Apple Changes the APSL Rules

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.'"

Re:"Operating system"

[bhima]

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.

Excellent phrasing

[msobkow]

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.)

More licensing options

[WillAdams]

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:Slashtards

[bedouin]

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.

Summary:

[countach]

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.

No longer open source?

[mjg59]

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:They should give up their right.

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Slashtards

[AusIV]

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:They should give up their right.

[massysett]

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.

Not an APSL change - but strange things afoot

[Anonymous Coward]

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@
*/

aitikin is a dumbass

[torstenvl]

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?

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

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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 t

Re:Oy.

[Lord Kano]

...OSX an uber-amazing OS that runs on museum-worthy hardware...

Is it cool in here or it it just the fanboy?

LK

Re:"Operating system"

[Baricom]

Dude, I stopped reading after the first paragraph. Learn to express yourself more concisely and post links instead of long quotes. Copyright exists in order to provide an incentive for people to create new content.

If you were to create something creative, would you not expect people to respect your copyright?

1. Before criticizing people for being long-winded, please consider not making two English errors in four sentences.
2. Copyright is a lease. The public, which owns the idea, grants the creator a right, for a reasonable yet limited time, to profit off his/her/its work, subject to fair use conditions. I don't consider copyright terms of a century to be a reasonable amount of time - this harms the public more than it benefits it, because copyright holders can make money selling the same work over and over again in lieu of making new, original work.