OS's because of this view makes you no better then Apple of Microsoft.
You don't need to be a lawyer... (Score:1)
Personally, mabye I'm just negative, but i think that this insane mass trusting of apples new buzzword is gonna get us in trouble. Why work on there OS when we have an already better OS (Linux or a BSD 4.4 light) that has better licencing anyway?
This is just the mac users trying to bring there little platform back, and i'm suprised how many peopel are buying in to this ploy.
Apple has been the king of propieitary for since it was created, don't you people know we still can't run linux on a lot of there hardware? this company is B A D.
Its gonna make you people do there work and then toss you aside when they are done using you!
This ASPL is apples way of getting free development (Thats exploitation) out of you.
If you ask me, and i suppose mabye you didn't, but we should tell apple to go backrupt and save us a lot of trouble smashing there shitty MacOS X into the ground with linux/bsd4.4light.
To the Mac users: Run LinuxPPC if you want Open Source. Fuck Apple.
this "Darwin" thing (Score:1)
too long .... really too long .... (Score:1)
so why don't you just don't read it, and don't use the code !?
If you want to use the code or interested in it, but sadly you are illiterate, then go and hire a lawyer.
Maybe there will be somebody asking why it's not in french or not in spanish or not in chinese or japanese
this "Darwin" thing (Score:1)
It's the core bits of the recently released MacOS X Server. Includes the kernel, driverkit, soundkit, networking (AppleTalk), file system (HFS+) etc that makes up an the core of an OS. Apple will be releasing installable binaries (so you can just dl and go instead of compiling etc.) in the near future. It is an OS... very portable.. very extensible.
now they've added the QT Streaming Server to the source.
Licensee's Patent Rights? (Score:1)
Obviously, if you're intent on sueing Apple for stealing your idea that you saw in their code then you probably won't care whether you are protected by the APSL because it will have already passed that point... it will be a matter of "who did it first" and "who wrote it first".
Just like when you are using Apple code with Apple patents and credits and documenting them correctly (like every good essay writer should) Apple is not allowed to slap you with a lawsuit for patent infringement.
Why bother? (Score:1)
Darwin can be ported to any platform... now QT can go along with it. That's a powerful combination, and if I was programmer I'd be in there like a dirty-shirt.
If you want an awesome API, then MacOS X will provide YB which is the single most awesome OO API I have ever seen. They have nothing to lose by doing Darwin. And they can't yank it now because they will be ridiculed and completely abandoned by developers if they do.
Way too long (Score:1)
It is basically all common sense anyway... document your sources, post your changes, play nice. You follow those three rules and you'll be able to contribute with all the blessings of Apple. Now is that that complicated?
that was there in 1.0 (Score:1)
this is not meant as a slander towards you, anonymous coward, but it just goes to show how few people actually read, and understood APSL 1.0.
Export laws (Score:1)
To me the clause you mention just means that the License is not above the laws of the United States or California... which makes sense. Whether that implies any export laws I don't know, but they've obviously left it up to the government to decide if that were the case.
12.1(c) is a huge pitfall. (Score:1)
http://survey.info.apple.com/info.apple.com/sur
trust me... this "tell-us" thing works. If your concern is valid (as yours is) they will at least e-mail you personally. They usually phone. I have used this three times and have been phoned back twice.
Here are the changes (Score:3)
If you don't like APSL 1.1... tell Apple. they might just listen...
Here are the changes... go at it...
New Definitions:
"Affected Original Code": means only those specific portions of Original Code that allegedly infringe upon any party's intellectual
property rights or are otherwise the subject of a claim of infringement.
9.1 "Infringement"
Big changes here... (rightly so)
Basically instead of "terminating Your Rights to use the Affected Original Code" end-of-story...
They will "suspend your rights....until a final determination of the claim is made by a court or governmental administrative agency of competent jurisdiction and Apple lifts the suspension as set forth below." They clearly state that you can make any changes you wish to the code so that it no longer pisses Apple, or someone else, off.
They also clearly state that only the *portion* of the code is affected... all the code won't be yanked.
"If Apple suspends Your rights to Affected Original Code, nothing in this License shall be construed to restrict You, at Your option and subject to applicable law, from replacing the Affected Original Code with non-infringing code or independently negotiating for necessary rights from such third party.
It goes on... "Upon such final determination being made, if Apple
is legally able, without the payment of a fee or royalty, to resume use, reproduction, modification, sublicensing and distribution of the Affected Original Code, Apple will lift the suspension of rights to the Affected Original Code"
13 "Miscellaneous"
13.1 "Export Law Assurances" has been removed
Questionable moderating. (Score:1)
A/C post:
Looks much better (Score:-1)
No, you can't be happy! It's Apple, we need to find something wrong! It's too long... yeah!
While this one was left alone:
You don't need to be a lawyer... (Score:1)
by SalsaDoom on Tuesday April
...to see that Apple is a company based on expoitation.
Personally, mabye I'm just negative, but i think that this insane mass trusting of apples new buzzword is gonna get us in trouble. Why work on there OS when we have an already better OS (Linux or a BSD 4.4 light) that has better licencing anyway?
This is just the mac users trying to bring there little platform back, and i'm suprised how many peopel are buying in to this ploy. Apple has been the king of propieitary for since it was created, don't you people know we still can't run linux on a lot of there hardware?
this company is B A D.
Its gonna make you people do there work and then toss you aside when they are done using you!
This ASPL is apples way of getting free development (Thats exploitation) out of you. If you ask me, and i suppose mabye you didn't, but we should tell apple to go backrupt and save us a lot of trouble smashing there shitty MacOS X into the ground with linux/bsd4.4light.
To the Mac users: Run LinuxPPC if you want Open Source. Fuck Apple.
"I don't know what life is, but nobody gets out alive"
And this one (though not quite as negative) was even bumped up to 2:
APSL is NOT Open Source (Score:2)
by schani on Tuesday April 20, @08:43AM EDT
9.1 Infringement. If any portion of, or functionality implemented by, the Original Code
becomes the subject of a claim of infringement, Apple may, at its option: (a) attempt to procure the rights necessary for Apple and You to continue using the Affected Original Code; (b) modify the Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing; or (c) suspend Your rights to use, reproduce, modify, sublicense and distribute the Affected Original Code until a final determination of the claim is made by a court or governmental administrative agency of competent jurisdiction and Apple lifts the suspension as set forth below.
this means, in other words, that if someone claims that any part of the source infringes on his copyright or patents, then apple has the right to suspend your use of this piece of code. note that it is not necessary that this someone actually proves that the code infringes! all apple needs to take the code away from you is to find someone willing to CLAIM an infringement. then apple can suspend your rights until the case is settled, which can take a very long time, as we all know
Maybe the moderating just happend to be a little uneven at the time, but it lookes more like bias on the part of the moderators. (just watch this get knocked down to -1).
1??? (Score:1)
Much better, IMHO. (Score:1)
I remember that copyleft part about you having to make your modified code available for 6 to 12 months was in the first version, so nothing new there.
Apple still has the right to do whatever they want with your modifications; I guess that's to be expected since they have to have some control over their product.
They modified the wording about you having to post a pointer to your changes at their website; now it says "if available". So in case Apple or that web page dies, you don't have to post there anymore.
So, I guess there's only one thing left to say:
LET THE PORTS BEGIN!
Now if I cold only remember my username and password for their site...
Export laws (Score:1)
APSL1.1 section 13.7:
This License shall be governed by the Laws of the Unites States and the State of California except that body of California law concerning conflicts of law.
Doesn't this imply the same? I only wonder whether this violates the OSD.
I also wonder what the United Nations convention is, that they expressly excluded in 13.6
CAVEAT: IANAL
Exactly. (Score:1)
And what are the very first replies? "It's too long." Those, at least, subsided after several people demonstrated that it really wasn't much longer than any other of the popular licenses.
So then it just goes back to general negativity. "Apple's in this for no good." "They're just trying to save their OS". "Use Linux!". Blah blah blah.
What I would like to know is, of the people that are going to _contribute_ to Apple's Open Source Project, what do they think about the license?
Everyone else wanting to moan and gripe about a license on a product that they're never going to use anyway, kindly remove your foot from your mouth and go back to your respective projects. Thanks.
- Cattywampus.
Licensee's Patent Rights? (Score:1)
It means that if you do decide to file suit against Apple for patent infringement you are no longer allowed to work on the source via this license.
In no way does it restrict your ability to defend your own patents.
Termination remains the same.. (Score:1)
12.2 Effect of Termination. Upon termination, You agree to immediately stop any further use, reproduction, modification, sublicensing and distribution of the Covered Code and to destroy all copies of the Covered Code that are in your possession or control.
Ok. Simple question, with that kind of language, why would I want to contribute to anything under the APSL? (IANAL)
Why bother? (Score:1)
For a long time Apple has been doing the next best thing to opensource: a huge, open API that has helped hackers and developers alike over the past 15 some odd years of the Macintosh. Come on, Apple, let us programmers do the opensource and you just keep on providing us the facilities to do as such. Don't forget your mantra of holding developers over self-interest to provided the better applications that we all use today. I just hope this doesn't go the way of AppleScript vs. Frontire.
OSI is hearing the community out. (Score:4)
After the APSL 1.0 situation, OSI started a mailing list to review licenses submitted to us for validation as Open Source. To subscribe, send mail to license-discuss-subscribe@opensource.org.
We had the chance to put OSI certification on the APSL 1.1 for their press release today; but because we weren't allowed to share the new license with license-discuss beforehand, we chose not to give it certification, even though we on the board were confident the new license would pass. But in the spirit of "all bugs are shallow given sufficient eyeballs", we thought it'd be best to see what the community thought of the proposed changes, specifically along the lines of conformance to the OSD.
Thanks,
Brian
Thank You, Apple! (Score:1)
Keep up the good work, Apple!
Also, I'd like to thank the community for the general tone of this discussion. It has been very positive, and I feel much better about the community as a whole. Thank you, everyone.
--
Matthew Walker
My DNA is Y2K compliant
Original licenses (Score:1)
Third Party Projects: These projects are primarily maintained by another
development effort. Currently ports of this software is maintained here in order to provide additional functionality to Darwin. This software is part of the Mac OS X Server product and is provided by Apple under the license of the upstream source, unmodified by the APSL.
In general, feature additions and bug fixes which are not specific to or needed by the Darwin platform should be sent to the upstream source; it is an explicit goal that the diffs between this code and the original code be kept at a minimum, as we don't intend to compete with other Open Source initiatives.
Apple seems to be listening (Score:1)
Funniest thing about it all.. (Score:1)
This is debugging (not everyone in QA is a coder), and is what makes an application, or a license, better.
Funniest thing about it all.. (Score:1)
To wander off the topic for a bit...
It seems to me that a lot of these people would like to get involved with coding open source stuff partially to gain some recognition as a programmer, but mainly to increase their skills. The best way to learn about programming is to practice, practice, practice, and open source provides a good way to do this however most projects around are already well developed and so you already need to be a competant coder to understand them let alone to find bugs and fix them. I for one come into this category, I've learnt enough C to take my beyond the "teach yourself C" books but dont have enough experience to do anything usefull (I do a lot of awk/unix scripting at work but no C etc).
It seems to me that what would be usefull for those of us in this situation (and you were all there once) would be a kind of "linux training academy" to provide a set of small and / or simple (but non-trivial) ideas that can be developed by relative newcomers to give them a start towards code guruhood. These wouldn't have to be new ideas but could just be new takes on old ideas (implement a version of 'ls' that prints the first line of text files so you know whats in them, or a version that lists all files the dont match a regular expression etc). Stuff that would be usefull but is not a real priority, or stuff that has been done before but can be redeveloped for new platforms, or to run better, or to take advantage of new functionality from other programs etc etc
Just an idea
Right on. (Score:1)
itachi
So Apple users can write drivers (Score:1)
-russ
APSL 1.1 seems to be Open Source (Score:1)
Think of this section as a battle plan against patents. At least Apple is telling you what its plans are. The GPL says nothing about what the FSF plans to do in case suit is brought against it for contributory infringement.
-russ
Of course (Score:1)
The question is: "what triggers the termination clause"? And you haven't explained what the problem is there, so I can't address it.
-russ
You can negotiate (Score:1)
Phil, if you're in a different country where the code is non-infringing, you can negotiate for the "necessary rights". Since there *are* no necessary rights, you can continue using the code.
-russ
Licensee's Patent Rights? (Score:2)
On the other hand, as pointed out by others, it is clear that this doesn't mean that "Apple gets right to all my patents." This is not a unilateral "cross-license," which would actually prevent you from suing -- you are free to sue if you so choose, but part of the consequences are that you will lose APSL rights.
And yes, this could become a big deal if you make APSL code mission-critical. The question remains, which is the more valuable asset -- your right to sue apple for a patent, or the value of the code to your enterprise.
For the vast majority of hacker types, this is a non-issue. For the small number of hacker-inventors, there are options: (1) don't use the code, or don't use it in mission-critical applications; and (2) negotiate a separate deal with Apple, setting forth the reasons why you think they should give you the right to use the code for free while you are still suing their pants off.
A plausible argument of type two might be made. Absent such an argument, however, I see Apple's point well -- they see themselves giving away something valuable gratis, and expect a quid pro quo. If the quid is too much, don't take the quo.
Code reuse (Score:2)
If Apple were required to republish changes, then a user could turn APSL into GPL as follows:
(1) embed some GPL-ed code into a change;
(2) submit it, passing along the GPl-ed license in accordance with GPL; and
(3) apple publishes it.
Whoops, under GPL, the published software is now virused in, and itself now subject to GPL, which may mean that some of the greater restrictions of APSL no longer can apply.
I think that Apple was clearly alive to these concerns in drafting the license as they have.