Re: Apple and Open Source

This message is not intended to be private. However, it's posted to
debian-private as a 'heads-up'. If you care about open source, please
subscribe to spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org, as that's the correct forum
for discussing it.

Please remove debian-private from any Cc:s.

Here's my take on the Apple/Open Source thing:

Don't bite the hand that feeds! It's *good* news. Slow down, everyone.
Apple releasing the source code to the bulk of MacOS X is really good
news. MacOS X is an exciting piece of technology, and it would be
wonderful if it were Open Source.

Now, what do we do about the fact that it's not open source?

For the record: 2.2 (c) of the APSL fails point (3) of the OSD, since it
restricts distribution of modified versions (you may not do so unless you
notify Apple). 9.1, and 12.1 (c) whilst not obviously failing any point
of the OSD, are undesirable.

In many other ways, however, the license is excellent. For example, it
expressely grants a license for all Apple patents which the work might
infringe.

IMO, 9.1, which attempts to cover Apple's backs in case of patent
infringement, is adequately covered by 13.6. 12.1 (c) is just plain silly
:-(. But I'm not a lawyer.

I think we should

a) Send feedback to Apple, expressing pleasure that they wish to open
source their project, and explaining our current problems with the APSL

b) Regain control of the OS mark, and enforce it. Opensource.org should
have a high-profile front-page saying "The APSL is not currently
considered open-source, because..", "The IBM Jikes licenses is not
currently considered open-source, because..."

Regards,

Jules Bean

/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules(at)jellybean(dot)co(dot)uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules(at)debian(dot)org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2(at)hermes(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/

On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 09:09:51 +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> b) Regain control of the OS mark, and enforce it.

I agree. Let's go about it nicely at first, and if a company persists in
labelling something "Open Source" that isn't, use the judical system ("cease
and desist" letters).

> Opensource.org should have a high-profile front-page saying "The APSL is
> not currently considered open-source, because..", "The IBM Jikes licenses
> is not currently considered open-source, because..."

Agreed, but most likely that means SPI will have to take back opensource.org
first. Bruce, you're the current administrative contact for opensource.org,
which is registered on behalf of SPI under its old address; what's your take
on this?

Ray
--
UNFAIR Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we tried
to cheat them out of and didn't manage. See also DISHONESTY, SNEAKY,
UNDERHAND and JUST LUCKY I GUESS.
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan

On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 09:09:51AM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> For the record: 2.2 (c) of the APSL fails point (3) of the OSD, since it
> restricts distribution of modified versions (you may not do so unless you
> notify Apple). 9.1, and 12.1 (c) whilst not obviously failing any point
> of the OSD, are undesirable.

I got a few underlying things form the license. One is that if you
distribute modified source, you grant Apple a non-retractable full
license (equivilent to theirs) to your work, and anything under your
control that you used to create the modified version (they specifically
included things used to create it, like compiler, etc.) yet they
specifically have places in their license where they can revoke it.

There are also three seperate clause, that when investigated together,
reveal an alterior motive. If you look at the section mentioned above
that gives Apple rights to your modifications, then look at another
section (sorry no time to quote #.#'s) which says that source code may
be pre-release. A final section which says that final modifications to
the released package (when they take the work and retail it) will not
necessarily fall under the APSL.

I get _1_ thing from the above. Apple wants to release source of
pre-release software, have the the community work on fixing bugs and
adding features (which they then have rights to once you register them
on the website), take those features/fixes and incorporate them into a
final retail product which they will sell (without source) and the
community is left with non-release quality source.

Apple wants to reap all the benefits from us, and not give us full
discolure in return.

Then again, I may be suffering from "big business" paranoia.

--
----- -- - -------- --------- ---- ------- ----- - - --- --------
Ben Collins <b(dot)m(dot)collins(at)larc(dot)nasa(dot)gov> Debian GNU/Linux
OpenLDAP Core - bcollins(at)openldap(dot)org bcollins(at)debian(dot)org
UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems The Choice of the GNU Generation
------ -- ----- - - ------- ------- -- ---- - -------- - --- ---- - --

On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 07:58:26AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
[..]
> Apple wants to reap all the benefits from us, and not give us full
> discolure in return.
>
> Then again, I may be suffering from "big business" paranoia.

Isn't that supposed to be my job? (suffering from "big business"
paranoia that is) My take on it was a bit less sinister, but perhaps a
bit misguided. Seems they want a lot of the same things Netscape wanted
and we already decided those things were okay.

I believe that if we can get Eric to stop calling it Open Source when it
ain't even close, we have a chance to convince Apple to play nice.

--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd(at)debian(dot)org> Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE The Source Comes First!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sat laughing snidely into my notebook until they showed me a PC running
Linux. And oh! It was as though the heavens opened and God handed down a
client-side OS so beautiful, so graceful, and so elegant that a million
Microsoft developers couldn't have invented it even if they had a hundred
years and a thousand crates of Jolt cola.
-- LAN Times

On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 07:58:26AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> I get _1_ thing from the above. Apple wants to release source of
> pre-release software, have the the community work on fixing bugs and
> adding features (which they then have rights to once you register them
> on the website), take those features/fixes and incorporate them into a
> final retail product which they will sell (without source) and the
That might be true. Might even be Ok (tm). because

> community is left with non-release quality source.
That is *not* necessarily true. The community doesn't loose the original
source code OR the modifications made by the community. All that would be
needed is some responsible soul from the community to take charge of all
the changes and release a "competing" product *with* all source code.

On the other hand (and I havn't read the license, I'm talking in general
theory) if Apple *does* remove rights to the changes they incorporate from
the community, that would be a Bad Thing.

I'm amazed at the near total lack of trust in the Gnu developer community
towards their fellow developer. We have a long history of matching and
surpassing non-free software. The basic rule is, "anything cathedral can
do, bazaar can do better." That has been proven time and time again. So
what if Apple thinks it can abuse that. Free Software will still put it
together stronger and better... and considering how "fast" corporations
work... the free version will be released before the non-free version no
matter that Apple tries to use pre-release code. (after all, there is no
such thing as "pre-release" in the bazaar).

Just my $.02 worth...

Ben Collins <bcollins(at)debian(dot)org> writes:

> On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 09:09:51AM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> > For the record: 2.2 (c) of the APSL fails point (3) of the OSD, since it
> > restricts distribution of modified versions (you may not do so unless you
> > notify Apple). 9.1, and 12.1 (c) whilst not obviously failing any point
> > of the OSD, are undesirable.

> I got a few underlying things form the license. One is that if you
> distribute modified source, you grant Apple a non-retractable full
> license (equivilent to theirs) to your work, and anything under your
> control that you used to create the modified version (they specifically
> included things used to create it, like compiler, etc.) yet they
> specifically have places in their license where they can revoke it.

Section 3(a) says that you grant a license equivalent to the Apple
licence to third parties, section 3(b) says you grant Apple an
irrevocable licence to do whatever they want with your code.

I wouldn't call the 3(b) license "equivalent to theirs".

I see they quote Eric Raymond of "The Open Source Initiative" on their
web page - maybe SPI should retract his license to use the trademark
"Open Source" for that organization.

Steve
dunham(at)cse(dot)msu(dot)edu

On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Darren Benham wrote:

> I'm amazed at the near total lack of trust in the Gnu developer community
> towards their fellow developer. We have a long history of matching and

It's not the developers I don't trust. It's the management. We have
no way of knowing what kind of politics are being played here, i.e. how
much of this arises from their developers thinking its a good idea, vs.
the management seeing it as a free work force.
I don't expect Apple to go off the deep end in making its source code
open. I'm sure their lawyers would be tearing their hair out if they did.
On the other hand, I've got better ways to spend my coding time than
contributing to works that can be yanked out of an open state.
In other words, I'm impressed to see Apple take this step in the right
direction, and not surprised that the first step is somewhat timid in its
scope. I'm sure someone had to have some guts to even propose the idea
(media blitz or no). And if I were a Mac owner/user, I would be glad to
have the source code so that I could fix the inevitable bugs that
interfere with daily computing life. But I have some doubts if I would
release my fixes, when Apple could co-opt them.
On the other hand, making modifications to a copy of a program you own
and distributing those modifications is legal with or without Apple's
permission. But I'm not sure how that would be affected by the "license".

Lynn

I believe that if we can get Eric to stop calling it Open Source when it
ain't even close, we have a chance to convince Apple to play nice.

IS Eric calling it "open source"? Has the Open Source Initiative said
anything yet about this license? I would not expect them to endorse a
license which does not give permission to distribute modified
versions.

I have sent mail to fetch a copy of the license so I can see what it
says.

On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 07:13:23AM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I believe that if we can get Eric to stop calling it Open Source when it
> ain't even close, we have a chance to convince Apple to play nice.
>
> IS Eric calling it "open source"? Has the Open Source Initiative said
> anything yet about this license? I would not expect them to endorse a
> license which does not give permission to distribute modified
> versions.

not sure if it was not the mention that it was open source in the sence of the
cited document (somewhere on the opensource site) that made people thing Eric
or other Open source people said it was ...

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER

On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Richard Stallman wrote:

> I believe that if we can get Eric to stop calling it Open Source when it
> ain't even close, we have a chance to convince Apple to play nice.
>
> IS Eric calling it "open source"? Has the Open Source Initiative said
> anything yet about this license? I would not expect them to endorse a
> license which does not give permission to distribute modified
> versions.
>
> I have sent mail to fetch a copy of the license so I can see what it
> says.

I'm afraid Eric is.

It says this in Apple's license FAQ.

Yesterday, SPI and Bruce Perens sent Apple a gentle open letter, welcoming
the move, but not proclaiming it OS.

http://perens.com/APSL.html

Today (at least, today in my personal time zone ;), Eric rebutted that, at

http://lwn.net/1999/0318/a/raymond.html

If I gather from the above that you don't have web access from where you
are, Richard, I'm happy to email you any/all of the above.

Jules

/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules(at)jellybean(dot)co(dot)uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules(at)debian(dot)org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2(at)hermes(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/

On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 02:33:02AM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Darren Benham wrote:
>
> > I'm amazed at the near total lack of trust in the Gnu developer community
> > towards their fellow developer. We have a long history of matching and
>
> It's not the developers I don't trust. It's the management. We have
> no way of knowing what kind of politics are being played here, i.e. how
> much of this arises from their developers thinking its a good idea, vs.
> the management seeing it as a free work force.
It's not even that. Who cares of Apples sees the Free Software community
as a free work force? We havn't met, but I'm going to assume you don't
work for Apple, but let's say take Apple's source and add the neat FooBar
system that causes apple to blow away Microsoft and even Linux in their
commercial software... and that commercial software is non-free.

Surely you, or someone you know that is interested in Apple's software,
will take Apple's released code.. and your change and put together the same
(and probably better) system. And if Apple also added (but never released)
the barfoo option, the team that's taken of Applzilla will surely implement
it's on barfoo option, too.

As long as Apples doesn't (and it does, so this is all hypothetical) have
that dratted termination clause on the original release of source code,
there is nothing that can stop the Free Software community from having a
free version of Apples' software.

My initial... rant... was directed more at a general situtation. More
directed at the GPL or nothing people. That license displays the same lack
of belief in the Free Software community to match and beat the Closed
community in anything the Closed community can put out.

> In other words, I'm impressed to see Apple take this step in the right
> direction, and not surprised that the first step is somewhat timid in its
> scope. I'm sure someone had to have some guts to even propose the idea
To change the topic... Apple even had a pseudo-accepted (we havn't been
loud enough in our objections to reach Apple's ears) example to go by in
IBM.

- Darren

After studying Apple's new source code license, the APSL, I have
concluded that it falls short of being a free software license. It
has three fatal flaws, any of which would be sufficient to make the
software less than free.

* Disrespect for privacy.

The APSL does not allow you to make a modified version and use it for
your own private purposes, without publishing your changes.

* Central control.

Anyone who releases (or even uses, other than for R&D) a modified
version is required to notify one specific organization, which happens
to be Apple.

* Possibly of revocation at any time.

The termination clause says that Apple can revoke this license, and
forbid you to keep using all or some part of the software, any time
someone makes an accusation of patent or copyright infringement.

In this way, if Apple declines to fight a questionable patent (or
one whose applicability to the code at hand is questionable), you
will not be able to have your own day in court to fight it, because
you would have to fight Apple's copyright as well.

Such a termination clause is especially bad for users outside the
US, since it makes them indirectly vulnerable to the insane US
patent system and the incompetent US patent office, which ordinarily
could not touch them in their own countries.

Any one of these flaws makes a license unacceptable.

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 GNU GPL.

Of course, the major difference between the NPL and the APSL is that
the NPL *is* a free software license. These problems are significant
in the case of the NPL because the NPL has no fatal flaws. Would that
the same were true of the APSL.

At a fundamental level, the APSL makes a claim that, if it became
accepted, would stretch copyright powers in a dangerous way: it claims
to be able to set conditions for simply *running* the software. As I
understand it, copyright law in the US does not permit this, except
when encryption or a license manager is used to enforce the
conditions. It would be terribly ironic if a failed attempt at making
a free software license resulted in an effective extension of the
range of copyright power.

Aside from this, we must remember that only part of MacOS is being
released under the APSL. Even if the fatal flaws and practical
problems of the APSL were fixed, even if it were changed into a very
good free software license, that would do no good for the other parts
of MacOS whose source code is not being released at all. We must
not judge all of a company by just part of what they do.

Overall, I think that Apple's action is an example of the effects of
the year-old "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to business
with the purely materialistic goal of faster development, while
putting aside the deeper issues of freedom, community, cooperation,
and what kind of society we want to live in.

Apple has grasped perfectly the concept with which "open source" is
promoted, which is "show users the source and they will help you fix
bugs". What Apple has not grasped--or has dismissed--is the spirit of
free software, which is that we form a community to cooperate on the
commons of software.

On Sat, Mar 20, 1999 at 03:01:16AM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:

[...much deleted...]

well said!

> Overall, I think that Apple's action is an example of the effects of
> the year-old "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to business
> with the purely materialistic goal of faster development, while
> putting aside the deeper issues of freedom, community, cooperation,
> and what kind of society we want to live in.
>
> Apple has grasped perfectly the concept with which "open source" is
> promoted, which is "show users the source and they will help you fix
> bugs". What Apple has not grasped--or has dismissed--is the spirit of
> free software, which is that we form a community to cooperate on the
> commons of software.

i think it is worth pointing out here that the rapid bug-fixing and
development of features is merely a side-effect of this spirit of free
software. i.e. it is *because* we know that the software is free and can
never be taken away from us, and *because* we know we are contributing to
the common good that we are willing to volunteer our time and energy and
skills to improving free software.

without that security of knowledge, why should we bother? we would be
better off putting our time and energy into something which was truly
free than putting it into something which may be taken away from us in
the future.

free software is, IMO, an example of enlightened self-interest - we
are helping others by helping ourselves, and making an investment in
software "infrastructure" which will benefit us all for decades (or
more) to come.

craig

--
craig sanders

I, personally, cannot reach a solid decision on the Apple license and
would like to bounce some ideas off of you to see if it can solidify
my thinking. It strikes me that the notification clauses, while
inconvenient, do not render the software proprietary. You still have
complete freedom to modify the code and use it for whatever purpose
you care to. In some ways, depending on Apple's future behavior, this
could be seen as a tool for increasing freedom. If Apple agressively
redistributes the modifications that they are notified of then a very
large amount of software may become publicly available from their
efforts.

The patent clauses are curious and I can see the danger in the fact that
Apple can keep you from ever getting a chance to fight a patent in court.
On the other hand, Apple has granted use of an unknown number of patents
for use in free software. This seems like a good thing. Is your arguement
with the way they have coupled the license issues with the patent issues?
I suppose I can see the danger in that, they have made the copyright an
extension of the patent. Hmmm. ?

On Sat, Mar 20, 1999 at 03:01:16AM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> * Disrespect for privacy.
>
> The APSL does not allow you to make a modified version and use it for
> your own private purposes, without publishing your changes.

> * Central control.
>
> Anyone who releases (or even uses, other than for R&D) a modified
> version is required to notify one specific organization, which happens
> to be Apple.

> * Possibly of revocation at any time.
>
> The termination clause says that Apple can revoke this license, and
> forbid you to keep using all or some part of the software, any time
> someone makes an accusation of patent or copyright infringement.
>
> In this way, if Apple declines to fight a questionable patent (or
> one whose applicability to the code at hand is questionable), you
> will not be able to have your own day in court to fight it, because
> you would have to fight Apple's copyright as well.
>
> Such a termination clause is especially bad for users outside the
> US, since it makes them indirectly vulnerable to the insane US
> patent system and the incompetent US patent office, which ordinarily
> could not touch them in their own countries.
>
> Any one of these flaws makes a license unacceptable.
>
> 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 GNU GPL.
>
> Of course, the major difference between the NPL and the APSL is that
> the NPL *is* a free software license. These problems are significant
> in the case of the NPL because the NPL has no fatal flaws. Would that
> the same were true of the APSL.
>
> At a fundamental level, the APSL makes a claim that, if it became
> accepted, would stretch copyright powers in a dangerous way: it claims
> to be able to set conditions for simply *running* the software. As I
> understand it, copyright law in the US does not permit this, except
> when encryption or a license manager is used to enforce the
> conditions. It would be terribly ironic if a failed attempt at making
> a free software license resulted in an effective extension of the
> range of copyright power.
>
> Aside from this, we must remember that only part of MacOS is being
> released under the APSL. Even if the fatal flaws and practical
> problems of the APSL were fixed, even if it were changed into a very
> good free software license, that would do no good for the other parts
> of MacOS whose source code is not being released at all. We must
> not judge all of a company by just part of what they do.
>
> Overall, I think that Apple's action is an example of the effects of
> the year-old "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to business
> with the purely materialistic goal of faster development, while
> putting aside the deeper issues of freedom, community, cooperation,
> and what kind of society we want to live in.
>
> Apple has grasped perfectly the concept with which "open source" is
> promoted, which is "show users the source and they will help you fix
> bugs". What Apple has not grasped--or has dismissed--is the spirit of
> free software, which is that we form a community to cooperate on the
> commons of software.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to spi-general-request(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
>

--
___________________________________________________________________
Ean Schuessler Director of Strategic Weapons Systems
Novare International Inc. A Devices that Kill People company
--- Some or all of the above signature may be a joke

I think there are two issues here: the requirement to publish changes
and the requirement to notify a specific party.

The requirement to publish changes, even if the changes are not being
used by the public in any way, violates an essential privacy right.

The requirement to notify a specific party when you release a modified
version is perhaps not fatal, but I have a bad feeling about it.

The patent clauses are curious and I can see the danger in the fact that
Apple can keep you from ever getting a chance to fight a patent in court.
On the other hand, Apple has granted use of an unknown number of patents
for use in free software. This seems like a good thing.

These are two separate actions. The latter would be a good thing, not
a problem, of course, but the former is a problem.

(Though in fact they have not granted "use in free software" of these
patents, only use in this particular software, whose freeness or not
is the question here.)

On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 11:57:08PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> The requirement to publish changes, even if the changes are not being
> used by the public in any way, violates an essential privacy right.

I had never understood the right to privacy to be a goal of Free Software
licensing. The GPL, in fact, arguably removes the right to keep personal
coding techniques private.

> The requirement to notify a specific party when you release a modified
> version is perhaps not fatal, but I have a bad feeling about it.

Agreed. Still, are we saying that this is "not fatal" in the sense that
a license with this property is still Free Software?

> The patent clauses are curious and I can see the danger in the fact that
> Apple can keep you from ever getting a chance to fight a patent in court.
> On the other hand, Apple has granted use of an unknown number of patents
> for use in free software. This seems like a good thing.
>
> These are two separate actions. The latter would be a good thing, not
> a problem, of course, but the former is a problem.

So, then perhaps the requirement to make your code available publicly if used
for commercial purposes is ok but the termination of copyright due to patent
litigation is not.

> (Though in fact they have not granted "use in free software" of these
> patents, only use in this particular software, whose freeness or not
> is the question here.)

I agree that this is a "bug" in their license. But this touches on the
larger and more complex matter of "Free" but incompatible licenses. As
the GPL demonstrates, limiting the use of your intellectual property to
a particular sphere of other licensed material is apparently fair play.

--
_______________________________________________________________________
Ean Schuessler Director of New Products and Technologies
Novare International Inc. The Unstoppable Fist of Digital Action
*** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes.

I had never understood the right to privacy to be a goal of Free Software
licensing.

It was one of my goals in designing the GPL.

The GPL, in fact, arguably removes the right to keep personal
coding techniques private.

I would not say that.

> The patent clauses are curious and I can see the danger in the fact that
> Apple can keep you from ever getting a chance to fight a patent in court.
> On the other hand, Apple has granted use of an unknown number of patents
> for use in free software. This seems like a good thing.
>
> These are two separate actions. The latter would be a good thing, not
> a problem, of course, but the former is a problem.

So, then perhaps the requirement to make your code available publicly if used
for commercial purposes is ok but the termination of copyright due to patent
litigation is not.

You have misinterpreted my words; that is not what I intended to say.

Ordinarily I would try to explain what I did intend to say, but I am
getting frustrated with your tendency to misunderstand things I have
said, and throw your misunderstandings back at me aggressively. If
you are going to misunderstand no matter what I do, I may as well
minimize the time I spend explaining.