Apple Changes APSL License

In an attempt to out-maneuver OSx86 kernel hackers...

"An attempt out-maneuver" is not exactly how I would characterize this. Apple clearly tolerates OSx86 (Hackintoshes) to a great extent which in some ways may be a plan to fend off Linux (the open-source kernel part certainly is).

However, Apple wants to make sure that OSx86 does not get out of its control either, the new license gives them grounds (albeit weak ones) to sue someone like Semthex with the new terms of the license. Depending on jurisdiction of course, Apple would probably have stronger grounds arguing that what Semthex is doing is somekind of DMCA violation (distribution of a circumvention) and part of a conspiracy to violate copyright.

The point is that Semthex and others should no longer feel safe hiding behind Apple's open-source license (APSL). Rather they need to take steps to protect themselves from Apple Legal by masking their true identity, just like Maxxuss did. While I support the idea of making donations to them, these recipients need to make sure that the money cannot be traced.

However in my Country, there is no such thing like DMCA (yet). So I can be sure, Apple can't sue me for what I do, also it should be mentioned §7 of APSL clearly stats that if the License is changed, I am still allowed to redistribute current work under old terms. Masking my identy has far more other reasons than Apple.

But sad to say, I think this change will affect further development with kernel sources i.e. with Leopard. We won't be allowed anymore to do so.

Another big point with the APSL in my opinion is the violating of APSL through not correct distribution of sources according APSL which might get even the forum in trouble. APSL has clear restrictions how sources must be distributed (in full, not in parts etc.), final binarys along with sources (remember why I still in offical none-public beta with my latest work) and other tripwires. I ever state clear I personaly don't aid piracy and never released i.e. keys to stay on the legal site, just for protocol. So it's 'til now and with 10.4.8 just opensource development going on, but Leopard will get us in trouble bigger trouble.

Anyway, I am on the save side atm, at least in my country, so accepting donations won't be a problem for me. I use them to buy books and stuff, needed for development and/or hardware needed. The hours I send every day on support and codin' will never get paid by this.

Man! That's screwed up!

I agree with bofors, Apple doesn't give a {censored} and they know OSX86 helps them. Hell they read this site and know the converts to Macs come from OSX86. So this headline I say: I don't give a {censored}.

Darwin is the base layer of OS X. I don't see how creating a Darwin Kernel breaks the license.

Now a Hacked Kernel with the poem and other keys is breaks the license as are any other cracks.

But just creating source of the Kernel without the keys, I don't see how this breaks even the new license.

CYA APPLE, c'mon... sell the OS already. Get your head out of the box. Stevo- your missing the BIG picture. M$ got it a long time ago, Apple still doesn't.

GT

"This file contains Original Code and/or Modifications of Original Code as defined in and that are subject to the Apple Public Source License Version 2.0 (the 'License'). You may not use this file except in compliance with the License. The rights granted to you under the License may not be used to create, or enable the creation or redistribution of, unlawful or unlicensed copies of an Apple operating system, or to circumvent, violate, or enable the circumvention or violation of, any terms of an Apple operating system software license agreement."

This appears to be in conflict with the following section of APSL 2.0:

13.7 Entire Agreement; Governing Law. This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This License shall be governed by the laws of the United States and the State of California, except that body of California law concerning conflicts of law.

If section 13.7 of APSL 2.0 states says the license is the "entire agreement", how can Apple both state code is licensed under APSL 2.0 and then add additional restrictions. The result is ambiguous and contradictory - very likely not legally enforceable.

IANAL, etc. Any experts here?

as far as that small clip, if thats pretty much all the change.... if thats all, it don't say that you can't make it support more hardware, in order to further the compatibility of the hardware that your mac can use.... not your fault if joe somebody can use it on his comp cause what you removed originally stopped you from using a AMD cpu in your Mac Book Pro ect.

take intel and mac to court and get AMD's support:P..... its all a conspiracy to take down AMD;)

whatever they say.... it wasn't you;P

I don't pirate nothing I just use Try Till You Buy versions of software and keep backups for friends......

Im not sure exactly how much they changed, but they do have every right to re-enforce their product, unless they broke their own licence or something off like that. The open source portion Im trying to understand more of what you are allowed to do with it and what you arent allowed to. I guess Apple can alter the license, as it is their licence and not the GPL. Sometime I'll have to read over it and see whats going on.

Im sorry, Steve wont sell OS X for regular PCs. Its not smart at all, as they would have to deal with all the hardware combos that Microsoft does, and you can see how difficult is. OSx86 is fine, but Tiger and Leopard run best on Apple's machines because they are designed for Apple's machines. Besides Apple is a hardware company. Selling Mac OS X to everyone would kill hardware sales and their main source of revenue.

Apple is a hardware company. Selling Mac OS X to everyone would kill hardware sales and their main source of revenue.

Not if they could sell superior products at a competitive price

If section 13.7 of APSL 2.0 states says the license is the "entire agreement", how can Apple both state code is licensed under APSL 2.0 and then add additional restrictions. The result is ambiguous and contradictory - very likely not legally enforceable.

The "entire agreement" clause just means that one can not argue that some other agreement (like an oral contract) created an expection to the license.

I am sure that somewhere in the APSL, Apple gives itself the right the unilateral change the terms of the license whenever it feels like it.

I am sure that somewhere in the APSL, Apple gives itself the right the unilateral change the terms of the license whenever it feels like it.

They didn't actually change the APSL; they just changed the language at top of each source file.

Another big point with the APSL in my opinion is the violating of APSL through not correct distribution of sources...

I think you can forget about trying to comply with the APSL and should just focus on protecting your identity.

Not if they could sell superior products at a competitive price

I agree..

BTW, I am getting sick and tired of the Hardware company arguement for Apple.

Apple is a Software and a Hardware company. They will one day need to choose which is more important. Microsoft started a later than Apple, but M$ chose wisely. Apple never did.

There are 100,000 more PCs than 1 Apple computer.

If Apple would instead sell the OS to the 100,000:1 ratio. It would give M$ a run for its money. Take over the world and they could still sell their 1/100,000 of the total computers sold and not lose a penny. And Make Billions like M$ did in the 80s and 90s. The time has come for change. Apple has the best OS and stands the best chance of beating the other players at their own game.

I have a feeling Apple has a Master Plan. Once Apple's Computer sales fall in the future. Their laptops are overpriced and you can only sell so many disposable media players. By 2010, Apple will go to plan B and sell the OS to everyone. It's their escape clause.

And one last thing, Selling Mac OS X to Generic SSE3/SSE4 boxes would eliminate the need for OSx86 development. Apple would lose us as a competitor and we are competition for Apple otherwise they wouldn't include us in their ASPL agreement.

If Apple was really concerned about branding, here's a great idea call the "new" OSx86, "NeXT" (you can even bring back a revamped NeXT interface) and Apple can keep their MacOS for Macs and sell the NeXT Operating system for PCs.

So much of OSX is NeXT, why not sell both? MacOS for Macs and NeXT for PCs. At one point in time NeXT ran on top of NT anyways. There was a PC connection made a long long time ago. Sounds like a plan to me.

GT

I think you can forget about trying to comply with the APSL and should just focus on protecting your identity.

I don't think I am in any danger and I really think I am protected enough against other oddities. Opensource development is not a crime and since I can't violate a DMCA or any other existent law, there is no chance to get my legaly. Just let me take care of myself

Some more statements I already wrote earlier today on my blog, for anyone who is intrested:

http://semthex.freeflux.net/blog/archive/2...anged-apsl.html

The new wording of the license doesnt give Apple a leg to stand on. It's utterly vague. If someone adapted the semthex darwin kernel to be able to run Newton OS, the wording of Apple's License would allow them to sue semthex. No, I say No.

EDIT: Not being an expert in the BSD licensing mechanisms, I dont know the answer to this. Doesnt BSD licensing prevent some of what Apple is trying to do? I was under the impression that quite a bit of the source (kernel as well) was ported BSD code.

They will one day need to choose which is more important.

Software.

I don't think I am in any danger...

Neither do I, but you still should take whatever steps you can to protect your identity.

And only cash the checks from Bill Gates not Steve Jobs...

Software.

Don't get me wrong. I love Apple's expensive hardware. My dual G5 and Xserve and Xraid look stunning at work.

At home, well I have a black desk and a black PC box that I made myself. I don't care what it looks like. I care how it functions and the new 10.4.8 functions no differently than my Macs at work.

I love MacOSX. I like Macs, but I like the OS so much better.

The proof is in the pudding. The pudding is the OS. It's in the OS. Just sell the DGOS and be done with it. Go over yourself Apple. I am so sick of Apple putting Do Not Steal and It's our property. Tell that to Xerox. Tell that to NeXT. Tell that to UNIX. Tell that to FreeBSD. Man, so much of OSX was stolen or bought from other companies. OSX should be OpenSource or Sold to the public! There is obviously a demand for NeXT OSx86, MacOSX, or whatever you want to call it. Just SELL SELL SELL. And when you are selling that SJ and you have finally fiXed Apple, then you can fix Disney NeXT.

Save the OS....Save the World.

Save the OS....Save the World.

So say we all!

If you are a geek, there is not better time to build a x86 box and run the OS of your choice. Choose wisely. Just make sure it's not Windows.

Man 10.4.8 sure runs great!

The new wording of the license doesnt give Apple a leg to stand on. It's utterly vague. If someone adapted the semthex darwin kernel to be able to run Newton OS, the wording of Apple's License would allow them to sue semthex. No, I say No.

 

EDIT: Not being an expert in the BSD licensing mechanisms, I dont know the answer to this. Doesnt BSD licensing prevent some of what Apple is trying to do? I was under the impression that quite a bit of the source (kernel as well) was ported BSD code.

Yup, Darwin is based on FreeBSD. I am sure there is some type of agreement that Apple is breaking somewhere. Maybe someone can check what the FreeBSD OpenSource agreement says.

This could be interesting:

What if Darwin was used to create a completely new OS. What if the new OS was called OSx86. Isn't what we are re-engineering and as a bi-product, we are creating a brand new platform. What if Apple sold, Leopard. And it was hacked and I did buy a license and never installed it on a Mac. What if I used the new hacked kernel but never actually called it a Mac. I wonder if OSx86 considered as a new Platform would hold up. I know it probably would not. But let's say, someone created their own Mac compatible OS like NeXT but different. What if it was called SemthexOS or MifkiOS. What if someone really took the time to create their own Compatibility layer used Darwin as the base and wrote all their own Frameworks from scratch and created their own NeXT like gui but just happened to create a look alike but not a work alike system. Apple may finally meet its match and lose at the game it started a long time ago. There are many hacker's, reverse engineers and computer programmers out there who could band together and create such a thing. You never know what enemies you are creating by trying to go the legal route. You never know who your NeXT competitor is in the future. You just never know. This project may turn into something different and become a crusade for a new OS and it might not come from Apple or Microsoft. It might come from us.

Think completely different,

gt

I wonder if OSx86 considered as a new Platform would hold up.

 

What if it was called SemthexOS or MifkiOS.

I would get it.

Lots of people have no problem giving JaS money, so if we could have a fully supported OS that we want, why wouldn't it hold up :pirate2:

On a side note. In the United States, no company has ever (to my knowledge) successfully sued someone for untying a piece of vertically integrated business structure. The usual mechanism of successfully tying software to hardware is to write software for a specific hardware. To use the Xbox as an example: Microsoft is capable of successfully defeating opposition to it's platform, because it uses patented proprietary components. No other vendor would be able to make Xbox OS run without that hardware (it's been tried). The same can be said for the Zune, though I believe Microsoft has a vested interest in licensing the software.

No such protection exists on post PPC macs. And no one has ever successfully defended a licensing agreement restricting the use of a product either. If you own an x86 version of OS X, no one could ever stop (through legal means, as the law currently stands) you from hacking it to run on a PC, just as no one could ever prevent you from putting Linux on an Xbox (a license misuse of the Xbox hardware).

Apple could have saved itself this trouble (if trouble it is) by tying it's operating system to say, the Itanium, or some other non-denominational processor. Itaniums arent commonly used in PC hardware, and have a very different instruction set to x86. Because Apple is not bound to release it's properietary code, in order to run OS X, one would need to own an Itanium.

This brings up the PearPC project. Apple never sued anyone having to do with PearPC because Apple knew, or suspected, that it wouldnt be able to win a fight against people who were, ostensibly, using their own Apple software in an emulation environment.

Not really on topic. But related.

the % of people running osx is very low

i don't understand why apple users can use windows xp with boot camp and windows users can't use osx

it's not fair

well, Microsoft doesnt explicitly prohibit using Windows on any specific hardware. If you could get it to run on your coffee maker, MS wouldnt stop you. But that's because they have a vested interest in people using their OS, and thus, their software.

A better analogy is Microsoft software (like office or flight simulator) on an operating system other than windows. I'm not sure, but I think they make no effort to restrict their software to Windows itself. Not sure why that is though.