Beta
×

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!

Apple Changes the APSL Rules

Hemos posted more than 7 years ago | from the breakdown-shakedown-yer-busted dept.

177

aitikin writes "Apple recently changed their license for the OS X kernel. According to semthex's post, Apple has reworded the APSL to prevent him and others from open sourcing the kernel hacking under the APSL: 'This file contains Original Code and/or Modifications of Original Code as defined in and that are subject to the Apple Public Source License Version 2.0 (the 'License'). You may not use this file except in compliance with the License. The rights granted to you under the License may not be used to create, or enable the creation or redistribution of, unlawful or unlicensed copies of an Apple operating system, or to circumvent, violate, or enable the circumvention or violation of, any terms of an Apple operating system software license agreement.'"

cancel ×

177 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"Operating system" (3, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822108)

I suppose if you stretch the meaning of the words "operating system" like you stretched your mom's belly in the womb, you could somehow come to the conclusion that Apple is trying to restrict you from developing and releasing your little application. If you read it like a normal human being who's stretching your mom's baby hole, you'd understand that Apple doesn't want you to release the suite of open applications as a whole.

I am disturbed to see that people would jump so hard on this non-issue.

Re:"Operating system" (4, Interesting)

bhima (46039) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822188)

I wouldn't exactly call this a non issue but basically you are right I can still develop my little application and I can still screw around with the OS just like I have been. I suppose I won't be able to go out and buy a dual socket motherboard and two of Intel's new quad core chips and gobs of memory and expect to easily or legitimately run Mac OS on it. But I'm fairly sure that does not impinge on my liberty or my human rights.

Nice bad analogy... btw.

Re:"Operating system" (1)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 7 years ago | (#16825802)

The silly thing is that anybody interested in using Apple's source to remove copy protection from OSX won't be bothered by the small hurdle of violating a license agreement. But AFAIK, XNU is the OSX kernel, and there is source code available. I have no idea how hard you'd have to stretch your personal concept of "Operating System" to where running traditional OSX binaries on a modified / recompiled version of the XNU, but for me, at least, that's really where the OS is at. Not a collection of software, but more like 'the program on a computer that's always running.'

So to me, this is indeed something of a threat to those interested in XNU and those interested in modifying it, and not a threat to those who intend to write small simple applications on top of it, as the GP seemed to suggest.

Re:"Operating system" (1)

MicrosoftRepresentit (1002310) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822280)

Indeed. I fail to see how this affects anyone's kernel hacking, unless of course they were hacking in such a way that it enabled the violation of other Apple licenses, and they intended to release it. If thats what this guy was doing, all I can say is tough shit, hippy.

Re:"Operating system" (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16825546)

Indeed. I fail to see how this affects anyone's kernel hacking, unless of course they were hacking in such a way that it enabled the violation of other Apple licenses, and they intended to release it. If thats what this guy was doing, all I can say is tough shit, hippy.

Once you pay for a product, according to first sale law, you are permitted to make modifications to it.

The DMCA prohibits most reverse engineering, except that which is done for the purposes of interoperability. While this does not involve reverse engineering (the code is provided) I feel that this indicates a legal attitude that interoperability is valuable and protected.

Making the software run on hardware not approved by Apple is an interoperability issue.

Running the software on non-Apple hardware is a violation of the license.

A kernel patch that would allow the software to run on non-Apple hardware would seem to provide only interoperability, and would seem to be valid under first sale law, which protects your rights to make modifications to things which you have purchased.

Apple is both relying on the legal validity of a shrink-wrap license which you do not sign, AND doing all they can to take away your first sale rights.

Apple is seeking to separate you from your rights. This is wrong no matter what you say about it. Apple is also strengthening the validity of the shrinkwrap license if they pull this off, which benefits no user.

If you accept this kind of behavior from Apple, they will continue to step on your rights.

Re:"Operating system" (1)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16825636)

Jesus where are mod points when i need them! KUDOS Mr. MakesSense!

Re:"Operating system" (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 7 years ago | (#16825700)

"Once you pay for a product, according to first sale law, you are permitted to make modifications to it.

Yes, if you buy a product, you can make modifications to it but it does not give you the right of sale of copies of either the modified product or original. In the case of software, you are not purchasing a product but rather a license to use the software. It does not matter whether you received it as physical media or a download.

Apple is both relying on the legal validity of a shrink-wrap license which you do not sign, AND doing all they can to take away your first sale rights.

Let me make this clear. You do not purchase the product but rather a license to use the software. You do have a right of first sale of the license. It does not matter whether you have signed the license because it is the license which you are purchasing. You do not own the software, the copyright owner owns the software.

Re:"Operating system" (2, Insightful)

NemosomeN (670035) | more than 7 years ago | (#16825724)

This doesn't stop you from making OSX run on stock hardware, it just says that if you want to do that, you can't use their source. This basically says you have to reverse engineer in a clean room for it to be legal. This makes things very complicated, since almost anyone who cares enough to reverse engineer is going to have a hard time not being tainted. (Having seen old code wouldn't make you "tainted" though). This would be akin to ReactOS having to stay clear of the Win 2k source that is floating around, except in this case the source is gift-wrapped on their doorstep with a "Do no open!" sticker on it. (This analogy is flawed in that nobody can tell if you opened the present.)

Re:"Operating system" (1)

burnunit0 (630935) | more than 7 years ago | (#16824272)

Wait wait. Are you saying people are stupid? Or my mother's a whore? Or wait, is that your mom? Wait, apple's in somebody's...uh ... (shudder)... "baby hole"? AAPL out of my mother's uterus!

The mind buggles (3, Funny)

Medievalist (16032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16824434)

You analogy leaves me breathless, like a glass eel.

Re:"Operating system" (1)

kypper (446750) | more than 7 years ago | (#16824460)

Insight mixed with yo' mamma jokes. Who knew?

Must Preserve That Apple Tax (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16822180)

Apple is just making sure that OS X and Apple hardware stay hand in hand - no matter how much consumers don't want to have to buy Macs due to their expense or poor quality.

Re:Must Preserve That Apple Tax (1)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822236)

Expense, yes, but quality no. I'd love to have more Macs around if I could afford them. The ones I have just wont die, and I never tire of looking at them. Of course, I'm perfectly happy typing this response on my Dell Insprion 9300, running Ubuntu.

Re:Must Preserve That Apple Tax (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822284)

It's their right... they developed the software. Your trollish comments about expense or quality have absolutely no bearing on the situation.

They should give up their right. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16822352)

Sometimes it makes very good business sense for a company like Apple to give up some of its rights. In this case, they probably should have. There's a very significant trend towards the use of open systems that can be freely modified and redistributed. Apple may not like it, but it's how the software world now works.

Pulling a stunt like this makes them look extremely bad in the eyes of open source developers and users. Now, you may think that we're a small group. And yes, we are. But we have influence. Our friends and relatives come to us when they're considering a computer purchase. Our managers ask for our technical input on company purchases. When we see this sort of nonsense coming from Apple, it makes us no longer want to recommend their products. While Apple isn't a small company, they do need our support to continue with their strong growth.

Re:They should give up their right. (1)

MicrosoftRepresentit (1002310) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822462)

What nonsense? They're stopping people from enabling violation of their licenses! For fucks sake, get a grip.

Re:They should give up their right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16822612)

Yeah, whatever you say, paco. The problem isn't what those developers are doing. The problem is that Apple's licensing is from an age that has (thankfully) passed us by: the age of proprietary software.

These days, those of us with any brains expect our operating systems to be open and freely accessible. That's why we don't use Microsoft Windows. That's why many of us are now moving away from Apple, since they're becoming hostile towards open development. We want freedom. That is why some of us use Linux. Those of us who demand even more freedom use FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and Dragonfly BSD.

While they're usually quite good at it, in this case Apple really needs to get with the times. This isn't the 1980s any more, where closed kernels were deemed acceptable. Today we demand source code, and the ability to modify and redistribute that source code. If your product doesn't alway for that, then shits and assrape to your product. We will use alternatives.

Re:They should give up their right. (4, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822860)

Apple's licensing is from an age that has (thankfully) passed us by: the age of proprietary software.
What color are the little elves and pixies on your planet? Are they friendly?

-jcr

Re:They should give up their right. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16822956)

Aww, look everyone!

It's the local metrosexual Apple troll making his inevitable appearance out from under his overpriced bridge with the typographically pleasing "Beware of Troll" signs posted on it...

Re:They should give up their right. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16823100)

Mr. John C. Randolph:

If you have ever been to Europe, you have likely encountered for yourself these "little elves and pixies" that you speak of. For I work at a fairly large European financial institution, and just over a year ago we completed our transition to open source software. Aside from anything we've written for ourselves, we use open source software from the hardware up. Our servers run FreeBSD, and PostgreSQL is used for our relational database needs.

The benefits have been enormous: we immediately noticed a 35% improvement in performance, even before tuning our systems. After tuning, we were able to eliminate our need for some of the hardware we previously required. The decreased electricity costs alone have made the transition worthwhile.

Our developers are now free to deal with problems, when they rarely arise, immediately and without worrying about violating some obscure term of licensing. That's the beauty of using BSD-licensed software.

I know you worked for Apple in the past, so I see your bias in this situation. But we've seen the light, and it does not involve closed source software. We need our systems to work, and we need to have complete control over the software we do use. BSD-licensed software gives that to us, far better than any proprietary software ever has. So unless Apple is going to be as open as the BSD license with their software, we have no use for Apple nor their products.

Re:They should give up their right. (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16824628)

I see your bias

What you call bias, I call experience. Congratulations on migrating to BSD from whatever you were using before, but that in no way means that the "age of proprietary software" is over. Are you giving away your in-house apps that you're developing for your own use? QED.

-jcr

Christ on a bike, man (1)

MicrosoftRepresentit (1002310) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823418)

Says you: "The problem isn't what those developers are doing"

Well they've got nothing to worry about then, have they!

Re:They should give up their right. (1)

NemosomeN (670035) | more than 7 years ago | (#16825782)

Pass the Kool-Aid, you've already drunk enough of it.

Re:They should give up their right. (2, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822766)

The restriction is based on an extrinsic, characteristic: how you intend for your modifications to be used.

This is discrimination based on field of endeavor, which causes software licensed under the new APSL to no longer be open source software.

It is unlikely that the license with these added restrictions is anywhere close to fitting the OSI criteria for an Open Source software license.

The restriction may be well-intentioned; however, it causes the software to not be open, since now you can't modify your kernel and release source based on APSL source, if there's any theoretical way, someone could use what you released to circumvent Apple's proprietary OS software.

Since you have no way of proving that nobody will ever be able to use your work to enable circumvention of Apple proprietary software, it may be that you cannot safely release any software derived from APSL software, without a risk of liability, should it later turn out that someone uses your derived product in some way (which you might or might not have intended), that Apple deems to enable distribution of unauthorized copies of their software.

Even a simple FTP client, using a small amount of APSL code could be deemed to violate the terms, since it's theoretically possible, the user of your software could connect to someone's FTP server, and use the client to enable receipt of unlawful copies of Apple software.

Re:They should give up their right. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16825588)

The restriction may be well-intentioned; however, it causes the software to not be open, since now you can't modify your kernel and release source based on APSL source, if there's any theoretical way, someone could use what you released to circumvent Apple's proprietary OS software.

It is clear that it is not well-intentioned; it is an obvious attempt to deprive you of your rights as a consumer who purchased a product under First Sale law. It's sad that it will probably succeed, but it's even sadder that the majority of Apple fanboys (and girls) will accept it as reasonable when it is in direct contravention of your rights.

Re:They should give up their right. (1)

eldepeche (854916) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822614)

"There's a very significant trend towards the use of open systems that can be freely modified and redistributed."

Only if all your buddies run Linux. Other than myself, I don't personally know a single person with any interest in modification or redistribution of computer systems. And I'm in grad school, home to some of the geekiest people in the world.

Re:They should give up their right. (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822644)

Apple is not a software company. They write software - some of it quite good - but they are a hardware company. At this point, they are phenomenally profitable for a PC vendor, and probably care little about trying to achieve profitability down the road-less-traveled. Arguing that Apple should open source their operating system is like arguing that one of the car manufacturers should open up their engine-control software - it removes a core advantage of their hardware and makes you less likely to buy it. If you are tired of car analogies, use Boeing's flight control software or IBM's mainframe code.

Now if you want to argue that it is in Apple's best interest to become a software company, you'd have plenty of company. Personally, I think it would be nuts to try to compete with Microsoft and all of the various UNIX-type OSes out there.

Re:They should give up their right. (2, Interesting)

massysett (910130) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823282)

Arguing that Apple should open source their operating system is like arguing that one of the car manufacturers should open up their engine-control software - it removes a core advantage of their hardware and makes you less likely to buy it.

I thought the argument was just the opposite. That is, if Apple is a hardware company, then software is merely a cost center. By this theory, you open source the software to drive down the cost of development so that you can focus on the hardware that differentiates your product. That's what Bruce Perens [perens.com] said anyway.

That wouldn't mean Apple would open source all its software. Some of its software--like the OS X GUI--do differentiate Apple's products, so Apple would keep that proprietary. But it seems much less likely that the Darwin kernel would be viewed as a differentiating feature of OS X. Perhaps it would make more sense to open source the kernel then.

Re:They should give up their right. (2, Insightful)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823922)

Isn't that pretty much what the situation is now? I don't recall Darwin being closed, last time I checked.

Except consumers don't think that way (2, Insightful)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 7 years ago | (#16824118)

To your average consumer, a PC (or Mac) is a package deal. When there's an OS problem, they don't think "I'll call Microsoft about my problem" they call HP or Dell. If you ask your great aunt Matilda what's wrong with her computer, chances are she won't differentiate between a software and hardware problem. Anyone who does "support" over the phone for non-technically-oriented family and friends can confirm this. When the printer doesn't work, half the problem is determining if it's a hardware (printer/ink/cable) problem, or a software (Windows/driver) problem.

If Apple made Mac OS "Open" then they have to support it, because that's what consumers expect. I agree that right now, software is a cost center for Apple. But I completely disagree that opening the kernel is guaranteed to reduce that cost, especially in light of the complications it would introduce into Apple's support and QA organisations.

Re:They should give up their right. (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16825010)

Unless opening up the kernel made it easier to run their diffentiating GUI on generic hardware...

Re:They should give up their right. (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823898)

Apple is not a software company. They write software - some of it quite good - but they are a hardware company.

Apple is a personal computer company. They write both software and build hardware, but they are both simply components. Microsoft is a software company. They create one component of a PC, which is assembled by Dell or someone.

Arguing that Apple should open source their operating system is like arguing that one of the car manufacturers should open up their engine-control software - it removes a core advantage of their hardware and makes you less likely to buy it.

Hmm, I'd say it is more like arguing Mitsubishi should give away their engines for free to promote sales of their cars. They are competing in the PC space against Dell and HP. No one sells OS's to end users (in real quantities). They are sold to corporations and OEMs that put together systems for end users.

Now if you want to argue that it is in Apple's best interest to become a software company, you'd have plenty of company. Personally, I think it would be nuts to try to compete with Microsoft and all of the various UNIX-type OSes out there.

The only way to compete with a monopoly is to sell a complete vertical chain of components including the one they sell as well as other products. Apple sells OS's, but only bundled with hardware and other software. Thus they don't currently compete with Microsoft (which is pretty impossible unless the courts step in). I agree it would be dumb for them to risk everything on such a venture.

Re:They should give up their right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16823334)

"Apple may not like it, but it's how the software world now works"

man, I'm not sure if you meant that or just forgot to qualify it with "for about 5% of the market"

putting your statements in context of the tiny portion of the market it represents then it makes sense, but to generalize it to the whole computer market it becomes rubbish.

Oy. (3, Insightful)

jpellino (202698) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823964)

Apple's purpose in releasing any of their source is to make sure people can write apps and add-ons that make OSX an uber-amazing OS that runs on museum-worthy hardware and makes people want to buy more of their systems.

You can modify 99% of what happens on a Mac through writing apps and add-ons and tweaking the system through available source.

Apple, and every other for-profit computer company has to balance the attractive value of the modifications they allow against the remaining allowances that would torpedo their business model.

Hence opening everything would not be in their best interest. Beyond that, the serial grousing about the APSL limits is a bit like grousing that your fork isn't on the left. It will still get food to your mouth.

And let's see - that last paragraph pretty much says "that's a nice computer company youse got there - wouldn't want nothin' to happen to it, if you know what I mean - I'm not sayin' anything, I'm just sayin'..."

Please. You're going to stop recommending Apple to grandma and her gamer grandkids who will never EVER need the sort of kernel mods that you are discussing here. Never mind that when they get to the Apple store how much influence do you think the dire warnings of their local Nick Burns (or was that Christopher Moltisanti?) is going to have in the face of great hardware that can run the three major OSs? How soon do you think we'll hear "Sorry, Steve, but Boeing's going to WalMart for Linspire boxes - hey, but you call us when we can totally hack your kernel."

Re:They should give up their right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16825084)

Yeah, and your vast far reaching influence has had such an incredible impact on the computing world that Linux and the other open-sores that's out there are essentially ubiquitous now and Windows and the mega-corpses out there verily tremble at the mention of Linux.

Get over yourself, you have zero influence and zero importance.

Re:Must Preserve That Apple Tax (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823634)

I reckon Apple would do better to have Mac OS XI as true open source -- as in GPL or, if they've really got the bollocks, BSD licence. They could continue to make truly wonderful hardware like the iPod range, and supply the all-important drivers to allow it to be used to its full potential with OS XI Macs. Imagine Apple printers, built like old HPs and running on cheap generic bulk ink. Imagine Apple scanners, that actually work. Right now, nobody is making peripherals that are anything but crap; and the market has no choice but to put up with this. An Open Source Mac OS XI could be spread far and wide. Running it on cheap no-name hardware is going to be a no-brainer. Being Open Source, Apple won't then have to worry about piracy. Instead they can concentrate on making stuff that actually works.

Re:Must Preserve That Apple Tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16823864)

Sure... that sounds like a great plan. Apple should spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a top-notch OS and then... just cuz a bunch of geeks wanna play with it... they should release the whole thing as open sounce and get ZERO return for that investment. Sounds like sound business practices to me!

Till you come up with a better way to make money.. (3, Insightful)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823954)

Apple would do better for WHO? You or Apple? Do you open source people even think these suggestions through from the standpoint of the business making the code? Do you know anything about business? Seriously?

As for peripherials I don't know what crap your using but my Hewlett Packard 3-in-1 Printer/Copier/Scanner works by just plugging it into my Mac. No installing software or drivers or anything....It Just Works. So why does Apple need to GPL its OS again?

You are aware that Apple is a hardware company right? They make most of their profits from hardware. Insane margins like 25% on hardware sales. From Macs, not iPods. Just exactly how are they going to replicate that lost revenue if they open source the OS allowing it to be run on any cheap generic PC? Do you REALLY think they'll be able to sell enough copies of OS X to make up for that? And at what price? Right now OS X sells for $130. Apple would have to up the price to $250 or more, maybe even $400. Who's going to buy an alternative OS thats that expensive when they can just stick with Windows?

Ah well. (5, Insightful)

Funkcikle (630170) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822186)

Apple attempts to plug license hole which was used to circumvent Apple's valid (even if unwelcome) desire to protect own commercial interests. Locals up in arms. Villagers outraged.

Re:Ah well. (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822412)

Just like any other OS vendor. I won't mention one that goes two steps too far. At least Apple does keep it's regular users' best interest in mind, and thier own actions in step.

  http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/345/met allica.php/ [lyricslist.com]

Re:Ah well. (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822946)

Apple is a corporation. The only "interests" they keep in mind are their profits. Too many people talk about Apple like they're some sort of fracking philanthropy that only makes money as a side-effect of their noble works. They're not. They're a business and they have an obligation to make money by selling their products, not just giving them away.

Apple doesn't want you porting their OS over to your generic Intel system. They want you to buy one of THEIR systems. Deal with it.

-Eric

That's the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16823576)

Apple fanbois hold up Apple as a Good Company. Items like this show that they are merely a Company. Not as bad as some, maybe, but still more interested in what we can do for them than what they can do for us.

Re:Ah well. (1)

robvs68 (560549) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823344)

Mr. Jobs, the peasants are revolting!

Yea, I Know, they stink on ice.

Excellent phrasing (3, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822224)

I think Apple has done a very smart thing for a CSL (customer source license) by specifically limiting the use in such ways.

I would be more restrictive -- the source is available for debugging purposes only, and may only be modified through it's core project. I view using/linking CSL code as a variant on LGPL -- I don't care about the specifics of how code is linked (static, DLL, dynamic, whatever), just that any and all changes to such code must be submitted to the core project regardless of where someone deploys the changes.

i.e. No GPL escape clause of "internal use only" that lets weasels try to lawyer their way out of releasing changes by hiding apps behind web interfaces (the equivalent of screen scrapers IMNSHO.)

Re:Excellent phrasing (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16822756)

I think you need to read up on the current state of Apple's open source development initiative. I believe the process for submitting a kernel patch goes something like this:

1. Obtain the source [apple.com] by reaching up into the ivory tower and taking it. Notice that you're fetching tarballs over http, not svn or cvs. I'll bet that's current.
2. Beat yourself with a stick trying to build it until you discover darwinbuild [opendarwin.org] .
3. Develop your patch.
4. Submit a bug to the Radar [apple.com] .
5. Announce it in Darwin-kernel [apple.com] .
6. Wait.
7. Wait some more...
8. Read this [daemonnews.org] and give up.
9. Go back to whatever *BSD you came from, fool.

So far Apple has done open source as a publicity stunt, not for open source. If it truly were for open source it would have to be run a lot more like the BSD projects are and not like some corporation trying to keep their secrets all tied up by any means necessary. Even if it means crippling Darwin as an OS. If it were truly for open source, they wouldn't use a proprietary build system, either. I suppose we ought to be happy that we even get tarballs, but it doesn't mean I can't be bitter about it. While this may pass some suit's standard for open source, it is clearly not acceptable nor does it pass for what I consider "open source".

Re:Excellent phrasing (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822942)

So far Apple has done open source as a publicity stunt

Linux weenies consistently miss the point of Darwin. It's not another BSD distro, it's ther for the convenience of Mac developers who have to work with kernel code, such as driver writers and third-party hardware manufacturers.

-jcr

Re:Excellent phrasing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16823170)

I agree, they should switch over to some sort of "shared source" license. Seems to fit their intentions more correctly. Having an open source license with the word Apple in it 50 times is just confusing. And now they have to pull this stunt, it's fairly safe to say it won't pass as an certified OSI license.

Re:Excellent phrasing (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16824682)

And now they have to pull this stunt,

This is not a stunt, it's their fiduciary duty to the shareholders.

-jcr

Re:Excellent phrasing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16824828)

New Apple license lays claim to first born male infants and first choice rights on any females once they reach 18.

Jcr says: "It's their fiduciary duty to the shareholders. I for one support Apple in this move."

Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16825862)

AC wonders when the tall building he works in will fall over.

JCR explains that tall buildings are nothing new, and that the odds of actually being killed from one falling over is remote.

Re:Excellent phrasing (2, Informative)

Maximalist (949682) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822824)

Well, there is no independent exclusive right to "use" code that is licensable under copyright law. The relevant copyright rights are to copy, distribute, publicly display, and to make derivative works. Language about a license to "use" is an invitation to litigation over its validity. Despite the fact that such language is a common meme, its basis in the law is tenuous.

Re:Excellent phrasing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16824470)

And how do you "use" code without some form of copying taking place?

Slashtards (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16822226)

So everyone is okay with this? Apple has a right to protect it's patents and commercial interests. But if it was Microsoft everyone would be pooping and pissing everywhere. Maybe Novell should have made a deal with Apple, it would have been the dawning of a new Golden Age.

Re:Slashtards (4, Interesting)

bedouin (248624) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822468)

The key difference being, those who choose (notice the emphasis on choose) to run OS X to fulfill their computer needs enjoy their experience. I support Apple because I think OS X kicks ass, and have no trouble paying to enable further development of a solid OS and cool hardware. Seeing teenagers download my favorite OS for free, or seeing the experience cheapened in the eyes of others because its running on unsupported hardware bothers me.

And Microsoft already does do this; last time I checked I couldn't recompile XP to run on my PPC PowerMac. None of Microsoft's licenses are even close to open source, while a number of Apple's key technology are.

Re:Slashtards (2, Insightful)

chill (34294) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822638)

And Microsoft already does do this; last time I checked I couldn't recompile XP to run on my PPC PowerMac. None of Microsoft's licenses are even close to open source, while a number of Apple's key technology are.

That's because Microsoft is honest about their position towards FOSS and Apple isn't. At least you know where you stand with Microsoft, but with Apple, they do the bare minimum with FOSS -- just enough to let the Apple fanboys use the argument "Apple DOES do Open Source! What it isn't open ENOUGH for you? Fanatic."

Seeing teenagers download my favorite OS for free, or seeing the experience cheapened in the eyes of others because its running on unsupported hardware bothers me.

Seeing your precious OS-X running on Dell bothers you? The experience is cheapened by not being on Apple-branded hardware? I know this is Slashdot and all, but you really need to get a life. It is software for Christ's sake, not your little sister.

Re:Slashtards (5, Funny)

voidptr (609) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823214)

My little sister's a whore. But it's not too late to keep my OS pure. It's all I've got left.

Re:Slashtards (3, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823728)

That's because Microsoft is honest about their position towards FOSS and Apple isn't. At least you know where you stand with Microsoft, but with Apple, they do the bare minimum with FOSS -- just enough to let the Apple fanboys use the argument "Apple DOES do Open Source!

Microsoft has been promoting their software as open for years with their "shared source" initiative. Apple has been producing and selling both open and closed source software for years as it fits with their business interests. The situation is only unlcear if you try to oversimplify as "Microsoft..closed...bad, Apple...open..good." The real world does not work that way. Apple releases a lot of software as open because they recognize the advantages of open source and believe in that model. This is not philanthropy, it is good business. The same goes for IBM. Nothing forced Apple to release their zeroconf implementation as open source, or even to help port it to Linux. They didn't do it because they want people to like them either. They did it to promote the technology and interoperability and new standards. We all benefit, and so does Apple. That is how open source is supposed to work.

What it isn't open ENOUGH for you? Fanatic.

I think anyone arguing here that Apple is screwing people over is probably a fanatic. Apple is in compliance with the license chosen by the people who wrote the code. Anyone who thinks they know better than those coders and everything should be treated like GPL is being fanatical.

Not that I don't think people should not complain about what Apple is doing if they want to or try to convince them to be less restrictive (although in this case I don't care). Just be clear that whiners don't have some sort of moral high ground here. It is just as ethical for Apple to close their kernel as it is for them to keep it open. Anyone who wants it released one way or another is arguing their own (perceived) best interest, and nothing more. I'd like Apple to give me 10 million bucks, but I don't think they have a moral obligation to do so.

Re:Slashtards (1)

bedouin (248624) | more than 7 years ago | (#16825262)

I know this is Slashdot and all, but you really need to get a life. It is software for Christ's sake, not your little sister.

Corny as it may sound, it's really a lot more than software. It's the device I have to deal with when I want to contact close friends thousands of miles away, edit projects, write documents, watch films and clips, read the news, apply for jobs, and be entertained. The computer is more vital to my day to day operations than an automobile, because at least when the car breaks down I can ride a bike or take the bus/train. With that in mind, when I encounter an operating system that doesn't need reinstalled every six months to be reasonably functional and doesn't require me to recompile a kernel each time I buy a new piece of hardware (assuming it can be supported anyway), I'm a pretty happy guy. And in the 20+ years I've been using a computer now, OS X has been pretty much the only environment that gets problems out of my way and just lets me focus on the task at hand -- whether it's serious or not. So yeah, I'll admit with no hesitation that I'm defensive when an OS I think rocks could potentially have its revenue for R&D lessened by people running it on vanilla hardware.

Re:Slashtards (1)

shudde (915065) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822672)

Seeing teenagers download my favorite OS for free, or seeing the experience cheapened in the eyes of others because its running on unsupported hardware bothers me.

I agree... there's nothing more reprehensible than teenagers leeching and hacking away at operating systems. Sure, some might argue that we've had some amazing software developed as a result of nefarious kids like these but that's proved inadequate when balanced against the posters (and Apples) discomfort.

Re:Slashtards (2, Interesting)

AusIV (950840) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823280)

Seeing teenagers download my favorite OS for free ... bothers me.
I love seeing my favorite operating system [ubuntu.com] downloaded for free. And amazingly, the experience is more or less the same whether you're running on a 32 bit PC, 64 bit, or PPC.

seeing the experience cheapened in the eyes of others because its running on unsupported hardware bothers me.
I know a guy who used to run OSX on his HP. He claimed it ran better on his HP than Windows did. I was never aware of him having any problems with the operating system because of his hardware, but on the occasion that he had software problems, people automatically assumed it was because he was running on the wrong hardware, even if that had nothing to do with it. He finally quite when he decided he didn't like stealing it, but he still intends to get a Mac when he can afford one. Most of the people who see it simply think it's cool that he's running OSX on his PC.

As I stated earlier, my favorite operating system is Ubuntu. I'm not going to go into all the reasons why, however I will say that the number one thing it has over OSX is that it can win converts without having to spend hundreds of dollars on new hardware. I have to take off my shoes to count the number of people I know who say "My next computer is going to be a Mac." But they aren't about to throw away a year old computer to upgrade the operating system (which is what they're interested in). With Ubuntu, they can (legally) download the ISO for free, burn it to a CD and install it on the hardware they've already got. And like a Mac, it just works. I installed Ubuntu Dapper Drake on my computer, and every piece of hardware was automatically recognized. Now, if I could go out and buy a copy of OSX, install it on my computer and have it work as well as Ubuntu, I'd be more than happy to fork over a couple hundred dollars, and I may consider a Mac for my next hardware purchase, but I'm not about to get rid of perfectly good hardware because it won't (legally) run the operating system I'd prefer.

And Microsoft already does do this; last time I checked I couldn't recompile XP to run on my PPC PowerMac. None of Microsoft's licenses are even close to open source, while a number of Apple's key technology are.
Way to appeal to the Windows fanboys here on Slashdot... Wait. Why is Apple "open source"? Is there anything legal and advantageous you can do by recompiling a modified version of the source? I get the feeling it's open source only by name. Since they closed Darwin, I've not seen anything from Apple that bares a resemblance to the Open Source community I know and love. I'm not saying everything has to be open source, I'm simply saying OSX hardly qualifies as open source.

Re:Slashtards (2, Insightful)

Slashcrap (869349) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823286)

Seeing teenagers download my favorite OS for free, or seeing the experience cheapened in the eyes of others because its running on unsupported hardware bothers me.

I love it when teenagers download my favorite OS for free and especially like to see it running on previously unsupported hardware.

The other difference between us is that if I ever started worrying that the product of some random corporation was being "cheapened" by the actions of others, I'd probably shoot myself.

Does slavish devotion to companies which you don't have a personal stake in come bundled with every Mac or is it an optional add-on?

Re:Slashtards (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823410)

No, just the usual band of Apple apologists. Just about the only positive thing you can say is that it probably has no useful validity in practice.

Apple really wants to have its cake and eat it. It wants to benefit from Open Source as a PR thing (its shown no signs of actually wanting contributions from the community), and as a way to get cheap source code (as in drawing in large tracts of BSD code to help build the first Darwin), but it really doesn't like this "Freedom" thing much.

You know, if Microsoft did this, I don't think anyone would care. Microsoft isn't actually promoting itself as a provider of open source. Apple is. They really should remove this [apple.com] and this [apple.com] images from their web pages. [apple.com] It would at least be a little more honest.

This is the sort of thing keeping me away. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16822228)

I've truly considered getting a Mac. From what I've seen, they offer some serious technical and usability benefits. But then we hear about stories like this, which seem very much like something we'd hear out of Redmond. And it makes me want to have nothing to do with Apple or any of their products.

As great as their software supposedly is, the licensing uncertainty is keeping me away. I like the certainty that the BSD license brings to NetBSD, and that's why I'll continue to use it instead of getting a Mac and running Mac OS X.

Re:This is the sort of thing keeping me away. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16822516)

You are so full of shit my cable modem is starting to smell.

If you bought a Mac, the license change has pretty much no effect on you, since it only targets changes to software that DOES NOT RUN ON APPLE HARDWARE.

Re:This is the sort of thing keeping me away. (0, Troll)

inca34 (954872) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822842)

Why pay the premium on Apple hardware if you have no intentions of running the OS? As far as I'm concerned, if you are going to run one of the BSDs, you ought to do it on primary supported platforms. For example, not Apple hardware.

Since WGA worked... (0)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822272)

Dear Apple, Good luck with that. Love, Billy

Someone at Apple woke up... (0, Flamebait)

Churla (936633) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822276)

Someone at Apple woke up one morning and said..

"Wait.. you mean that by opening this up we won't have iron clad control over everything the user does with the product? And who is this in bed with me?!?!?!"

Apple is more heavy-handed then Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16822282)

Jobs is worst than Gates. I say boycott all Apple products.

Re:Apple is more heavy-handed then Microsoft (4, Informative)

FLAGGR (800770) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822572)

Yeah, why doesn't Apple just release its kernel under the GPL like Microsoft? Oh wait.

They're being pretty damn generous even letting you see the source code. If you don't like the license, don't view the source, it's not necissary.

Don't compare yourself against the worst. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16822812)

It's not good to compare yourself against the worst that is out there. We see many American politicians and media pundits do it, when they state that America's human rights record is better than that of shitholes like Uzbekistan and Rwanda. Yeah, I'd fucking hope it's better!

Likewise, just because Microsoft isn't open with their kernel source code doesn't mean that Apple shouldn't be, either. Apple should be comparing themselves with the best of the best, including Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris. All three of those systems have source code that is widely and freely available for modification and redistribution. Apple needs to get with the times.

Re:Apple is more heavy-handed then Microsoft (1)

inca34 (954872) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822906)

Oh wait, what's that? News flash, Apple borrows FreeBSD code to base their kernel on and what does the Open Source community get for it? Damn generous? The BSD license doesn't force you to keep the source open, but for fuck's sake, you got it for free. Thousands upon thousands of man hours developing, honing, refactoring code. For free. In the blink of an eye. You're saying you wouldn't at all feel obligated to support the industry that provided you with the basis of your entire wildly popular operating system?

Re:Apple is more heavy-handed then[sic] Microsoft (4, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823404)

Oh wait, what's that? News flash, Apple borrows FreeBSD code to base their kernel on and what does the Open Source community get for it?

I won't argue the accuracy of your statement because it is irrelevant, but I think it important to answer your question. The "Open Source Community" and specifically the developers who wrote the BSD licensed code Apple adopted for their OS got exactly what they asked for. They got their code more widely used and on a lot more desktops than they could otherwise have hoped for. They helped define the standard, promoted interoperability, and gained in reputation.

The BSD license doesn't force you to keep the source open, but for fuck's sake, you got it for free.

You seem to be of the opinion that those who developed the code were morons. They intended to license their code as GPL, but they were just too dumb, or they copy and pasted the wrong thing or some such thing. They really wanted the code to remain open to all, even if that made companies like Apple choose something else. I submit that you're assuming that the "community" should ethically be able to restrict code and keep it open, even when the developers who put in all the hard work specifically licensed it otherwise.

You're saying you wouldn't at all feel obligated to support the industry that provided you with the basis of your entire wildly popular operating system?

Apple supports the "industry" but that is not relevant here. Apple supported the individuals who developed the code they used in exactly the way those developers asked them to. They have kept it open in that people can see it and suggest modifications/fixes which is a huge step up on some other possibilities. It also keeps them in step with the rest of the industry. Because they have some of the same underlying code it means developers can target both OS X and FreeBSD more easily with less work.

If you have a beef, bring it up with the people who wrote the code and licensed it via a BSD license. They did all the work and make all the rules. Your assumption that the rules they chose are wrong is presumptuous.

Re:Apple is more heavy-handed then[sic] Microsoft (1)

inca34 (954872) | more than 7 years ago | (#16824616)

The "Open Source Community" and specifically the developers who wrote the BSD licensed code Apple adopted for their OS got exactly what they asked for. They got their code more widely used and on a lot more desktops than they could otherwise have hoped for. They helped define the standard, promoted interoperability, and gained in reputation.

For the most part, I agree that this is the purpose most BSDs choose to serve. However, it is my most humble and honest opinion that the BSDs are successful due in part to the openness that they have achieved. Take for instance "make buildworld". That is open, whereas "darwinbuild" as a build system hack (and a good one at that) to get around Apple's proprietary distributed build system is clearly not. In the "spirit" of open source, giving someone the code is only half the battle. Providing them with the tools to contribute and supporting that in a sustainable manner is, in my opinion, one of the most important technical goals of OSS.

You seem to be of the opinion that those who developed the code were morons. They intended to license their code as GPL, but they were just too dumb, or they copy and pasted the wrong thing or some such thing. They really wanted the code to remain open to all, even if that made companies like Apple choose something else. I submit that you're assuming that the "community" should ethically be able to restrict code and keep it open, even when the developers who put in all the hard work specifically licensed it otherwise.

You seem to be of the stock of people who like to put words in other people's mouthes. ?!? Come on, when did I say anyone was a moron? I have the utmost respect for the developers of the BSDs (and even a few at Apple). I'm merely pointing out in a rather dramatic style that taking from BSD without giving back is not cool, though legal. I understand the license doesn't require anything but recognition of the original authors, however that does not mean that you should make effectively proprietary software out of it and then get to parade it about as OSS! Apple says they are open source, and they are in the strictest sense of the notion, but they are not behind it (yet?).

The purpose of these comments are to spread awareness of the issue, and for anyone who gives a damn to speak up and leave some feedback at apple.com. They are not to bash BSD developers or the BSD licenses. I have an unfortunately pristine picture of what a corporate legal department considers a non-starter for proposals and contracts; needless to say, BSD is a stretch and the GPL doesn't even have a snowball's chance in the Sahara.

Apple supports the "industry" but that is not relevant here. Apple supported the individuals who developed the code they used in exactly the way those developers asked them to. They have kept it open in that people can see it and suggest modifications/fixes which is a huge step up on some other possibilities. It also keeps them in step with the rest of the industry. Because they have some of the same underlying code it means developers can target both OS X and FreeBSD more easily with less work.

Please explain how that's not relevant when that's the entire point of my guilt-trip ridden comment? I'm appealing to a common sense of decency, where if you borrow something you give it back the same way you got it or better. So, supporting the "industry" is indeed the entire point of my comment. Do go on... oh wait, you did anyway. So it was, in fact, relevant.

So let me get this straight here. You are still clinging to the notion that Apple has kept "it" open, where "it" is Darwin and "it" can't be built as delivered? Go try to do something useful and update Darwin to FreeBSD 6. Your efforts will fall on deaf ears.

If you have a beef, bring it up with the people who wrote the code and licensed it via a BSD license. They did all the work and make all the rules. Your assumption that the rules they chose are wrong is presumptuous.

Your assumption that I am assuming the rules they chose are wrong is presumptuous.

Cheers

Re:Apple is more heavy-handed then[sic] Microsoft (2, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16825548)

However, it is my most humble and honest opinion that the BSDs are successful due in part to the openness that they have achieved.

The adoption of the network stack in Windows from BSD licensed code is a success as far as advocates of the BSD code are concerned. It is in no way open. For some reason a lot of people who are GPL advocates see it as a failure and a reason why BSD licensing is flawed, as though it was not doing exactly what the developers intended.

This entire argument is based upon your notion of what a success is. That is entirely subjective and not a point worth arguing.

In the "spirit" of open source, giving someone the code is only half the battle. Providing them with the tools to contribute and supporting that in a sustainable manner is, in my opinion, one of the most important technical goals of OSS.

I think that collaboration between a given user of some code and other users and the community can be very valuable. That does not, however, mean it is the goal of licensing code. Apple doesn't keep Darwin open so that they can get collaboration from hobbyists. They keep it open as a way to aid developers for OS X make things work better on OS X and understand bugs.

That may not be what you wish they would do, but that does not make it antithetical to the goals of those who licensed their code as BSD in the first place.

Come on, when did I say anyone was a moron? I have the utmost respect for the developers of the BSDs (and even a few at Apple). I'm merely pointing out in a rather dramatic style that taking from BSD without giving back is not cool, though legal.

And in doing so you're assuming you know better than those who wrote and licensed the code in question. The coders here wanted people to be able to take their code, close it, and never contribute any code back. Those developers were paid for their work, not with the potential of other code (as with the GPL) but with the affect their code has on those projects. From their perspective, taking BSD code, closing it, and integrating it into a project is cool. That was what they wanted. Just because you don't understand the payoffs or like the payoff is irrelevant.

If you want to write a third of a kernel and license it GPL, then great. Probably, however, no one will use it since we already have Linux for that.

Apple says they are open source, and they are in the strictest sense of the notion, but they are not behind it (yet?).

Apple is not open source. Some projects Apple works on are open source. The problem is that you seem to want open source to mean something that it does not. Open source simply means the source is open to all to see. Maybe you want Apple to produce free (libre) software. That is something else.

I have an unfortunately pristine picture of what a corporate legal department considers a non-starter for proposals and contracts; needless to say, BSD is a stretch and the GPL doesn't even have a snowball's chance in the Sahara.

Funny. I'm slacking off from working at a corporation on a project built largely on GPL software. The corporate lawyer I consult is a sharp guy, but we're by no means the only corporation to adopt GPL software (Linux anyone) in our products. We also contribute quite a bit to various BSD projects (I think we have 4 OpenBSD developers on staff). Maybe you need to find a different company?

Please explain how that's not relevant when that's the entire point of my guilt-trip ridden comment?

Apple's support for open source software and the OS/computer industry mostly has nothing to do with their kernel code. They contribute to a lot of open source projects and have founded a number of them. They help author and drive the adoption of standards that benefit the entire industry. Thus, Apple does help the industry, but the kernel code they post is not a significant part of that. It is mostly useless to those not planning on working on OS X.

So let me get this straight here. You are still clinging to the notion that Apple has kept "it" open, where "it" is Darwin and "it" can't be built as delivered? Go try to do something useful and update Darwin to FreeBSD 6. Your efforts will fall on deaf ears.

Neither the term "useful" nor "open" is in any way synonymous with what you propose. Apple's kernel being open is useful for people writing device drivers or trying to find a bug in code they are developing to run on OS X. It is useful to people writing kernel modules, like security people who ported the TrustedBSD MAC framework. Because it is open, people can do these things much more easily.

That does not mean it is useful if you're trying to get Apple to change OS X to meet your needs or if you're trying to build your own, open source OS and would like to be able to periodically pull in Apple's work.

Your assumption that I am assuming the rules they chose are wrong is presumptuous.

You state that following the rules they set is "not cool." You define the success of BSD code in terms of particular uses, ignoring other uses that do not fit with your ideas about openness. You even imply the only reason to use the BSD license is to get around corporate legal departments, while hoping people will use it as though it is GPL anyway. That is presumptuous.

Another oss zealot ownd! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16826078)

Thank you 99Bottles. You have made crystal the self induced mind warp that some oss zealots engage in. Maybe it's an age thing?

Re:Apple is more heavy-handed then Microsoft (2, Informative)

xonicx (1009245) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823310)

They're being pretty damn generous even letting you see the source code.

its not Their code.

Re:Apple is more heavy-handed then Microsoft (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823580)

its[sic] not Their[cp] code.

Well, they wrote the IO kit component entirely. The Next developers wrote the majority of Mach 3.0, from my understanding, before being acquired. The BSD portion (that is the POSIX part) was partially written by them but mostly by others. Those people, however, licensed it is such a way that others could close the source if they wanted to (which Apple hasn't) or otherwise restrict it (which Apple has). Those developers felt that it was more important to promote adoption of the code than to promote keeping a branch of the code open. As a result, their code has become more widely adopted than it would otherwise, promoting standards and providing several other benefits to those authors.

So while Apple did nto write all their kernel, they did write a lot and the rest they are using in accordance with the author's wishes. Where's the problem? Unless you're a zealot who thinks everything should be GPL, even if the people who actually did all the work did not think so, I can't see why anyone would argue that Apple has screwed the coders here.

Re:Apple is more heavy-handed then Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16823554)

high time to realize how generous were the people who gave the initial code under the BSD license, which is the one granting full freedom, including selling profiting and keeping it all for yourself like a selfish little boy.

Re:Apple is more heavy-handed then Microsoft (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823836)

If you believe Rob Braun (http://ezine.daemonnews.org/200602/apple.html [daemonnews.org] , link posted by an AC a few posts above), you get to see less and less of the source code.
Too bad.
Because Apple uses a few graphics chips with notoriously lousy Open Source support (ATI, NVIDIA). For a short time, I had the idea that looking at their drivers could maybe help Linux development. But now I guess that there is no help to be had from Apple there.

Generous? WTF are you smoking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16824220)

Don't forget that most of the source code was not even written by Apple - they just took it from BSD Unix. Of course, the BSD people are naive to the point of idiocy if they don't realize that the BSD license is just a license to steal their code. Apple is legally clean, grabbing several programmer-centuries worth of code, adding about 1% of their own, then locking it up and saying it's all theirs. But no, in a world populated by decent human beings, this would never happen.

More licensing options (1, Interesting)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822418)

I _really_ wish Apple would work out more licensing options --- if they're not going to make a replacement for my Newton MessagePad, the least they could do would be to allow licensing Mac OS X for use on hardware which doesn't compete w/ their products.

As much as I like my NeXT Cube at home, and Mac OS X at work or on my wife's Powerbook, I'm simply not willing to give up the flexibility of having a tablet computer w/ integrated graphics tablet capability (I currently use a Fujitsu Stylistic), or to go back to schlepping a graphics tablet around w/ my laptop as I did before I got my NCR-3125.

William
(who really wishes that there was a better handwriting recognition system for Linux than xscribble)

Re:More licensing options (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822664)

how is that Fujitsu working out for you?

I'd seriously love to have a Tablet running Mac OS but I've just about given up on Apple.

Is the Linux support decent or was it a pain in the ass to get everything working as it should?

Re:More licensing options (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823062)

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to go the Linux route, 'cause I'm not willing to give up RitePen, so I'm running Windows 2000, which at least is reasonably tolerable compared to 98 or XP.

William

Typical Slashdot story and response... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16822442)

Apple does something stupid, fanbois defend Apple then go back to their homosexual fantasies of being in bed with Steve Jobs. Oh, and the truth on this site is always modded down.

Summary: (2, Interesting)

countach (534280) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822564)

Summary: "This licence can't be used to create unlicenced copies".

DUH. That doesn't rule out much. You can't do that on the GPL either.

indignant surprise in 3... 2... 1 (0)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822658)

Reminds me of the old "frog and scorpion" or "Navajo and the snake" stories... someone gets together with a known enemy (OSS advocates cozying up to Apple), and then later, when the enemy screws them over, they get all indignant and surprised.

Mr. PC (1)

zitintheass (1005533) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822704)

I am Mr. PC, I don't care what those elitists pricks do, plan or change. Just single word to lawyer army at Apple. STFU.

No longer open source? (2, Interesting)

mjg59 (864833) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822778)

The fact that the license prohibits you from doing illegal things may not be a problem. However, it also appears to to claim that you may not modify the software in such a way that it allows the circumvention of EULAs. Depending on jurisdiction, there appears to be some degree of uncertainty about whether EULAs are legally enforcable. So, in effect, one of the limitations of this license may be that it prevents you from doing some things that are perfectly legal, but which Apple don't want you to do. It's pretty easy to argue that that sort of restriction prevents it from genuinely being an open source license, in much the same way that a license that said "You may not use this code to produce a Windows version of the product" wouldn't be an open source license.

Note that I'm not passing any sort of judgement on Apple here. It's their code, and they absolutely have the right to do what they want with it. I'm surprised that they feel that unauthorised use of the OS on PCs is sufficiently important that they need to restrict their license terms to make it harder, but, well.

The GPL doesn't limit this sort of thing - you're permitted to use the code for anything, but there are certain limitations on how the resulting work may be distributed. The distinction is subtle, but real.

Re:No longer open source? (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 7 years ago | (#16825894)

The GPL doesn't limit this sort of thing - you're permitted to use the code for anything, but there are certain limitations on how the resulting work may be distributed. The distinction is subtle, but real.

The GPL prevents you from releasing binaries only to the public. That is a hard limitation since you cannot use GPL'ed code with in house developed proprietary code without being forced to release it as GPL as well giving away any competitive advantage your company may have had over the competition.

I think most slashdotters do not have a bloody clue how business works. Their only inkling of knowledge comes from the Underpant Gnome College of Business.

Re:No longer open source? (1)

mjg59 (864833) | more than 7 years ago | (#16826018)

That's a restriction on means of distribution, not a restriction on use. You're perfectly welcome to use it with your in-house code, providing that everyone who receives a copy of the binary can have a copy of the source. The additional restrictions to the APSL mean that there's no way to use it if that would result in people being able to breach Apple EULAs.

Darwin is no longer Open Source (4, Informative)

sfraggle (212671) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822982)

People are missing an important fact here: Darwin is no longer Open Source under the Open Source Definition [opensource.org] :
  • 3. Derived Works


    The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

  • 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups


    The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

  • 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor


    The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Re:Darwin is no longer Open Source (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 7 years ago | (#16826046)

Where in that definition does it say that any open source license removes to right of copyright owners to protect their rights? Go read up on the GPL, nowhere does it remove the copyright from the original authors. These licenses are merely a way of extending certain rights to others who would otherwise not have such rights but they do not reduce or diminish in any way the copyright of the original authors.

What does this mean for the APSL? (2, Informative)

jonwil (467024) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823092)

Does it mean the new APSL is no longer OSI complient?
Does it mean that its no longer "free software" (and that the GNU project will start listing it on its "licences to avoid" list again?)

On the other hand, it should mean that apple will continue to provide kernel source code for both x86 and ppc quite quickly after kernel releases since if someone does use it to pirate osx, apple can sue them right away (and force removal of the source code)

That's correct (1)

CritterNYC (190163) | more than 7 years ago | (#16824900)

I'd be willing to bet that with this change, the APSL is no longer free enough to be considered a Free license. As such, it'll be removed from the OSI-approved list [opensource.org] . That means that any projects using it can't be hosted on SourceForge, Google Code, etc.

This shouldn't really be surprising to anyone. Apple never really intended to truely open up their stuff and allow others to fully use it without their blessing.

Re:That's correct Not! (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 7 years ago | (#16825966)

No license be it LGPL, GPL, or APSL removes any right (copyrights) from the original copyright owner(s). You cannot use any license as a defence of wilfully violating the copyright of the authors of any software regardless of the license used.

Not an APSL change - but strange things afoot (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16823420)

I don't think we've seen an APSL change yet, given that statement is from the header from each file - not the APSL. (Header in full posted below.) However, what is more puzzling to me is the shift from APSL 2.0 back to APSL 1.1 (the non-Free one) with regards to Xnu done sometime before 10.3.9 but post 10.3. It was not immediately clear if this was a mistake or a marks a policy shift. While on one hand, the APSL that you have to agree to is 2.0, and what few other projects that ship with the APSL file is 2.0, and the Xnu project itself is also labelled with the 2.0 license, the file included is 1.1 which I find hard to believe could have gone this long without someone noticing if it was a mistake.
"/*
* Copyright (c) 2000 Apple Computer, Inc. All rights reserved.
*
* @APPLE_LICENSE_OSREFERENCE_HEADER_START@
*
* This file contains Original Code and/or Modifications of Original Code
* as defined in and that are subject to the Apple Public Source License
* Version 2.0 (the 'License'). You may not use this file except in
* compliance with the License. The rights granted to you under the
* License may not be used to create, or enable the creation or
* redistribution of, unlawful or unlicensed copies of an Apple operating
* system, or to circumvent, violate, or enable the circumvention or
* violation of, any terms of an Apple operating system software license
* agreement.
*
* Please obtain a copy of the License at
* http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/ [apple.com] and read it before using this
* file.
*
* The Original Code and all software distributed under the License are
* distributed on an 'AS IS' basis, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER
* EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AND APPLE HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL SUCH WARRANTIES,
* INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
* FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, QUIET ENJOYMENT OR NON-INFRINGEMENT.
* Please see the License for the specific language governing rights and
* limitations under the License.
* * @APPLE_LICENSE_OSREFERENCE_HEADER_END@
*/

Still the same license? (2, Insightful)

salimma (115327) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823612)

IANAL, but does this just count as additional limitation under the same license, or would the reworked license count as a new license altogether (i.e. not the same version 2.0 [opensource.org] that OSI approved)

If not, would it not need to be recertified?

"unlicensed copies of an Apple operating system" (1)

openright (968536) | more than 7 years ago | (#16824046)

I am not sure what this means. Does it mean that an open source OS must be named differently?
Probably clarification from Apple is needed.

aitikin is a dumbass (2, Interesting)

torstenvl (769732) | more than 7 years ago | (#16824358)

The OSx86 project is far more than "kernel hacking." Nothing whatsoever prevents you from hacking Darwin as much as you want. Admittedly, it would have been less ambiguous for them to prohibit unlawful or unlicensed copies of an Apple-branded operating system, or a commercially available Apple operating system, but its meaning is clear enough to stand up in court if they were to sue you for hacking on Darwin.

Semthex's OSx86 project may be out-of-luck-ish (I don't know the OS X EULA - if running OS X on non-Apple hardware doesn't trigger the "unlawful or unlicensed" condition, then it seems fine to me).

Incidentally, Apple's legal department isn't that great. As far as I know, they still haven't updated the AppleCare terms and conditions to cover displays bought with MacBooks and MacBook Pros. "Apple covers the Covered Equipment and one Apple branded display if purchased at the same time and registered with a covered Mac mini, PowerBook, or Power Mac computer." Apple Computer, AppleCare Protection Plan Section 1(a)(i), available at http://www.apple.com/legal/applecare/appna.pdf [apple.com] .

PS - Anyone know why the section symbol ( ), entity §, isn't showing up?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>