Apple Changes APSL License

No one has addressed my point... Apple has NOT changed APSL 2.0, they have simply added threatening, but legally very questionable, language to source files that were still legally bound to APSL 2.0.

This would not be backed by Apple's highly skilled legal corp, but rather someone like Steve Jobs, who is a great politician. The point is to intimidate, rather than present a real threat.

Apple has every right under U.S. copyright law to seek civil and criminal penalties against any party who violates their copyright.

Further, under the DCMA act, they have a right to action against anyone who aids or abets circumvention of their anti-copyright technology. That is settled U.S. law - so why add legally questionable language to every xnu source file?

This pure intimidation, Apple's rights are clear and strong under existing U.S. law.

Yes, Apple has a legal recourse against people who use their software without paying for it. They have a legal recourse against someone who produces software that will undermine their copyright protections. They dont have a legal remedy against someone who uses their source code to allow someone else to use OS X on PC hardware.

The point I'm trying to make is that semthex, for instance, could be sued for violation of the DMCA, because he produced a kernel capable of running on PC hardware. But the case wouldnt be won, because he was provided the means to do so by Apple Computer. Apple Computer cannot prove that Semthex did not produce his kernel for use with Darwin (a free product under the license). What other people do with his kernel isnt his responsibility. Anyone who uses the semthex kernel to install a copy of OS X on their beige box is opening themselves up to copyright infringement. Unless they own a copy of OS X x86. Licensing agreements, when proscribing behavior such as modification of code and copying and reselling, are enforceable. However, software can be used in any way that the owner wants. (at least in the united states, and I'm pretty sure in the EU). Microsoft (my usual example) cannot legally prevent someone who has purchased their product from installing it inside an emulator, on a toaster, or on an xbox. The only limitation on software use is capability.

Or so I'm led to understand.

Does that (rather long) bit address your point?

EDIT: I agree with you, that the APSL's new stong warning is more of a scare tactic. Apple knows it's got almost nothing to stand on. I just hope at some point they realize that writing their own closed source OS might have been a good idea.

On all this hardware vs software company stuff:

I want apple to stay the way it is now. I want to buy a computer. It's the quality of hw that matters to me and apple fulfils that. No PC is like mac. Period.

OS X is great and stable coz it runs on dedicated hw. If you run it on all the PCs out there, it will be similar to windows - unstable. We don't want another windows here.

Also, I don't want everybody to run OS X. The fact I'm running it and no one around me does here, makes me somewhat proud and feel exceptional. I have a comparative advantage seeing many of my friends dealing with stuff I don't have to. But that's just a subjective thing.

Ad Steve: OS X is somewhat his life work (as is the project macintosh) - remember the "father to me" thing?. He won't just give to anyobody to screw it.

On all this hardware vs software company stuff:

I want apple to stay the way it is now. I want to buy a computer. It's the quality of hw that matters to me and apple fulfils that. No PC is like mac. Period.

It is possible to build a better "Mac," you can build your own PC from scratch that of quality Hardware for much less than Apple sells it for. You can even put your PC in a pretty Mac box if you want.

OS X is great and stable coz it runs on dedicated hw. If you run it on all the PCs out there, it will be similar to windows - unstable. We don't want another windows here.

Absolute non-sense. 10.4.8 on PC hardware is just as stable as a Real Mac.

Also, I don't want everybody to run OS X. The fact I'm running it and no one around me does here, makes me somewhat proud and feel exceptional. I have a comparative advantage seeing many of my friends dealing with stuff I don't have to. But that's just a subjective thing.

 

Ad Steve: OS X is somewhat his life work (as is the project macintosh) - remember the "father to me" thing?. He won't just give to anyobody to screw it.

Steve Jobs and Woz, started their own Home Brew Computer club and eventually created Apple Computer. Woz was the genious behind the Apple I computer. Steve is a great ego centric front Man for Apple. He was one day kicked out of Apple and started NeXT. Apple needed a modern OS that it failed to create itself and bought out NeXT and hired back Steve Jobs.

Steve Jobs from day one likes to sell boxes. But at the same time, Apple has both bought, created, and improved upon some outstanding software.

If you don't want everyone to run Mac OS X. Why not? It's the best OS out there, period. Why do you want the other 95% of computers to run Windows? Microsoft has seen it's day. Vista has been delayed too many years in development. The time has come for a new victor. Apple can lead the path as long as it doesn't get caught up with it's own proprietary hardware ways of the past.

If Apple did not want The Mac OS X OS to run on generic PC hardware, it should have gone with a proprietary CPU chip like the Itanium or the Cell PowerPC. But Apple could not do that to compete and still generate a profit. So it went with generic PC guts. To save a few dollars and still sell its gorious looking boxes.

Mac users get ripped off on:

Overpriced DVD-R writers in their boxes

Choice of Video Cards, choice of DVD-R writers.

You are stuck with the Motherboard that Apple designs.

Yes it does run. It is stable, but anyone with a half a brain can make their own PC that is just as stable.

I like Apple's designs. I love their boxes. But my wallet will no longer tolerate an overpriced PC called a Mac. I bought over 10 Macs and paid dearly for them. I bought 2 PCs. One is a laptop and one is a PC that I built from scratch. Both run the Mac OS, 99.9% of the time.

I have only 2 real Macs left and they are seeing its age. But there will never be a real Apple Computer Intel Mac in my house until Apple can sell a Pro System for 500-700 dollars. That's what my home made PC tower cost. And it runs a speed that I'm used too for 3/4's the cost of an Apple Tower.

The bottom line for me is Apple's are still too expensive. I'm trying to get out of debt, most of that debt was from buying Macs, and expensive Video Cards and SCSI Hard drives and Memory for those Macs. I so no more! I'm on a cash and carry system now and will never finance another Apple Computer as long as keep using a Computer.

Amen sister.

Instead of trying to fight osx86, Apple should develop a business case that would turn osx86 hackers into "legal" contributors. For example, sell vanilla OSX that run on pc's with certain minium hardware requirements.

This is turning into a excellent thread

Tom H, it sounds to me that you can answer your own question, this is just legal mumbo-jumbo to protect their bottom line, and its 50/50 on if any thing could really hold up in a legal battle.

jarodsix, apple dose not have better hardware and the fact that they even restrict their hardware to be only used for osx is one of the main things that holds back their profits and growth. Apple is worried about osx86 because it shows that their hardware is not superior and that it is perfectly acceptable to run their software on the best components available.

Guys. Apple will never be stupid enough to sell OS X for mass-market PC hardware!

Get it into your thick skulls! Not only would it kill Apple's main source of revenue, do you know ANYONE who'd actually BUY it?

People aren't going to go out and buy copies of OS X that actually want it-it's just like Windows 2000, there'd be 3 legal copies in the world.

Apple would only lose money, and anyone who thinks Apple would make that same stupid mistake twice needs to seriously rethink their logic skills, and their knowledge of Apple's past, and the computing business as it really is, and not the facade most of us see online.

if osx was available to install on my pc, i couldn't get to the store fast enough to pay for a legit copy....i have showed macosx on my laptop to several people and they were amazed....i know i could convert quite a few people.

people would go buy it...i believe it would make a great internet machine for the regular person who just bought a dell and is tired of all the instability,viruses and crashes. this would give them a choice

if osx was available to install on my pc, i couldn't get to the store fast enough to pay for a legit copy....i have showed macosx on my laptop to several people and they were amazed....i know i could convert quite a few people.

 

people would go buy it...i believe it would make a great internet machine for the regular person who just bought a dell and is tired of all the instability,viruses and crashes. this would give them a choice

In fact that is what got me started running OSx86 on a laptop. I wanted a safe internet Machine that was easy for my kids to use. Wahla! We only use Windows for games on it, the Mac OS does everything else we need including wireless internet access.

Who wants to surf the web while getting lots of viruses on their PC? Not me. OSx86 for internet the perfect solution.

gt

No one has addressed my point... Apple has NOT changed APSL 2.0, they have simply added threatening, but legally very questionable, language to source files that were still legally bound to APSL 2.0.

It may very well be that Apple's legal hacks are still re-writing APSL 2.1 or whatever. I am not going to be surprised to see it coming out on Monday or next month or with the next open source kernel.

This pure intimidation...

Welcome to the corporate-police state run by self-serving lying lawyers.

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.

Also I still think it's right of Apple to decide what others do with their work, if only they made more balanced computers so it would become easier to decide to buy one. (256MB vram in macbook pro please.)

Welcome to the corporate-police state run by self-serving lying lawyers.

We all live in that State

Guys. Apple will never be stupid enough to sell OS X for mass-market PC hardware!

 

Get it into your thick skulls! Not only would it kill Apple's main source of revenue, do you know ANYONE who'd actually BUY it?

 

People aren't going to go out and buy copies of OS X that actually want it-it's just like Windows 2000, there'd be 3 legal copies in the world.

 

Apple would only lose money, and anyone who thinks Apple would make that same stupid mistake twice needs to seriously rethink their logic skills, and their knowledge of Apple's past, and the computing business as it really is, and not the facade most of us see online.

Nic, what you do not seem to understand is that corporate sales matter for several reasons. Companies buy a lot off PCs. Furthermore, most people are simple, they want the same OS at home they use at work. Now, "blue-chip", mainstream companies simply will not buy Apple hardware for a variety of reasons (it does not help that Apple does not even offer a normal Conroe-based desktop either).

This means that Apple has to license OS X to Dell, HP or perhaps Sony to crack the corporate market. This is inevitable because even though Apple is strong at moment (because Microsoft is just that bad), OS X will ultimately die unless it captures some share of the market larger than 4% or whatever. Something like 20 - 30% is needed for long term stability. It has to be a big enough slice of the market to make it worth programming for.

As far as "lessons learned" goes, Apple almost went out of business in the late 90's because it did not license Mac OS in 80's, likewise NeXT had to cut hardware and sell NeXT/OpenSTEP to survive while Silicon Graphics and Sun (which are the only other two integrated hardware / software vendors left, all the others are dead already) have been in the gutter for several years and are ultimately doomed to fail sooner rather than later.

This article at ArsTechnica gives a good overview of the "big picture" with hard numbers and good charts: http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/1

Microsoft has proven that their is more money in software than hardware. Instead of making 20% (or whatever) profit margains on Macintoshes, Apple could be making near 100% profit on copies of OS X for PCs. The difference is that the market for OS X is about 20 times larger than that for Macinstoshes. This means Apple will make much more money changing its business mode (and also that it is bound to happen). Whatever losses result (if any) to Macintosh sales from licensing OS X, they will be mariginal.

Uhm, so you can just ignore the license code comes under? I really doubt that, that would be retarded, and a stupid thing to do.

 

Also I still think it's right of Apple to decide what others do with their work, if only they made more balanced computers so it would become easier to decide to buy one. (256MB vram in macbook pro please.)

I can ignore some parts from the EULA like post sale restrictions for me sicne they are not valid in my country. The releases I did were all accoring to APSL, includign full source and stuff. A second thing I can ignore is the change since I am still working with the code subjected to the unchanged license. I wrote my statement at my blog about it.

Nic, what you do not seem to understand is that corporate sales matter for several reasons. Companies buy a lot off PCs. Furthermore, most people are simple, they want the same OS at home they use at work. Now, "blue-chip", mainstream companies simply will not buy Apple hardware for a variety of reasons (it does not help that Apple does not even offer a normal Conroe-based desktop either).

 

This means that Apple has to license OS X to Dell, HP or perhaps Sony to crack the corporate market. This is inevitable because even though Apple is strong at moment (because Microsoft is just that bad), OS X will ultimately die unless it captures some share of the market larger than 4% or whatever. Something like 20 - 30% is needed for long term stability. It has to be a big enough slice of the market to make it worth programming for.

 

As far as "lessons learned" goes, Apple almost went out of business in the late 90's because it did not license Mac OS in 80's, likewise NeXT had to cut hardware and sell NeXT/OpenSTEP to survive while Silicon Graphics and Sun (which are the only other two integrated hardware / software vendors left, all the others are dead already) have been in the gutter for several years and are ultimately doomed to fail sooner rather than later.

 

This article at ArsTechnica gives a good overview of the "big picture" with hard numbers and good charts:

 

Microsoft has proven that their is more money in software than hardware. Instead of making 20% (or whatever) profit margains on Macintoshes, Apple could be making near 100% profit on copies of OS X for PCs. The difference is that the market for OS X is about 20 times larger than that for Macinstoshes. This means Apple will make much more money changing its business mode (and also that it is bound to happen). Whatever losses result (if any) to Macintosh sales from licensing OS X, they will be mariginal.

Wow. That's impressive. But that's the critical point here-most people, when discussing OSx86 being sold, are talking non-OEM here. If OSx86 goes OEM, more power to Apple. They won't sell any hardware, but hey, they get more users.

That brings up a critical question though-does another OS really have a place in the mass business market? I don't think so. I don't think medium to large businesses are ready for that yet. And it's pretty easy to see that Apple is targeting home users.

Also, just curious, how'd you know my first name? XD

Wow, so much wrong information in one post, I just have to respond.

Nic, what you do not seem to understand is that corporate sales matter for several reasons. Companies buy a lot off PCs. Furthermore, most people are simple, they want the same OS at home they use at work. Now, "blue-chip", mainstream companies simply will not buy Apple hardware for a variety of reasons (it does not help that Apple does not even offer a normal Conroe-based desktop either).

As soon as I find the link, I'll post it here, but Apple's server sales are on the rise. Normal users don't use servers, so we can infer that more businesses are going Apple.

This means that Apple has to license OS X to Dell, HP or perhaps Sony to crack the corporate market. This is inevitable because even though Apple is strong at moment (because Microsoft is just that bad), OS X will ultimately die unless it captures some share of the market larger than 4% or whatever. Something like 20 - 30% is needed for long term stability. It has to be a big enough slice of the market to make it worth programming for.

Apple has been in business for many years with only a 4% or less market share and it's still going pretty strong.

As far as "lessons learned" goes, Apple almost went out of business in the late 90's because it did not license Mac OS in 80's, likewise NeXT had to cut hardware and sell NeXT/OpenSTEP to survive while Silicon Graphics and Sun (which are the only other two integrated hardware / software vendors left, all the others are dead already) have been in the gutter for several years and are ultimately doomed to fail sooner rather than later.

If you remember your Apple history, Apple nearly died because of many different things. The first one was they had the clones, which siphoned off sales from Apple rather than increase market share. So you're wanting to repeat history here and license out the OS, which will siphon off new sales from Apple rather than increase market share of the OS.

Microsoft has proven that their is more money in software than hardware. Instead of making 20% (or whatever) profit margains on Macintoshes, Apple could be making near 100% profit on copies of OS X for PCs. The difference is that the market for OS X is about 20 times larger than that for Macinstoshes. This means Apple will make much more money changing its business mode (and also that it is bound to happen). Whatever losses result (if any) to Macintosh sales from licensing OS X, they will be mariginal.

The only thing Microsoft proved is that a mediocre OS will claim market dominance IF:

1. It can run on tons of configurations

AND

2. After getting market saturation, it forces people to use whatever they come up with as a "standard"

I mean, if getting more systems to work under your OS were the sole key, then Linux would be as equally saturated as Windows. It isn't.

Wow. Nonny, you hit it right on the nail as far as exactly what I've always wanted to say, and you backed it up with solid fact.

What he said-and anyone who doesn't agree with him, is wrong, and here's why:

I'll repeat this again. Apple will never again license it's OS. They're not that stupid. Their marketshare is growing every day, especially it's laptop market, and they're intelligent enough to see it. Just because you don't want to/can't pay the money for the hardware, doesn't mean Apple's going to cater to your needs and destroy their company.

If you remember your Apple history, Apple nearly died because of many different things. The first one was they had the clones, which siphoned off sales from Apple rather than increase market share. So you're wanting to repeat history here and license out the OS, which will siphon off new sales from Apple rather than increase market share of the OS.

That is why anyone who argues that Apple is going to license OS X off just because it's capable needs a slap in the face-it's just not true.

The clone event was a major fallback in Apple's history-if the the biggest fallback, and one of the major reasons Amelio was ousted and replaced by Jobs, who could make smart marketing decisions, and has brought Apple out from the gutter to be the fourth best-selling hardware manufacturer in the world.

Get with the deal, people. Apple's just not as stupid as you guys think. You think it would be a smart marketing decision? The average user has little reason to spend the hundreds of dollars to switch to Mac, and that's a big reason why (a) Apple's prices are going WAY down (Read: MacBook) to the point where they are getting close to comparable with other manufacturer's hardware, and ( there's a litany of advertising dollars going on.

Apple realizes it doesn't have the business market, and that's not where they're aiming. They realize their software is tailored for the home user, the average end user, and the creative professional, and they're certainly gaining all of those markets with a vengeance.

OSx86 is catering to the nerds of the internet, the 14-year-old gamer in school who can't afford a Mac but wants to try OS X out, or the technical geek who doesn't like Apple's restrictive hardware. (Okay, that's not ALL of OSx86's "market"share, but that's the vast majority.) The point is, those markets are so marginally small, they are a blip on the radar. That's like saying "they should market PC's with Linux, because that makes sense, it's a better OS." Actually, it's stupider than that, because OEM versions of Linux for specific hardware, Dell, for example, with tailored versions of WINE could make sense and be a benefit to the company. Oh, wait, I guess I mean, kinda what Apple does already. =P

Apple is growing-and if they suddenly make a stupid decision to destroy the company again, they will not survive the crash this time.

They make a stupid mistake like that again, and Microsoft's not going to save their asses.

Do it once, shame on Amelio. Do it twice, shame on Apple, and they will lose several thousand valuable customers, including me.

Woohoo, finally some people see the bigger picture. Clones nearly killed Apple, maybe thats why Steve killed them, and wait what happened after that? they came out with the iMac and suddenly profits went through the roof. Apple makes pretty damn nice hardware and a killer OS on top of it. Sure they are a little more expensive, but the prices are more comparable to the regular PCs than ever before. Looking at the laptop market, their share is increasing pretty quickly. Up to 6% or 12%, cant remember though :/.

So in short, quit complaining about the lack of licensing of Mac OS X for regular PCs. It wont work period. There is already Tiger for PCs, aka hackintosh. but thats what it is, a hack because Apple doesnt want to lose their main source of revenue. Hardware.

The only way I would see them licensing is if some horrible act of god destroyed their hardware devision and all they could do is software, but lets hope that never happens as I love my real Macs.

perhaps thru a lack of confidence, they killed off the clones prematurely?

perhaps short-sited and insecure stockholder concerns ruled the day at

that time?

OS X is certainly competitive at this time.

No, you're wrong.

The clones made Apple bankrupt, if they held on for it much longer they would not have survived-period.

Take a look at all the OSx86 users.

times that by $130.00

This is how much Apple is losing out right now.

Those are the facts.

gt

$7,056,140 just from the members here

Take a look at all the OSx86 users; times that by $130.00. This is how much Apple is losing out right now.

For simplicity sake, lets say their are 100,000 OSx86 users world wide. 100,000x130.00=$13 Million

That seems like a drop in the bucket. That doesn't to me, but it's not a billions of dollars Apple is generating right now. But those same users will probably buy every upgrade (as long as they don't have to hack every device driver like they do now). So with 3 upgrades that would be $39 Million. Now what if this phenomenon spread to 50% of the PC user base within the next 5 years. Now we are talking some serious $$. Apple could still sell there artsy niche boxes; while at the same time make substantially more money in the future from a x86 version of Mac OS X. The fact remains that there is an untapped market for OSx86. Whether it comes from Apple or a thirdy party developer, there is a market. Otherwise InsanelyMac or the OSx86 would not exist. If Apple could not make money selling an OS, why the hell is Microsoft doing it over and over again? I am sure Apple has a backup plan for OS X. They just haven't revealed the plan to the world just yet.

If you think OSx86 version of OSX by Apple is not possible. 10 years ago would you have thought Apple would use an x86 processor on the a Mac? Those same people probably thought no way, not in a millions years. Well it took less than 10 years for Apple to dump the PowerPC chip for Intel. Nothing is impossible when it comes to Apple Computer.

gt

10 years ago would you have thought Apple would use an x86 processor on the a Mac? Those same people probably thought no way, not in a millions years. Well it took less than 10 years for Apple to dump the PowerPC chip for Intel. Nothing is impossible when it comes to Apple Computer.

Thats right