Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

344 comments

not (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653364)

very frosty

apple is gay

Re:not (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653370)

wow it was the frost. i can't believe it!!!!

And?!? (5, Insightful)

tbien (28401) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653367)

Since when does the FSF recommend other software licenses then the GPL? Even the LGPL isn't recommended.

Re:And?!? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653406)

If you create a license which is compatible semantically with the GPL, then the FSF will approve it.
Besides, I'm pretty sure that if you find out flaws in the GPL, or devise a new license including ideas that the FSF didn't think of, the FSF will certainly consider these ideas, and eventually include them in the GPL if they are valid.

Re:And?!? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653423)

*cough* bullshit! *cough*

The GPL is viral exactly because the FSF is about building a power base for a political movement. Changes, like taking away the right of the FSF to alter the GPL _AS THEY SEE FIT_ - and applying those changes to previously GPL'ed code - would remove some of their power.

It's not about "free" anything. It's about Socialism, to use one of the kinder labels available.

MOD PARENT UP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653437)

you communist fucks!

Re:MOD PARENT UP (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653503)

modded down by smelly hippies since 1997

get a clue hippies, if you were half as smart as you think you are then you would be loving capitalism because guess what: BEING SMART = HAVING MONEY

Re:And?!? (1, Insightful)

jkrise (535370) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653452)

The GPL is viral exactly because the FSF is about building a power base for a political movement. Changes... to alter the GPL... would remove some of their power.

Your argument may be right, but the fact that the GPL has actually done something good for the computing world -- makes it valuable. You can change the GPL to make money AND control customers, but that'd be a one-way traffic. You can change cows to hamburgers, but not the other way round.

It's not about "free" anything. It's about Socialism, to use one of the kinder labels available.

Considering some of the fruits of capitalism -- Enron, Microsoft, SCO, R*AA, etc..; and some of 'Socialism' - GNU, Linux, FreeBSD, Dragon CPU , Socialism could actually be a Good Thing.

In fact the APSL sounds as if Apple is trying to ride the Free Software wave and make profits, with a pseudo-open-source license. Thay shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

-

Re:And?!? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653467)

Hey at least you're honest - you admit it's socialism and try to defend it. Well good for you, I really do like to see that. Intellectual honesty in a lefty is as rare as being in touch with reality or as having had a 30th birthday.

Repeat after me: "there is nothing sinful about making money" - it's the principal of labor exchange, but instead of accepting TV dinners to distribute to their programmers, Apple takes money, distributes that, and then the programmers go off and choose which TV dinners they want. Or they could even choose something else entirely! Ask Mom about "the free market" and why it makes certain countries successful, and why those countries without it are usually referred to as "third-world shitholes".

True, some capitalists abuse the system. But it's that human nature that makes socialism unworkable because that darker nature has so many more avenue of opportunity in a socialist world.

Re:And?!? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653474)

why are there so many communists on slashdot??? is it because technical people generally don't see the big picture and just think free stuff is good? do you honestly think charging somebody MONEY for your services/products is bad? does it hurt their feelings that they have to pay or they can't afford it? have you ever happily paid somebody for anything?!! FROM THE TOP OF MY LUNGS NOW -- WHAT THAA FUCK?!?!?

Re:And?!? (0, Troll)

jkrise (535370) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653500)

do you honestly think charging somebody MONEY for your services/products is bad?

No, I don't. At the same time, I don't think it's wrong for people to be able to write software and give it away for free.

What Apple's trying to do is to 'appear' to be free, and make money off other's work (gratis). If Apple wants to hire some programmers, pay them money, they needen't even give the code under APSL, proprietary licensing would do. Why all this subterfuge about Open Sourcing a Freedom anyway?

Better a straight-forward Communist than a dubious devious Capitalist.

-

Re:And?!? (4, Insightful)

spectecjr (31235) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653520)

What Apple's trying to do is to 'appear' to be free, and make money off other's work (gratis). If Apple wants to hire some programmers, pay them money, they needen't even give the code under APSL, proprietary licensing would do. Why all this subterfuge about Open Sourcing a Freedom anyway?


So what?

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't get the problem here. If you don't agree with their license, then you have a very simple option:

Don't Give Them Your Code

You're not being forced at gunpoint to write software for them under the APSL -- nobody is. It's the developer's personal choice. Your opinions frankly don't come into it at all.

Apple don't have to release any of their software as Open Source. They chose to do so. That's not good enough for you? I take it you'd prefer that they give away everything for free? Including the hardware? Or do you only view intellectual property as being worthless?

Re:And?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653535)

writing software and giving it away for free is good if it was a 'spare time' project and you think other people might like it. fine, post it on your website and let people have at it. dont throw a shit fit when somebody decides to take your code and make a professional app and sell it.. why would it bother you if you were just giving it away in the first place?

this becomes a threat to our way of living when people are writing full on office suites and operating systems and giving them away for free.

Re:And?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653491)

Pseudo my ass -- on the page in question, they say it 'qualifies as a free software license.' They're not claiming it's fake, they're not telling you to avoid APSL projects -- they're recommending against using it for new projects. And what's wrong with profit? [gnu.org]

Re:And?!? (0)

jkrise (535370) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653510)

Pseudo my ass.. they say it 'qualifies as a free software license.'

Heh :^), I'm sure if you ask Microsoft, they'd say:
WindowsXP Qualifies as an Operating System!

Good joke, thanks...

-

Re:And?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653530)

'qualifies as a free software license.' is a quote from the gnu.org page linked from the story, a page with the header 'FSF's Opinion of the Apple Public Source License'.

Re:And?!? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653463)

Hmm, anyone is still free to use whatever license is available, or build your own if you don't like these. It's not like you're forced to use the GPL. The FSF proposes this license, and give arguments about why it's a good license. Nobody here is forcing you to use it, you still have your brain (I hope so) and the right to use it.
Furthermore, a license doesn't upgrade automatically, as you seem to imply : something released under the GPL 2.0 doesn't move to GPL 3.0 unless the owner decides to do so. Again, the owner chooses. And finally, even if the owner release something under the GPL, he still own it and can release it under different licenses as he see fit.
I hope this will help you understand the nature of the FSF movement.

Damn hippies (2)

d34thm0nk3y (653414) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653477)

Crap I knew it!!! It's not the open source community. It is the open source COMMUNE!

I hope I haven't put on the Mccarthy's list!

Re:And?!? (2, Interesting)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653478)

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
Aff ero Liscense.

look at the first non-GPL compatable liscense. They clearly accept changes that match their Dogma.

Re:And?!? (2, Informative)

deltronzero (673472) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653527)

The GPL and other forms of free software are not socialism. It is programmers deciding to give away their work for free. If it was socialism, it would be the government deciding that said programmers should give their work away for free (or whatever price the government wishes). Please, get a clue.

Re:And?!? (1)

Drakonian (518722) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653439)

I'm not sure man. It seems to me that sometimes the FSF is deliberately vague about what parts of the GPL mean, and won't answer straight up questions about them. Maybe that's just lawyer life but I find it pretty annoying - their license is safe by keeping it obscure.

Wrong (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653441)

From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html we see that FSF "...recommend[s] it[the LGPL] for special circumstances only." There are quite a few other licenses on that page, the Perl license, the X11 license, etc., which FSF reccomends. More specifically FSF reccomends that you use a license which makes your work "free software" as defined here http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.

Remember Ogg Vorbis? (5, Informative)

dido (9125) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653567)

Ahem. The FSF actually recommended that the Ogg Vorbis toolkit remain under a BSD license, rather than insisting that it go GPL. This was all done, apparently, with Richard M. Stallman's blessing! Yes folks, RMS actually encouraged the Xiphophorous [xiph.org] people to use the BSD license rather than the GPL! The story here [slashdot.org] .

In response to the change of license, Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation says, "I agree. It is wise to make some of the Ogg Vorbis code available for use in proprietary software, so that commercial companies doing proprietary software will use it, and help Vorbis succeed in competition with other formats that would be restricted against our use."

No, the FSF does not recommend exclusive use of the GPL at all times. They can encourage use of other more permissive free licenses if they believe that it will aid the cause of Free Software.

not so orwellian anymore (5, Insightful)

MrFreak (204353) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653368)

Its a hell of a lot better than the old license. And its not like developers working with Darwin have much of a choice. I mean, who is going to use the APSL on a non Apple derived product?

Re:not so orwellian anymore (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653431)

I mean, who is going to use the APSL on a non Apple derived product?

What about their 'Rendezvouz' specification? What about AAC, if they decide to release it under APSL? Numerous others I can think of.

Apple (and other commercial entities) need to realise they're better off supporting GPL than writing their own licenses. Else, let them fight it out with SCO, Microsoft et al, and see what market share that gets them.

-

Re:not so orwellian anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653455)

Apple (and other commercial entities) need to realise they're better off supporting GPL than writing their own licenses. Else, let them fight it out with SCO, Microsoft et al, and see what market share that gets them.

Let me rewrite that first sentence for you:

Apple (and other hardware manufacturers who can afford to create GPL'd software because their revenue stream does not rely on software as a commercial product) need to realize that they're better off supporting the GPL in order to destroy all commercial software vendors who don't have a hardware arm to rely on for revenues.

Re:not so orwellian anymore (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653481)

supporting the GPL in order to destroy all commercial software vendors who don't have a hardware arm to rely on for revenues.

If (and it's a big IF) such commercial software vendors are 'destroyed' then I say, so be it. God created people with brains, not separately. The brain is useless without a body, and vice versa. It's flexible as well, we're able to imbibe new ideas without changing brains every two years.

What you're suggesting is a well-designed pseudo-free brain that gets remote-controlled. The FSF doesn't believe in this model.

-

Re:not so orwellian anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653514)

If (and it's a big IF) such commercial software vendors are 'destroyed' then I say, so be it. God created people with brains, not separately. The brain is useless without a body, and vice versa. It's flexible as well, we're able to imbibe new ideas without changing brains every two years.

What you're suggesting is a well-designed pseudo-free brain that gets remote-controlled. The FSF doesn't believe in this model.


Couldn't you just use a really bad car analogy instead? Because right now you're just babbling and talking complete gibberish.

Re:not so orwellian anymore (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653533)

Couldn't you just use a really bad car analogy instead

Oh.. I forgot to include this for folks like you:

include brain.h

Sorry.

-

Re:not so orwellian anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653552)

Oh.. I forgot to include this for folks like you:

include brain.h

Sorry.


Maybe, perhaps, I should have included this for folks like you:

Guide for Written Communication [neu.edu]

Strunk & White's The Elements of Style [bartleby.com]

Re:not so orwellian anymore (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653566)

Maybe, perhaps, I should have included this for folks like you:

Thanks... BTW, English is my second language. I hope it's not likewise with your brain :^)

-

Re:not so orwellian anymore (5, Interesting)

Ben Escoto (446292) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653450)

Exactly. Everyone is dumping on the Free Software Foundation for no reason again. The FSF says that the APSL is a free software license (a high form of praise indeed coming from the FSF), but that it is somewhat unfair to users, mainly because it gives Apple rights that other users don't. Thus it recommends that the licensed not be used for new products.

This seems entirely reasonable to me. FSF is telling people not to use the APSL because they will be giving some of their rights to Apple. Duh! No one would do this anyway.

Slashdot: say something obvious and get flamed for it.

Re:not so orwellian anymore (2, Interesting)

spectecjr (31235) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653460)

Exactly. Everyone is dumping on the Free Software Foundation for no reason again. The FSF says that the APSL is a free software license (a high form of praise indeed coming from the FSF), but that it is somewhat unfair to users, mainly because it gives Apple rights that other users don't. Thus it recommends that the licensed not be used for new products.

This seems entirely reasonable to me. FSF is telling people not to use the APSL because they will be giving some of their rights to Apple. Duh! No one would do this anyway.


They're also telling people not to use the APSL because it (like Linux) allows people to link code released under it to proprietary code.

Sounds a bit disingenuous to me. After all, where would GNU be without Linux... which has the same 'problems'?

Simon

hehe (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653369)

2nd post ?

doh (2, Redundant)

Gherald (682277) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653372)

Dupe! [slashdot.org]

Re:doh (1)

Drakonian (518722) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653449)

Nope. That was saying it's approved, this is saying they still don't like it even though it's approved. More of a Slashback issues IMO, but oh well.

Interesting Indeed.... (1, Insightful)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653374)

"In version 2.0 of the APSL, the definition of "Externally Deployed" has been narrowed in a way that is appropriate for the respect of users' freedoms."

Sounds like Apple really likes its customers ;)

Is it just me (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653375)

Or does the /. GNU logo look like a baby carrying it's blanket and sucking his thumb?

No surprise there though since the majority of the GNU hippies you see are whiny fucking babies anyway.

Re:Is it just me (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653412)

Hi!

Actually it looks more like a four-eyed Mom's-basement dwelling adolescent with his mouth in a suitable pose to receive Stallman's cock.

Sorry, GNU/cock.

Cheer,
GNU/Wolfgang.

Let's get down to brass tacks here. (4, Insightful)

DwarfGoanna (447841) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653376)

Apple is a commercial software/hardware company.


We can hope that they are cool about being open (I think they have been, for the most part). But who really expects them to be Free?

Re:Let's get down to brass tacks here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653397)

Certainly not a whiny FSF bitch who would really like to see nationalization of all software companies....

Why can't these cretins understand that if people devote time that they could otherwise be using to earn a living to software then they OWN the results of their work? That's easily answered - they don't have to work for a living so they can't see value when other people have to ask for something in return for their time.

Re:Let's get down to brass tacks here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653416)

You're the whining one here : Apple does hardware, and sell it. This should be the real source of their income, not system updates.

Re:Let's get down to brass tacks here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653428)

It seems you lack the ability to read a response and relate it to the parent. You are a fool, and most likely a Macintosh user!

Re:Let's get down to brass tacks here. (5, Insightful)

MalleusEBHC (597600) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653436)

But who really expects them to be Free?

RMS and the FSF. Then again, the GNU/Hippy crowd often reminds me of a greedy, petulent child. When MacOS was completely proprietary, Apple was evil for not letting the code roam free in wild fields as it is apparently entitled to. When Apple opened up some code, they were chastisted for not opening it in the manner that the FSF demands... err, politely asks. Now Apple has changed its license to appease the FSF, but the first thing the FSF does is spout off about how the changes aren't good enough, and even if they were Apple would still be condemned for not opening up all of OS X.

Frankly, I think Steve should tell RMS to shove it. Apple has already given back a lot of code (ZeroConf, KHTML updates, etc.), but the FSF is never going to be happy. Apple should just continue to make jobs for lots of developers and make quality products, be they proprietary or open source.

Re:Let's get down to brass tacks here. (3, Insightful)

slux (632202) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653462)

Maybe you haven't heard of some commercial software companies such as Red Hat. Apple would actually even have an advantage here because it's not only a software company, the hardware is a very significant part of the whole package. (Writing this on an Apple iBook running GNU/Linux, btw) Saying that Apple is a commercial software/hardware company doesn't really reveal anything that should force us reconsider our expectations from Apple.

I don't know who expects them to give their users freedom. I haven't really expected. Hoped, for about five seconds when the announcements of Apple "going open source" first came in.

But I've noticed several that do continuously tout how Mac OS X is everything GNU/Linux was ever supposed to. That may well be, I've not used it enough to say (and am skeptical) but there is one major thing that GNU/Linux is and it obviously is not: *free*, in any meaning of the word.

Now at least the small parts of it that they've chosen to release under an "open source license" are actually free software. The vast majority of it still isn't and no-one should think of MacOS X as anything even close to a free operating system.

Could it be if Apple wanted to let it be? Sure, this is the company that tells us to "Think different" and sells much more than just your average PCs and a Windows-workalike to go with them. I don't see why anyone would use OS X on anything else than Apple hardware anyway.

Re:Let's get down to brass tacks here. (2, Interesting)

jedigeek (102443) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653531)

It would be most beneficial to consumers if all of their software used open standards. Imagine if Microsoft Office used a set of open document formats, for instance.

I use Apple's products partly to manage a lot of my personal data, like my address book. If I had no way of using this data with other software, I'd be pretty screwed if Apple fell of the face of the Earth. I think that's more important than whether or not the Address Book is an open source package.

That is all I'd really hope from a commercial company in terms of being 'Free'.

Apple (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653377)

Only gays use Macs.

Re:Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653383)

sure, pedophile...

Re:Apple (5, Funny)

Gherald (682277) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653387)

Only gays use Macs.

Indeed, all their users are quite merry.

Re:Apple (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653411)

he meant homosexual queer faggots.

Re:Apple (1)

Gherald (682277) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653418)

I know, but my statement still stands ;]

Re:Apple (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653420)

Correction: Only nigger gays use Macs.

Re:Apple (0, Offtopic)

macmurph (622189) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653508)

You sure put the coward in Anonymous Coward.

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653560)

Insightful AND funny!

Of course (2, Insightful)

Kethinov (636034) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653381)

they don't recommend it. They have an "our's is better!" mentality. Would you recommend something that competes with you?

Re:Of course (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653435)

And I guess you don't have anything to gain from your post in Slashdot ? the FSF does exactly what you do : giving their opinion on a subject, and by doing so, they would only gain or loose "Karma".

If that license was ok, they would say so, but it's not the case, and they have perfectly valid points.
The QPL had issues as well, and these issues were resolved, and now you can use this license without problem from the FSF point of view.

Re:Of course (1)

Kethinov (636034) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653457)

Hey now, don't get me wrong here. I haven't the slightest idea of what I'm talking about anyway seeing as how my comment was of typical slashdot mentality; I didn't RTFA. I just made fun of it. As for karma? My post history is riddled with flamebaits, trolls, and what have you. I couldn't care less about karma. (Seems everytime I open my mouth in games.slashdot.org I get an instant mod down.) What I did gain though was a chance to take my mind off repartitioning and formatting for a few minutes on my other machine. You know how much fun that can be. But it worked out. I'm running a dual athlon board yay! Err. I seem to have gone offtopic. Move along...

This is no big deal (3, Informative)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653385)

They have all sorts of Free Software Liscences they recomend against.

Even a handful of Copy-lefted ones.

This is essentially a copy left for everyone escept Apple, who gets BSD like (from the FSF comments, I couldn't find that in the actual liscense though).

practically every non GPL compatible Copy-Left on their site says "though it is OK to use this software we recomend against using the liscense for new software".

And all the BSDish ones recomend using the X11 liscense instead. I don't see how this is news one bit.

Re:This is no big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653427)

I don't see how this is news one bit.

Of course not, its a dupe! [slashdot.org]

Yet another duplicate story (5, Insightful)

Calibax (151875) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653386)

I guess that Michael needs to learn to review previous stories - this story, complete with the details about FSF approving but not recommending it, was covered in an article three days ago.

In any case, I can't really imagine the FSF recommending any license other than their very own GPL, now the darling of IBM and the open source movement in general. Not that it isn't deserving of this adoration, as it may have saved Linux from SCO.

Re:Yet another duplicate story (2, Informative)

Gherald (682277) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653399)

Link to the dupe [slashdot.org]

Re:Yet another duplicate story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653403)

Die, Micheal, die, and censor those who disagree with you in hell.

It's Just an Opinion (5, Interesting)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653391)

I don't think this truly matters very much. Three objections to a software licence has to be well below average. I don't see a problem with points one and three. Yes, it may link to proprietary code, and yes, it's not GPL compatible, but those seem to be minor points, if at all. Perhaps the second point, that Apple gives itself right to changes you make in the code, but not vice versa. However, it is Apple Corporation's code. Apple would have a very tough time surviving if it's code or an ISO image was free for download off of a server. Most of its value is in the OS, not the hardware. Although it is nice and shiny, just expensive.

Re:It's Just an Opinion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653454)

MTCWNAIANII

Sounds like a gE...
oRIAA replacement.

Re:It's Just an Opinion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653544)

Maybe most of the value is in the OS. In fact the only value of the OS is in the fact that it encourages people to buy the hardware...

Apple is a hardware company, they make their profit from selling Apple computers, not OS X. Of course they use the excellent operating system to get people to buy the hardware. Which is why of course Apple will never port their OS over to x86.

No point, or at least they would have to charge a couple thousand dollars for it, in order to make a profit from it.

I believe this change in the liscence is to try to get enthusism back in darwin and the rest of the OS. People don't care about helping out on a OS they aren't allowed to use for free, so they made the changes to try to win back some Free-dom based programmers.

Think about it. How many companies make profits from selling/supporting OS's alone? hmm... let me think.
Sun? nope...
SCO? hardly heh.
IBM? Nope, they practicly give the OS away for free if you buy the right hardware, and they gave up on OS/2 (I wonder why)...
Apple? nope..
HP? nope.

That's because it costs to friggin much to develope it. It's just too complicated. How much does bits of software cost that come close to the complexity of OSes? Like art programs/3d modelers that cost thousands of dollars?

Well, Microsoft, Novell... and Redhat! Wow. (maybe Suse, too?)

That's because it costs to friggin much to develope it. It's just too complicated. How much does bits of software cost that come close to the complexity of OSes? Like art programs/3d modelers that cost thousands of dollars?

Redhat can do it because they don't have to pay for the developement, just support it in some ways to keep people freindly. Microsoft can do it because thru volume sales and a whole host of programs designed to keep people dependent on their only 2 profitable product lines: Office and Windows. Novell is able to pull it off by being "just that good", although like most other people in the non-gaming sectors of the software industry they are leaning towards Linux now.

That's why Linux is the only OS that has a chance a defeating Microsoft for #1 usage and usurp it's market dominance.

The liscencing is just a hardcore as the one that Microsoft uses, just in different ways. Which is why FSF exists in the first place, to create a system of developement and a OS that can have a chance at defeating propriatory/closed source software and make programming practicle and inexpensive/usefull again.(of course the concept was for HURD, but Linux is something usefull in our lifetimes.)

But what about BSD? Nope. No BSD has any chance in hell of ever topping Microsoft.

Is it because it's inferior to Linux? Nope not at all. It's because of it's liscence.

Why do you think that Bill Gates likes the BSD copyright? Because it makes his job easier, no peice of software under the BSD liscence will ever be a threat to any propriatory software.

Even if *BSD created a super-duper OS that every wants and likes and everyone starts to dump windows, guess what happens? Microsoft downloads the source code, dumps a few hundred million in creating a better user interface, does it's embrace and extend dance... And whala! Windows 2005 *BSD-killer.

Of course MS will be carefull of not hurting *BSD to much. It's not going to give up a free developer base.

Now that's freedom. Someone can come along and take my work and make gobs of money on it and put me out of business! BSD only works when your goal is NOT TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT! You can't compete with it, it's impossible. You can only compete with price, but that's immaterial. It costs money to program, irregardless if it's free or propriatory.

Now with the GPL liscence as a programmer I can do what I want with it. If I make code it's mine. I have the right to profit off of it. IF I want to sell it a company, and that company doesn't want to give out it's modifications, guess what that's perfectly legitament and legal under the GPL. All they have to do is get my permission as the author of the work to use it for propriatory project. That's allowed under the GPL. It's my code, if I want to sell my rights away it's my choice, but of course if I distribute some source code out into the wild before I sell the rights away, I have to respect the rights of contributers, and can't screw them over.

That's what liberty is. I work, so then it's my right to do what I want with the fruits of my labor. Wheither it's crops, money, or programs.

The one thing is the "virus" nature of the GPL and that goes like this: If I use a preexisting project, that was authored by somebody else and use that code in my own project I am resposible for respecting the rights of the original authors. I just can't take.. say sendmail.. and modify a percentage of it and then sell the rights away. I still have to respect the work of others.

What a shock... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653392)

..the FSF wants you to keep using the GPL.. and oh, if you're not too stupid they want you to give *them* the right to re-license your code under any new version of the GPL *they* write and see fit. Dunno, doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies for some reason.

-Paranoid me.

How am I meant to feel now? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653396)

I'm confused! am I meant to like apple or hate apple today? OSX is good... but the license is bad... but then the license is good... now the license is bad...

I can't help feeling the Apple license over OSX is a bit better than the SCO license over Linux :)

(yes. it was a joke)

In other news... (1)

Gherald (682277) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653413)

SCO sues Apple and *BSD over IP issues.

Nothing suprising (2, Interesting)

lateralus (582425) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653400)

I'm happy that the FSF are considering other licenses for discussion, this can only be a Good Thing and foster the exchange of opinions in the community (this /. article for example).

I would not be too surprised if they do not recommend it. Even from a business point of view they have the most substantial investments in the GPL.

Re:Nothing suprising (1)

Gherald (682277) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653405)

The FSF basically says its ok to use software released under Apple 2.0 but under no circumstances release your own software with a similar license.

Re:Nothing suprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653468)

Please elaborate on the substantial investments your talking about. Some pointers ?

This is expected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653401)

I think it goes without saying that practically every software license that is created from now on will either be effectively identical to an existing free license or will have some non-free clauses in it. Otherwise, why not release as public domain, BSD, or (L)GPL? No need for GNU to complain over the license; the fact that it is not GPL should immediately tip anyone off that there are differences.

Since I'm already getting railed on about Sun... (4, Interesting)

Valar (167606) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653414)

might as well piss off some more people.
Disclaimer:I own an iBook.

Yes, Apple's liscense isn't really the most free of them all. This is because Apple's primary motivations in using Open Source solutions are to: a)harness the man power and combined talent of the open source movement to aide their own software, thus making profit from software they would otherwise have to write themselves :) b)sell to the open source crowd. Face it, how many /. geeks would have bought anything Apple before OS X and Darwin came out? It's cool now though. Admittedly, that's kind of what made me get my iBook...

So maybe we have a new category: free as in, you're free to help Apple.

Re:Since I'm already getting railed on about Sun.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653550)

Apple robs and patents the soucecodes of the others developers because they did put the license APSL-2.0 to them sources [possiblely an developer of Apple did copy the sourcecode of GPL and did replace the license GPL by ASPL-2.0].

Why no does Apple public the source code of his architecture MacOSX? (aka, is it from BSD?) Because Apple lies.

To the judge: Apple is the guilty of "to be the robber of the free comunity".

open4free

A couple of points (4, Interesting)

arvindn (542080) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653415)

Aside from this, we must remember that only part of Mac OS X is being released under the APSL. Even though the fatal flaws of the APSL were fixed, and even if the practical problems were addressed, that does no good for the other parts of Mac OS X whose source code is not being released at all. We must not judge all of a company by just part of what they do.

Remind me, since when did companies have a legal or ethical obligation to release the source for any of their work? Apple is certainly a friend of the open source community, since they pay people to write OSS. This "all your code are belong to us" ideological BS isn't going to help anyone.

Note that "does not recommend APSL 2.0 for new software" != "APSL is bad". The FSF is against almost all licenses other than (L)GPL, including (especially?) BSD. What this means is that if you are writing OSS, then the GPL is your best chance to ensure that your work will always be Free. However, this does not mean that if someone distributes software under some other OSS license, then their intent is to screw you over.

Re:A couple of points (3, Interesting)

obsidian head (568045) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653434)

Remind me, since when did companies have a legal or ethical obligation to release the source for any of their work?

You're missing that Gnu is an organization which is all about ethics. You could just as well say, "Since when did lawyers have an ethical obligation to work pro bono?" but there are lawyer groups who do this for ethical reasons. I've known some who felt obliged to do this with their lives.

Re:A couple of points (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653443)

And strangely enough people who have this urge always have the urge to tell others why they should do the same. And they always have the urge to be fucking rich too, because otherwise they would have to work for a living and couldn't afford their high ideals.

Charity is hardly noble when what you give costs you nothing.

Re:A couple of points (4, Insightful)

Keeper (56691) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653446)

There's a difference between choosing to do pro bono work and someone trying to force you to do all of your work pro bono...

Re:A couple of points (1)

iCEBaLM (34905) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653525)

Similarly, there's a difference between *not recommending* a software license and *forcing* you not to use said software license.

Re:A couple of points (1)

spectecjr (31235) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653558)

Similarly, there's a difference between *not recommending* a software license and *forcing* you not to use said software license

The difference being that not forcing people to do their work for free shows a basic level of respect for that person's time, life and energy, whereas not recommending a software license because it doesn't entirely mesh with your dogma is just sour grapes.

Re:A couple of points (1)

iCEBaLM (34905) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653551)

Remind me, since when did companies have a legal or ethical obligation to release the source for any of their work?

There are legal cases where companies had an obligation to release the source of their work, but this is because of licensing agreements (building off of GPL'd code for example).

However ethically I think you are missing the entire point of the FSF. The FSF believes that software companies have an ethical responsibility to include the source to programs they sell in the case they go out of business and/or are unwilling/unable to fix flaws in the code. With this view the FSF equates only including part of the source with only selling you half of a car or half of a blender. Quite frankly I see their point and am in agreement with most cases.

-- iCEBaLM

I have an asshole too (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653421)

Do I get an opinion?

ugh.. (1, Insightful)

vosque (16680) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653422)

Okay, Parens rails against IBM, and now the FSF turns around and unrecommends Apple licences? Why must open source folk always turn around and bite the corporate entities that want be a part of it?

Re:ugh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653496)

So, two examples make an always rule ?

FSF doesn't know what Free means. (0, Flamebait)

pelorus (463100) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653425)

Of course, who in their right mind would voluntarily use APSL anyway for stuff that was completely original - it's Apple's license. I get the feeling that the FSF have a GNU up their butt. I mean - what's so flippin' special about the GPL and how come they can get away with calling the GPL "Free"?

"We wanna be free, to do what we wanna do"
- Well..you can't under the GPL. Try a BSD license.

Re:FSF doesn't know what Free means. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653487)

GPL isn't about individual freedom exclusively, it's about individual freedom in society. Think about it.

Have to wonder (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653426)

I admit that I have very little understanding of the open source/free software side of the computing world, but I would think that any company trying to mold their business model around such a movement (whether done in an ideal manner or not) would be embraced. I wonder how much longer it will be before Apple finally tires of the carping from the open source/free software community and just goes the route of... ahem... other companies and just starts "borrowing" code from open source for their own use without any intention of trying to give back.

Apple mistake (-1, Offtopic)

Matrix2110 (190829) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653433)

Another mistake by Apple.

Don't get me wrong. I spend my time at work using a PII 350, an AMD 500 and a dual 1.2Ghz. G4. Trust me, I can spot the deference. My home unit is a custom 2.5Ghz Barton with a Gig of memory.

The Apple actually is Slower in several aspects than the older G4(800) it replaced. (It does render faster, but idiot things you take for granted now take far longer than it used to.)

And OMG does it blow heat! it uses a close to 7" square all copper heat pump type passive heat sink. This feels like a hairdryer at the power supply exhaust, I know people that are worried about leaving them on overnight, I am not kidding.

And we actually have two Pentium-Pro 200's that actually are still going and going.
I did have to replace a power supply in one of them.

My point is that Apple should have open-sourced its software a long time ago.

They make their money off of hardware sales to begin with.

With the Semi-Open Hardware model it has always had (Except for the one open hardware fiasco.) Combined with open source software is a match made in heaven.

But, No they have to pull stunts like this.

Apple just carved off a tiny bit of their market share.

This has probably been said before but . . . (5, Interesting)

ReciprocityProject (668218) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653442)

Apple's model of mixing open source and proprietary software is an effective idea.

After all, no hacker wants to idle away his time polishing the mundane details of a user interface. I sure as hell don't want to, but I might if someone paid me. Why not let hackers build the fascinating technologies, open source them, and then let companies pay people (and make money) off of polished user interfaces? We hackers will always have our own (unpolished) interfaces, so we aren't tied down. Granted, the user interfaces are going to have all the problems of close source software - bugs that we can't fix, ect - but it seems like a very reasonable compromise.

Anyway think whatever you want, this model is the one that will carry the most real-world punch in the years to come. The 2.0 is just symbolic of Apple's intention to play the game.

Mod Parent Up - Re:This has probably ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653465)

Mod Parent Up

Is it just me or ... (5, Interesting)

Heartz (562803) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653445)

does anybody else notice that does not recommend APSL 2.0 for new software does not mean APSL is EVIL.

This is not true anymore... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653479)

Ahem:
The problems described in this page are still potential issues for other possible licenses, but they do not apply to version 2.0 of the APSL.

FSF needs a dose of reality (4, Interesting)

iamacat (583406) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653480)

Apple, IBM and a handful of other companies heavily invested in Open Source and gave a lot of their work back to public. Granted, they are out to make money, but they still took a big risk and huge number of users got free (both as in speech and as in beer) stuff without paying them a cent.

I wish FSF would spend more time to promote current leaders of open source and encourage others to follow in their footsteps. But all I see on their page is critisism:

Aside from this, we must remember that only part of Mac OS X is being released under the APSL. Even though the fatal flaws of the APSL were fixed, and even if the practical problems were addressed, that does no good for the other parts of Mac OS X whose source code is not being released at all. We must not judge all of a company by just part of what they do.

So basically, they are more interested in "ideological purity" than promoting realistic progress towards their goal. This is fine as a PHD thesis of some MIT student. But it does show that RMS/FSF are worthless as a realistic leader of today's free software movement. The question is, who and which organizations are up to the task?

You needs a dose of SCO... (1, Interesting)

jkrise (535370) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653526)

From your 'quote'
We must not judge all of a company by just part of what they do.

I think you need to thank the FSF for highlighting this fact. No one in their right minds would say Apple is doing illegal things by hiring programmers to write OSS, but the fact remains that Appleware must not be mistaken for Freeware.

If Apple were to get sidelined and their market share dwindles (I hear they have about 1.5% now, and operate in less than 6 countries), they might try to do a SCO. And then all hell breaks loose, and you'd be yelling at the FSF for not having warned you in advance.

FSF is merely cautioning folks from wrongly concluding that Appleware is Freeware. Openware maybe, but not Freeware.

-

Re:FSF needs a dose of reality (1)

Cee (22717) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653568)

Apple, IBM and a handful of other companies heavily invested in Open Source and gave a lot of their work back to public. Granted, they are out to make money, but they still took a big risk and huge number of users got free (both as in speech and as in beer) stuff without paying them a cent.

Companies are out there for one thing: to make money. They are taking the risk to release their software under the Open Source license to make MORE money (by getting some of "their" programmers to work for free). I don't believe a second that Apple's primarly purpose is to help the Open Source movement if they get nothing back for their effort.

I think FSF has to be free to criticise all who's not supporting their definition of "Free Software" - because they "kindof" invented the definition - and they have been true to their belief for a long time.

And if we should listen to the FSF? Let the rest of the Open Software world decide that..

FSF doesn't get it (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653488)

This is a double post story, but I saw one particularly insightful comment [slashdot.org] from the last one (that I did not make) which I would like to re-iterate over here.

Thanks to Llywelyn [slashdot.org] :

My experience from reading GNU's work is that they aren't terribly fond of anything that isn't GNU.

From that webpage:

-------------
The FSF now considers the APSL to be a free software license with three major practical problems, reminiscent of the NPL:

*It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.

*It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to your changes which Apple will not give you for its code.

*It is incompatible with the GPL.
-------------

Let's go over these point by point.

>*It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with
>other files which may be entirely proprietary.

So does BSD. This does not, in my book, qualify as a "major practical problem."

>It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to
>your changes which Apple will not give you for its code.

Yes, it requires this. I'm not sure why this makes it "unfair" though: this seems like more of a "legal cover our asses" clause on Apple's part so that they can use the changes elsewhere.

>It is incompatible with the GPL.

Would someone look up the definition of "circular reasoning"?

It seems, from everything I've seen come out of GNU, that they fit every definition of "Zealots". They almost seem to be *reaching* for something bad to say about the license simply because a proprietary software company is behind it.

Sounds eerily familiar (0, Flamebait)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653495)

You're either with the GPL, or you're with the proprietary terrorists.

RIAA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653497)

Too many letters... RIAA... joke... argh... *falls asleep*

This is still progress (4, Insightful)

nsuttitinagul (318095) | more than 10 years ago | (#6653501)

Let's consider everything in context. It's true that the FSF does not completely approve of Apple's 2.0 license. It's true that Apple does not make their entire OS source code available in any form, let alone under GPL.

Still, it is an improvement over the more restrictive license earlier, and much, much better than the days before Jobs' return from NeXT. At that time, none of the source code was available.

Furthermore, I think this is a Good Thing. A commercial vendor releasing the source code to any central part of their operating system was unheard of years ago. Sun and Microsoft have yet to do this; complaints about Apple's specific license are paltry in comparison to the strict use of binaries in place in other operating systems.

open source ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6653561)

i was using my dell laptop pentium III 900 MHz
on the AC/DC adaptor.
then the power went out, put it didn't
just stop! my whole appartment like
flickered for about 5 sec bevor total shut-down.
(say twillight-zone!)
of course the laptop keeped running on internal
battery. i was really astounded because
normally it just goes flick-and-blackout,
not flicker-flicker-flicker-blackout ...

is it possible that the 900 MHz chip, internal
battery and AC/DC adpator stabilized the
transformer for a short period (5 sec) somehow?

i just lost my internal modem : (

but since my NdFeB-belt-accutated-alu-copper-butan-heated
fusi on reactor is spewing out helium at an usable rate
i don't have to worry about does flick-blackouts anymore : )
i also get to recycle my waste water with the superheated helium!

go to www.easy-fusion-for-all.org for construction
details!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...