APSL is now approved by the FSF.

[Laukev7]

http://www.opensource.apple.com/news/2.0-announce.html

Excellent! This should shut up some anti-Apple trolls.

[TheKnifeThrower]

Can someone tell me in simple terms what the APSL means. I know what the Gnu GPL means but I have no idea what the APSL is.

[Laukev7]

Apple Public Source Licence. Basically just another free software licence similar to Netscape Public Licence. It used to be a non-free open source licence used by Apple for projects like Darwin and Rendezvous. It was dismissed by the FSF until a few hours ago with version 2.0. It remains incompatible with the GPL, though, and the FSF still does not appear to be fond of it. No surprises there; they are very picky, and they condemn almost anything that does not fully agree with them.

[Pantso]

That should shut some mouths up. I always like to have the last laugh  

[solo]

quote:An option to distribute source only to those receiving binaries, rather than always having to distribute to the general public

Wait. What?

Are you telling me that now APSL allows the author to choose not to distribute source code to those without a binary copy?

As far as I can see, if this were put into practice at Darwin and they did not make binaries for free download, Apple has the right to not let you see the source code unless you own OSX (based on darwin).

Excuse me?? How does something like that get past Stallman with a clean bill of health?? I know this clause may mean nothing for Darwin and Apple's other APSL-licensed software but I think this should be unacceptable in a free-software license.

[flap]

That's similar to how the gpl works. With the GPL you don't have to distribute the source code publicly, but you have to send the source to anyone who has the binaries and asks for it. Though since in theory anyone could obtain a copy of the binaries from someone else, it usually amounts to making the source available to the general public.

[Pantso]

quote:Originally posted by Fury: Freedom Fighter:


Wait. What?

Are you telling me that now APSL allows the author to choose not to distribute source code to those without a binary copy?

As far as I can see, if this were put into practice at Darwin and they did not make binaries for free download, Apple has the right to not let you see the source code unless you own OSX (based on darwin).

Excuse me?? How does something like that get past Stallman with a clean bill of health?? I know this clause may mean nothing for Darwin and Apple's other APSL-licensed software but I think this should be unacceptable in a free-software license.

Fury, I could as easily as you did right now, use an excerpt from any other license and claim that it is not valid or legitimate or try to discover flaws. Instead, I would urge you to read the whole license and then comment on it. As far as I see it, this is a much improved version of the APSL that could easily comply with the FSF's directives. And something else. Thos who know Stallman, also know that he is one of the most intelligent people around. In this case, this license wouldn't get past him if he hadn't read it and reviewed it about a 1,000 times  

http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0.txt

[slvadcjelli42]

Yeah, flap's right about the GPL thing, fury... go to http://www.lindows.com and try to get the source or binaries. You have to be paying them before you get anything that way. I was startled when I learned that that's OK under the GPL (In my opinion, it's a load of #!@%, but, that's just me    )

[Faust]

I'm not *so* annoyed by the fact that the source code doesn't have to be given to anyone, just all who have the bianries.  I will still support freedom for all over freedom for those who have the binaries though.

However, if you read the page on the GNU homepage they have three reasons why they recommend the GPL over the APSL though.  Reason 1 (allows linking to proprieatary bits) is IMO not that good a reason.  If parts of the program are non free then I want free parts over those anyway.  Reason 3 is crap.  Dont even ask me what it is it's so crap.  Although maybe they just too used to recursion.    

Reason 2.
"All changes must be submitted to Apple."
Fuck off.

And again only certain sections of Mac OSX are covered by the APSL.  If you are OK using at least partially non free software then fine use a Mac.  I will however choose not to.

edit : THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON ANY THING COMPANY OR INDIVIDUAL.  It is my choice to try and avoid obtaining non free software if it can be avoided - I do not expect it to be yours also.

 

quote:
Yeah, flap's right about the GPL thing, fury... go to http://www.lindows.com and try to get the source or binaries. You have to be paying them before you get anything that way. I was startled when I learned that that's OK under the GPL (In my opinion, it's a load of #!@%, but, that's just me  )

You should not have to be paying them, only have a copy of the binaries.  If Lindows is requiring that you pay them to get the source I say they get back in their goddamn box.  And then we burn the box.

[ August 09, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]