[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[gnu-pl] wwwgnudiff - raport nr 122
|
From: |
Wojciech Kotwica |
|
Subject: |
[gnu-pl] wwwgnudiff - raport nr 122 |
|
Date: |
Wed, 06 Aug 2003 05:12:46 +0200 |
---------- NOWE PLIKI --------
Nowy plik: curr/philosophy/historical-apsl.html
------------------------------
--- prev/philosophy/apsl.html Fri Aug 1 05:12:28 2003
+++ curr/./philosophy/apsl.html Wed Aug 6 05:12:30 2003
@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
<HTML>
<HEAD>
-<TITLE>Problems of the Apple License (APSL) - GNU Project - Free Software
Foundation (FSF)</TITLE>
+<TITLE>FSF's Opinion on the Apple Public Source License (APSL) - GNU Project -
Free Software Foundation (FSF)</TITLE>
<LINK REV="made" HREF="mailto:address@hidden";>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000" LINK="#1F00FF" ALINK="#FF0000"
VLINK="#9900DD">
-<H3>The Problems of the Apple License</H3>
+<H3>FSF's Opinion of the Apple Public Source License (APSL) 2.0</H3>
<P>
@@ -27,5 +27,4 @@
]
-<H3>Updates</H3>
<P>
@@ -39,113 +38,53 @@
<p>
-Apple first released an updated version, 1.1, of the APSL but it
-remained unacceptable. They changed the termination clause into a
-``suspension'' clause, but it still had the same kind of bad effects.
+The Apple Public Source License (APSL) version 2.0 qualifies as a free
+software license. Apple's lawyers worked with the FSF to produce a
+license that would qualify. The <a href="historical-apsl.html">problems
+previously described on this page</a> are still potential issues for other
+possible licenses, but they do not apply to version 2.0 of the APSL. We
+encourage everyone who uses any version of Apple Software under the APSL
+to use the terms of version 2.0 rather than that of any earlier license.
-<P>
-
-In January 2001, Apple released another version, ASPL 1.2. This
-version fixes two of the fatal flaws, but one still remains: any
-modified version "deployed" in an organization must be published. The
-APSL 1.2 has taken two large steps towards a <A
-HREF="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software license</A>, but still
-has one more large step to take before it qualifies.
-
-<P>
-
-Below, is the original commentary on the first version of the APSL,
-version 1.0.
-
-<P>
-
-<H2>Original APSL Commentary</H2>
+<p>
+In version 2.0 of the APSL, the definition of "Externally Deployed" has
+been narrowed in a way that is appropriate for the respect of users'
+freedoms. It has always been the position of FSF that the freedom of Free
+Software is primarily for the users of that software. Technologies, like
+web applications, are changing the way that users interact with software.
+The APSL 2.0, like the <a href="http://www.affero.com/oagpl.html";>Affero
+GPL</a>, seeks to defend the freedom of those who use software in these
+novel ways, without unduly hindering the users' privacy nor freedom to use
+the software.
-<P>
-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.
+<p>
+The FSF now considers the APSL to be a free software license with three
+major practical problems, reminiscent of the NPL:
-<P>
-<H3>Disrespect for privacy</H3>
+<ul>
+<li>It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files
+ which may be entirely proprietary.</li>
- The APSL does not allow you to make a modified version and use it for
- your own private purposes, without publishing your changes.
-<P>
-<H3>Central control</H3>
+<li>It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to your
+ changes which Apple will not give you for its code.</li>
- 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.
-<P>
-<H3>Possibility of revocation at any time</H3>
+<li>It is incompatible with the GPL.</li>
+</ul>
- 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.
-<P>
- 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.
-<P>
- 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.
-<P>
-Any one of these flaws makes a license unacceptable.
-<P>
-If these three flaws were solved, the APSL would be a free software
-license with three major practical problems, reminiscent of the NPL:
-<P>
-<UL>
-<LI>It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other
-files which may be entirely proprietary.
-
-<LI>It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights
-to your changes which Apple will not give you for its code.
+<p>
+For this reason, we recommend you do not release new software using
+this license, even though it is ok to use and improve software which
+other people release under this license.
-<LI>It is incompatible with the GPL.
-</UL>
-<P>
-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.
-<P>
-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 extension of the effective
-range of copyright power.
-<P>
-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.
-<P>
+<p>
-Overall, I think that Apple's action is an example of the effects of
-the year-old <A
-HREF="/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html">"open source"
-movement</A>: 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.
+Aside from this, we must remember that only part of Mac OS X is being
+released under the APSL. Even though the fatal flaws of the APSL were
+fixed, and even if the practical problems were addressed, that does no
+good for the other parts of Mac OS X whose source code is not being
+released at all. We must not judge all of a company by just part of what
+they do.
-<P>
-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.
-<P>
+<p>
<HR>
@@ -186,5 +125,5 @@
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2003/07/31 20:29:29 $ $Author: rms $
+$Date: 2003/08/05 16:32:50 $ $Author: bkuhn $
<!-- timestamp end -->
<HR>
--- prev/server/list-mirrors.html Sat Jul 19 05:12:17 2003
+++ curr/./server/list-mirrors.html Wed Aug 6 05:12:37 2003
@@ -582,4 +582,7 @@
- questions to
<A HREF="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></A>.
+<li><a
href="http://gnu-mirror.is-a-geek.org";>http://gnu-mirror.is-a-geek.org</a>
+ - mirrored daily
+ - <a href="address@hidden">Joseph A. Nagy Jr</a>
</UL>
@@ -631,5 +634,5 @@
Last updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2003/07/18 15:23:21 $ $Author: brett $
+$Date: 2003/08/06 00:42:18 $ $Author: sinuhe $
<!-- timestamp end -->
<HR>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [gnu-pl] wwwgnudiff - raport nr 122,
Wojciech Kotwica <=