OS X Server (Darwin) Goes Open Source????

Andrew C. Greenberg werdna at gate.net
Mon Mar 22 06:31:58 UTC 1999


> Jeffrey Chapman wrote:
>
> Stallman makes some telling criticisms of the APSL that are NOT addressed
> by ESRs rubuttal of Perens: http://linuxtoday.com/stories/4263.html

Not many.  RMS, a longtime critic of Apple, seems to have indigestion 
with any license published by someone other than GNU.  (Apparently, 
GPL is not itself an open source product in spirit).  Note his past 
virulent criticisms of FreeBSD, Apache, Mozilla and other licenses, 
some of which remain posted at FSF's web site.  RMS' definition of 
the term "free" is remarkably variable, depending it would appear on 
his aesthetics than derivation from first principles.

At the end of the day, open source licenses are not rooted in 
liberty, but in assuring access to software.  (A licensor interested 
in freedom uber alles can always dedicate all IP to the public 
domain).  Indeed, this may be the principal difference between OSI 
and FSF, the latter seeming more ideologically focused about driving 
a political lockstep than the former.  The former seeming more 
interested in limiting use of OSS code to assure OSS access than the 
latter.

Here, Stallman appears to overread the limitations of APSL, 
categorize them as an assault (not on freedom this time, but) 
privacy, and then adds for good measure a concern that Apple reserves 
the right to terminate the license if it deems legitimate a claim by 
a third party that the root code is infringing.

None of these criticisms I find persuasive.  Apple actually repairs a 
loophole in GPL, whereby a licensor can avoid broad dissemination of 
published software in source code form by quietly "promising" to make 
code available to all who apply.  (But who knows?)  Apple requires 
publication of the modifications to a central and public cite.  While 
some may find this problematic, RMS and his GPL fanatics now find 
their own pat response ("if you don't like the license, then don't 
use the darn code") troublesome and oppressive when coming from 
another front.  Indeed, Apple is merely enforcing the quid pro quo 
for allowing free use of open sources.  While done probably more for 
selfish reasons than altruistic ones, so what?  The effect is that no 
only do the sources stay public and free, but ALL the non-Deployed 
modifications will be public and free.

As to the criticism concerning termination for third party 
infringement, I understand Apple's problem, but not RMS concern.  If 
Apple deems a third party threat credible, Apple (among the deeper 
pockets around) now faces a claim for liability the measure of which 
may include not only its own infringements but those of all OSS 
developers as well.  I can understand why they would want to cut that 
link to the extent possible, as well as to reserve the possibilty of 
cross-licensing to avoid claims of infringement (which might be 
rendered impossible).  On the other hand, RMS seems troubled that 
Apple is entitled to fold on IP issues concerning its flagship 
product when he would not.  Fair ball, but if he is really willing to 
go toe to toe with the third party to the end of the world, why is he 
troubled by termination of the license?  How can he be afraid of 
Apple's claims for breach of license, but not the third party claims?

In practice, what would happen, I imagine, is that Apple would 
"terminate" the license as to the infringing portions only, try to 
cut the best deal they could, and would refrain from suit concerning 
the terminated stuff -- leaving that in the hands of Mr. Third Party. 
But fighting Mr. 3P was precisely what RMS said he was willing to do.

No harm, no foul, or at least, the problem seems far from a fatal 
flaw.  In short, I acknowledge that APSL has limitations that I would 
prefer to see repaired, but hey, they're the ones who are giving ME 
the free stuff, which I am free to decline.  In short, rather than 
fatal flaws, we are picking nits that should be smoothed and repaired 
over time.  The accusations against Apple of hypocrisy and misguided 
non-comprehension of OSS principles seem overheated and overworked to 
this reader.

They did a good thing.  It could be better.  There are ways to assure 
that.  Demagoguery isn't one of them.





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list