Re: FN-FORUM Platforms (Was MS takes control)

date posted 6th July 2002 00:56

Marcus Bointon [EMAIL REMOVED] wrote:
> on 5/7/2002 11:48 am, MJ Ray at [EMAIL REMOVED] wrote:
>> You must make the source available *to Apple*, not just the person who you
>> are giving the binaries to.
> But the GPL does the same! If you release your source amendments, you
> implicitly make it available to its originator. The only difference is that
> you have more leeway in whether you release it or not.

No, it does not require that the originator can get the source changes if
they do not get the program. Nothing in the GPL requires you to make a
public release (check and see). The aim of the GPL is to give *users* of
your derived work the same rights and abilities that you were given with the
original work. What your users do with it is largely up to them, as long as
they don't try to deprive any users that they pass it on to.

> [...] I think they're entitled to a certain level of protection,
> especially given that some are perhaps strategic products (Like DSS).

Nice to know that you are honest in supporting protectionism. Personally, I
believe that a free market is the most efficient way for the industry to
operate, as I think most people do when they stop and think about it. The
items that you mention would most likely still be released, but their
developers would not be derived of the right to benefit from their work by
having to send a free copy to Apple.

> Also, when changes are released, all users of that software can benefit,
> not just Apple [...]

No, the APSL is a one-way trip. Only Apple is guaranteed to get the
benefits, not all users.

> [...] I suspect it would also be difficult to reconcile Darwin's core
> nature with the proprietary things that are built on top of it if it were
> using the GPL.

Why? There is proprietary software that is run on top of GNU/Linux, much as
I dislike it.

> On reading the APSL, I noticed something pretty surprising. If you
> incorporate APSL licensed stuff into a larger project, you are still only
> obliged to release the changes you make to that portion - your whole project
> does not become subject to the APSL.

This is not surprising. APSL is neither a copyleft licence nor a free
software licence.