Apple Updates The APSL

i, Mac writes: "Apple just updated the APSL to version 1.2, removing most (if not all) of the requirements that irked the Open Source community. You no longer need to distribute modifications made for personal use, you no longer need to notify Apple of your modifications when you distribute them, and the suspension of the license clause now reads more clearly - See for yourself: " The FSF has a response to the previous iterations of the license if you're curious.

Good license

I audited this license while Apple was working on the draft. It's a good license. The only way in which it is GPL-incompatible is that it requires that you disclose some source code when the GPL would not. GPL only requires source code disclosure with distribution, APSL requires it if you use the code for your business, even if you do not distribute it.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:A problem with a free software license

au contrair: the gpl is under constant scrutiny and debate. i doubt any single piece of lawyer-legalistic-mumbo-jumbo has had as many plain old folks like us attempt to read, debate, and understand its implications.

perhaps that attitude is only gleaned from slashdot discussions (/me ducks also)

i would think that part of the reason people attempt to make licenses GPL-compatable is because it has been around for so much longer, and covers so much more code. The new kid on the block has to work a little harder to play nicely, but thats nothing too wierd. in any case, i'm glad to see Apple attempting to make things converge more for everyone's benefit. Free Software projects have a habit of doing useful things that the people who set the code Free never planned.

the GPL is (and should probably remain) strict because it _forces_ people to deal with its limitations and its offered Freedom. otherwise, i fully believe it would have become obsolete by now by someone less concerned by Freedom and more concerned with Profit.

Re:YAOSSL 1.2

Most business has its own (separate) theory of software, operation, product, and business development and engineering. Most of the time corporations will craft a document (such as the ASPL, SCSL, etc.) to fit those parameters using one of the current "more common" open source license scheme. It's not fair to compare companies such as Sun, IBM, Compaq, and Nvidia to companies like Red Hat, SuSE, BSDi, VA Linux, etc. All of these companies have been influenced by the license scheme that either they developed (such as the BSD license), or was outstanding prior (such as the GPL). I think that we have seen an "industry standard" of what open source software is come about but we also must understand that companies don't usually play well together on such fundamental differences. I'm really quite amazed to see it this far this fast We also have to let the market take this in stride and get used to it because these corporations are all going to be profit based, while open source software is not BASED upon profit. Once the market changes the latitude on this I am certain that we will see progressive change.

No flaw -- Apple wanted terms not in LGPL

APSL solves all the problems Apple's legal and business staff was concerned about, and Apple wasn't deeply concerned about "GPL-compatibility."

There are several reasons corporate America hasn't embraced GPL and LGPL. There are several reasons FSF hasn't changed GPL and LGPL to suit Apple.

So long as there are differences between FSF's stock licenses and corporate America's goals with free software, there will be different licenses.

Because the wheel doesn't spin right for Apple!

Because they wanted a different wheel. Believe it or not, GPL and BSD are not sufficient for all purposes, either commercially or legally.

GPL has not changed in several important regards for various reasons. For this reason, corporate America has not embraced it. RMS says he doesn't care. That's fine for RMS and those who share his agendas, but its no reason for corporate America to adopt it.

There are upsides and downsides to the APSL, just as there are problems and virtues to GPL and BSD. But each is different and serves different purposes. There is no re-invention of the wheel: the wheel proposed by FSF didn't suit Apple. Thus, they had to invent a different kind of wheel.

copyleft no more viral than copyright

surely the license at fault ... is the GPL ... which places the onerous requirements ... which infects everything it touches

The GNU GPL implements copyleft [gnu.org], an attempt to keep the software in the free software community so as to maximize its utility. The GPL doesn't infect anything. RMS may give you that impression, when he brags [gnu.org] that "At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline." Maybe that developer "saw the light," or maybe he was just lazy, but he made a choice: release under GPL or rewrite Readline. That's a much better deal than you'll get if you pilfer code from a proprietary program.

Public domain (or BSD-licensed) software may be incorporated into a proprietary program. If your goal is more users, then that may be acceptable. An API or reference implementation of an open standard should probably be public domain (see, e.g., SAX [megginson.com]).

Fundamentally, it comes down to the freedoms you want to give your users. If you buy into copyleft, use a GPL-compatible license.

A problem with a free software license

somehting I am curious about, in the FSF response:

If these three flaws were solved, the APSL would 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.

The last point intruiges me, can a FSF advocate out there tell me why not being compatible with the GPL is a problem?

I mean if it is free software, then it is free software. Why is it being incompatible with the GPL a problem, if it is free?

Apart from this, though, I like reading these comments form the FSF, I feel its good to know that there are people who care about more than the buck, and who are not afraid to appeal to the heart of others.

malkes me go all warm and fuzzy

Re:A problem with a free software license

I'm not a GPL advocate, but I can see one big problem with it. If you're incompatible with the GPL then GPL projects won't be able to use your code, and you can't use theirs either, right?

The whole reason people are bending over backwards about being "GPL compat" is that there's already enough code out there under its umbrella that it seems more reasonable to be that way (or just use BSD code otherwise). Making a "free" license that doesn't play well with other free licences is just a way to say "Look, we're really hip", without really giving anything back to the people who could make the most out of your code (and return a wealth of improvements). It pisses off coders who want their work out there in the 'protected public domain', and basically helps keep developer population down. Think of this as Apple finally catching up to where Sun was about 2-3 years ago in attitude. Mybe we'll even see some open-sorenson sometime in the next 100 or so years.

Re:Why re-invent the wheel?

Because the when you make your own wheel, you can custome build it to protect yourself.
Imagine if Apple released all of its open-source stuff under GPL and we found that some prorietary Apple binary that was later downloaded used some of this GPL'ed code. Apple would have to open all of that code. If Apple makes its own license, I am more than positive that it would give its self a way out.
It is just good buisness sense.

Re:copyleft no more viral than copyright

so as to maximize its utility.

This is one of the most onerous lies of the GPL, and I'm finally going to come right out and say it.

Code has the most utility when everyone anywhere at any time who wants to use it can use it, unrestricted. The GPL says, "You can only use this code if you give up control of your own code to the GPL community." It places a limitation on how that code can be used!

The GPL is not concerned with keeping existing code free - if you have a copy of code that is licensed under any OSS-compliant license, as long as you have it, and want it to remain free, nobody can take it from you. Code is not like silicon; information can be copied, shared, duplicated, and code is information. Information, once free, is always free until nobody who has rights to that code wants it to be free.

No, the GPL is concerned with forcing open other code. It is concerned with telling me that I can can't use GPL code unless I am willing to GPL my entire application. So I have a choice: release under GPL, or reinvent the wheel. I've done both, myself, but I really don't like the choice, either be forced to release GPL because I have no other option, or take the inefficient route of rewriting code I could have reused. (This is the viral nature that you deny; you claim it keeps software in the OSS community. What, if MS incorporates BSD code it will suddenly disappear from millions of computers? The difference between GPL and BSD is that GPL will infect other code, thus forcing the choice.)

The GPL's chief goal is its viral nature, not its copyleft. The BSD license is just as good at keeping code open and it is not viral.

If you want to talk about utility, think of its use to the most possible people, and you'll find that the BSD offers much more utility than the GPL.

Re:The aps - License is NOT void from start ..

12.1(c) only says that the license terminates if you commence a patent lawsuit against Apple. That makes sense considering other terms in the license stating that you grant Apple right to use your code.

However, you are wrong about termination of the license by discovering an unenforceable condition: 13.5(a) specifically states that if a court of law discovers an unenforceable condition that the remainder of the license shall remain in effect, with the exception of the objectionable clause.

IANAL, but that seems pretty straightforward to me.

Apple's orginal announcement has a few more detail

Here's Apple's announcement of their changes to the APSL. It has a few more details of what has changed.

From: Ron Dumont <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Apple Public Source License version 1.2
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:26:17 -0800
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>

Hello,

We are pleased to announce version 1.2 of the Apple Public Source License.
We made several changes to better serve and protect the community that
has evolved around Darwin and other Apple Open Source projects. The
major changes are:

* You no longer need to distribute modifications made for personal use
(sections 1.4 & 1.8)

* You are no longer required to notify Apple when you deploy modifications
(previous section 2.2(c) deleted) -- though the notification site
will remain for those who want to use it.

* The Infringement / Suspension clause (previous section 9.1) has been
removed; you are now responsible for securing all necessary rights
yourself (section 2.3)

* Many of the license terms have been rewritten to also protect
Contributors, e.g., section 10 (the Trademark protection clause)
now covers trademarks and tradenames of any Contributor as well as
those of Apple.

We've also made numerous other changes to streamline and clarify the
license, so we encourage you to read it yourself at
http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/. We welcome your comments at
[e-mail]. You are also invited to discuss the
APSL on the Open Source Initiative's license-discuss list. To subscribe,
send an email to [e-mail].

We would like to thank the people outside Apple who helped us improve
the APSL to better serve the community.

Yours truly,
The Apple Open Source Team

Apple finally gets it

What users want to see is innovation under liscenses, not innovation in liscenses. Removing most of troublesome issues with the ASPL means we can finally get down to the business of improving Darwin and not seeing our efforts squandered on a legally-insulting project.

If you're wondering why Apple went with its own liscense instead of using the BSD or GPL liscenses, then here's the answer:

They thought they needed different features, at first. Now they've learned, but don't want to lose complete face by dumping their own liscense alltogether. (Reliscensing old software is a pain, sometimes.)

Having their own liscense added prestige to Apple's projects. These weren't just any old projects; they were official Apple projects with an official Apple liscense

Controlling the liscense meant having legal autonomy with the liscensed product. Going with the GPL would mean opening themselves up to moral or legal criticism for not abiding by RMS's future versions and whims.

Good for you, Apple. You warm an old man's heart.

Re:A problem with a free software license

I see the exact point about not playing nicely with other free licenses, but surely the license at fault in that respect is the GPL? I mean, it's the one which places the onerous requirements on the game, NOT the APSL or whatever. It's the one which infects everything it touches.

Yet the GPL is seen as sacred and beyond criticism. Oh well.

<duck>