diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/historical-apsl.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/historical-apsl.html | 191 |
1 files changed, 191 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/historical-apsl.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/historical-apsl.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5b5f334 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/historical-apsl.html @@ -0,0 +1,191 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --> +<title>Problems with older versions of the Apple License (APSL) +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/historical-apsl.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>The Problems with older versions of the Apple Public Source License (APSL)</h2> + +<h3>FSF Position on the Older Versions of APSL</h3> + +<div class="announcement"> +<blockquote> +<p>The current version of the Apple Public Source License (APSL) does not +have any of these problems. <a href="/philosophy/apsl.html">You can +read our current position on the APSL elsewhere</a>. This document is +kept here for historical purposes only.</p> +</blockquote> +</div> + +<p> +Apple 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.</p> + +<p> +In January 2001, Apple released another version, APSL 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 free +software license, but still has one more large step to take before it +qualifies.</p> + +<p> +Below, is the original commentary on the first version of the APSL, +version 1.0.</p> + +<h3>Original APSL Commentary</h3> + +<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> + +<h4>Disrespect for privacy</h4> +<p> + The APSL does not allow you to make a modified version and use it for + your own private purposes, without publishing your changes.</p> + +<h4>Central control</h4> +<p> + 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> + +<h4>Possibility of revocation at any time</h4> +<p> + 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> +<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> +<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> +<p> +Any one of these flaws makes a license unacceptable.</p> +<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> + +<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> + +<li>It is incompatible with the GPL.</li> +</ul> + +<p> +Of course, the major difference between the NPL and the APSL is that +the NPL <b>is</b> 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> + +<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 <b>running</b> 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> + +<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/open-source-misses-the-point.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.</p> + +<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> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 1999, 2001, 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2014/04/12 12:40:10 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |