From MacMinute: Apple today announced that it is “open-sourcing” the code for the company’s Rendezvous networking technology. Rendezvous, based on open Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Standard Protocols, uses industry standard networking protocols and zero configuration technology to automatically discover and connect devices over any IP network.
Apple is trying so hard to unite UNIX community. Having such an important technology open means more business to them but it could also give Linux and other open source OS’ some more marketshare.
If only Linux people are not so stubborn when it comes to licensing…
That’s why I like FreeBSD, even Microsoft was ripping them off (kinda compliment).
> If only Linux people are not so stubborn when it comes to licensing…
Unfortunately, it’s the license that’s stubborn. The GPL requires anyone with access to the binaries to have equal control of the source code. The APSL gives Apple more control.
There’d be little issue if it were distributed under a BSD-like license. The APSL doesn’t really make sense if they want the technology to be widely adopted. I suppose the intent is to release it as a reference implimentation that everyone should emulate.
I think the goal here is to insure Rendezvous catches on.
In any event, open source WORKS. Mozilla is WAY better than IE, IMHO, and improving at a pace pokey companies like MSFT can’t hope to match.
I don’t know how Apple’s “Darwin” is progressing, but it is already the dominant distro of BSD. It would seem to be in everybodies interest to make it the best by a wide margin…
“Apple is trying so hard to unite UNIX community”
Hardly.
“If only Linux people are not so stubborn when it comes to licensing… ”
:rolls eyes:
Please do you really want to be schooled that badly? Feel free to write your own kernel, and apps and then release it under any license you deem fit.
“Unfortunately, it’s the license that’s stubborn. The GPL requires anyone with access to the binaries to have equal control of the source code”
Thus the beauty of it. The source remains available.
GPL ensures the code will ALWAYS and FOREVER reamain free. Of course YOU can use whatever license you want when you release your code. But don’t go acting like GPL is flawed at what is is designed to do. That “stubbon” license got Linux a big share of the server market. Its also not hindered the big companies like IBM and Oracle from porting the software to run on it. Where are all of the BSD ports from the big companies again? Right.
And you wonder why linux users don’t like you? Maybe it has something to do with the years of “were better than you”, and “are license is better than yours” crap?
>>>Where are all of the BSD ports from the big companies again? Right.
One of the ports is called Solaris and another one is called MacOS X.
is to let anyone implement the standard. Best way is to “OpenSource” the code.
And without wanting to start a flamewar, GPL is more restrictive and thus less free then any BSD license.
I find it gay how many posts on OS news are dedicated to people argueing licenses, 99% of people care less what kinda license a software program uses.
>>GPL ensures the code will ALWAYS and FOREVER reamain free.
There’s no guarantee of that no matter which license you have. But honestly, in reality if hundreds of thousands of people worldwide actually _have_ the source, then it de facto open. Thus, both FreeBSD and Linux are de facto open, no matter what anyone might try to do to make it proprietary. I mean what could any entity do to make it proprietary again, once it’s out there? Even with the power of a whole government behind you, the best you could do is make the source illegal, and then it would just be traded overseas.
So the pro-GPL argument about source remaining open is a straw man. I’m not saying the GPL is bad, just the anti-BSD argument. The BSD license and the GPL have different purposes, and each group has its own goals. The GPL appeals to certain businesses for certain reasons (I think mostly its about “positioning” around Microsoft), while the BSD appeals to other businesses (I think more for pure technical reasons). Don’t assume that a business prefers the BSD license just so it can “rip people off”. The developers who do BSD make this choice knowing exactly what they are doing, and their strategy pays off to a large extent. I have heard all the naysayers complain that we will _never_ see Apple contribute back to open source, because the BSD doesn’t make them. So, when they contribute back anyway, what do you say? No, it doesn’t make them do it, it just provides good incentives. That’s the beauty. If Apple just kept all their changes to themselves, then their development would drift so far from FreeBSD, etc… that they wouldn’t be able to benefit in the future. Symbiotic relationship, free choice all around; what coule be better?
If they want it to be widely adopted, why not use something like BSD license? I think this is just a reference. Using that license can be limiting.
None: Where are all of the BSD ports from the big companies again? Right.
Solaris and Mac OS X are the tops. Linux can a huge stronghold because while BSD was having some legal problems with At&T, Linux was growing rapidly.
But trust me, if BSD didn’t have any legal issues, it would have caught on faster than Linux. Because people like IBM and HP have greater freedom in making their own version, instead on relying on a bunch of hypie companies.
Ludovic Hirlimann: And without wanting to start a flamewar, GPL is more restrictive and thus less free then any BSD license.
Yes, but what does this thread have to do with the BSD license?
Travis: I find it gay how many posts on OS news are dedicated to people argueing licenses, 99% of people care less what kinda license a software program uses.
In this case, the license does matters. If you don’t like the topic, go away.
I dunno about this whole code remaining free thing your talking about – as far as I remember I havn’t seen any BSD code suddenly disappearing. Maybe you mean that the GPL forces people to give you access to their code thus liberating it from the person who thought of it?
Really there are two ways of looking at it and the way I tend to see it is the GPL is less free than the BSD licenses since it takes my code from me in order to use it. I just don’t see that as being free – in fact that a huge restriction IMHO.
Personally I release everything I do under BSD licenses. I really don’t see how I can demand that its my right to have other peoples ideas just because they are using the ideas I decided to openly share. They are the ones who came up with their idea afterall. So I give them a choice about sharing because it was my choice to share with them in the first place.
Someone once told me, if do something for someone else because you expect them to do something back for you – your not really doing something for them. Instead, what you did just became a business transaction. Thats what the GPL does your giving people your code to do with what they like your selling to them for their code.
Like you said, I’ll release my code under the license I like and you do the same. But don’t say the my license is any less free than yours – the only difference is I’m just no selfish enough to feel that I can force others to share regardless of if they want to just because they use my stuff.
As I always say, GPL is not about programmer’s freedom, but about software’s freedom. The GPL is not designed to “do something for someone else because you expect them to do something back for you”, but to make sure:
a) your source code always improves, as anyone (not only you) has access to the changes in the code, no matter if it’s made by companies or by particulars. I just find this to be good, for both the developer, the users and the companies.
b) your source code can survive time, this is specially good when talking about drivers, as anyone can modify the code, and redistribute it (and if they don’t want to redistribute, use it at home and don’t share it…).
c) many things more, I don’t want to write too much, just read the GPL and get your own conclusions ;P
And yeah, anyone (including Apple), can decide the license they use, but saying GPL is for selfish people or something is totally unfair. There’re many points of view when choosing a license, and many licenses to choose. I’d be happier if Apple released Rendezvous under the BSD license, and someone else relicensed it under the GPL. Then, companies could adopt the BSD one, and GPL one could be merged into the Linux kernel.
But I guess that Apple wants control on what’s being done to their source, so they’re free to choose whatever license fits them.
Because of how linux is developed and the GPL it severly limits its use in companies in alot of areas which would be important to me. Regardless of which one you use, a BSD type, or GPL, keeping good software alive and open is extremely important.
Dekkard, you #a, and #b can be done in any other GPL-compatible license. Even BSD license.
Actually the when you say that the GPL is designed to make sure of A, B it sounds like its unique to the GPL when its not. The BSD license does both and A and B – however it gives people the additional option of choosing to keep things semi private if they want to w/o forcing them to keep it completely to themselves, ie giving out the new program w/o the extra source they included if they choose to.
And yes your right there are advantages to the GPL like the fact that no one can sit on a particular innovation they made. Which I can understand as being good in many ways. However I’d personally rather have them decide to do it on their own or decide after people have talked to them about why they should release it so that they have some control in the issue.
My view point i’ll admit is a bit tainted by the fair amount of emails I get from linux users cursing at me for not releasing all of my code (even though I was not in any way violating the GPL). Most of them saying it was their “right” to have my ideas, because its a linux program and everything in linux is free (both as in beer and speech). So maybe you’ll understand where the selfish view point comes from — its a generalization but unfortunately not a completely unfounded one.
Btw, I was just wondering you said this: >>Then, companies could adopt the BSD one, and GPL one could be merged into the Linux kernel.<< I maybe wrong on this but I didn’t think things had to be GPL’d to be used in the kernel. I don’t see why the BSD license wouldn’t be good enough.
>>The GPL is not designed to “do something for someone else because you expect them to do something back for you”, but to make sure:
a) your source code always improves, as anyone (not only you) has access to the changes in the code, no matter if it’s made by companies or by particulars. I just find this to be good, for both the developer, the users and the companies.
b) your source code can survive time, this is specially good when talking about drivers, as anyone can modify the code, and redistribute it (and if they don’t want to redistribute, use it at home and don’t share it…).
c) many things more, I don’t want to write too much, just read the GPL and get your own conclusions ;P<<
Evan: Companies have a limited use of Linux, but it helps too to make sure those companies don’t start a monopoly (I don’t mean MS, but ANY company) using that software to develop closed standards and stuff. That’s one of the best ways to keep software open.
rajan r: Though I agree it can be done with other licenses, I find GPL is more convenient for that case.
As I said in my prior post (as I posted it yours came up, so I have to answer twice
), it’s not unique to the GPL, but the GPL makes sure it happens, in a legal way. Perhaps it removes some freedom to the developer(s), but in my opinion, it’s better that way if you intend to achieve those targets. It doesn’t let them decide, but at least allow them to use GPL software internally without redistributing it, so it can still be good for custom software developed for a certain company.
I’m sorry about the emails you get by those people, but just wonder how many more GPL advocates didn’t mail you and let you do what you want… perhaps they’re fewer (that, we can’t know) but it’s clear there are selfish people in most thinking currents, and of course free software and the GPL is no exception, but it doesn’t mean everyone is like that.
BTW, can you give me a link to your software? I’m curious about it (no pun intended)
About the kernel issue, perhaps I’m wrong, but I think that if the FSF supports the linux kernel, it’s because all of it is GPLed. I hope I didn’t say something stupid
Well topic tells you how much i know about the FSFs motivation for going with linux
Hehe, I guess your and my posting so fast means we’re both up then. Its 4am here so thats not a normal for me to see someone else awake.
As for a link to my software i’ve written, if I had a link i’d post it… however at the risk of showing how uncontributory i’ve been, I havn’t written any new software since starting medschool and what I had written which was mainly during spare time from my engineering undergrad days is lost in a mound of burnt of CDs i intended to move over this new computer eventually. Unfortuantely, my old university is quick to clear out its student internet hosting accounts or i’d tell you to try there under rabbit.miami.edu/~mortell/public/ <– homer is actually a portal to our engineering server rabbit.
But ill go looking for the CDs… my favorite one I made was when I learning about sockets – I made my own FTP client/server. And your right not everyone is selfish I remember being very surprised when someone emailed me back with SSL added into it.
Oh well, here in Spain it’s 11 AM, I just got back from signing for this year’s university course.
It’s not like if I myself have enough time to contribute, but I do some translations for the tldp-es project (not much anyway), as it takes much less time than developing.
Anyway, back on the topic, as you’ve seen with the SSL patch, contributions are always there (specially if the software is good), in the forms of bug reports, patches, etc etc.
It’s one of the things that I find very disturbing, the difference between users/advocates in any OS/license. When I hear about people saying linux users are very upstiff, and will tell you to RTFM anytime you come up with a doubt, I think about many people I asked to when learning about Linux. I myself am supporting in some forums, and try to be gentle (and I can tell you I’m not the only one). The most close thing to RTFM I’ve ever posted was “and in this link, you can get all the information you need about this issue. I’m sure you won’t need to post here so often after reading it
“. The one I answered to did it so, and was even thankful. Of course, perhaps it was a lighter way to say RTFM, but seems like when said with enough politeness, it actually works 
Of course, the opposite exists (read the mplayer mailing lists), but nowadays, I mostly think the problem is with new users that just learnt, and go to irc channels to bash newbies. At least that’s what I’ve experienced.
Perhaps I was way off-topic, but I just wanted to express my opinion in that issue
Solaris is not BSD. Solaris may have a wee bit of system 5 in it, but thats UNIX through and through. BSD isnt UNIX, its “UNIX like”.
There are several BSD distros now, there are 3 main ones, which are FreeBSD NetBSD and OpenBSD. Although Darwin would be in there as well now.
There are also some very small distros of BSD like MicroBSD etc…
yawn….
GPL schmiPL… licensing issues are so booooring
>>>>Solaris is not BSD. Solaris may have a wee bit of system 5 in it, but thats UNIX through and through. BSD isnt UNIX, its “UNIX like”.
SunOS 1.0 comes from the BSD4.1a line.
See big chart at:
http://www.levenez.com/unix/
>>BSD isnt UNIX, its “UNIX like”.
Um… excuse me? (lol) That’s the biggest misstatement I’ve heard yet. BSD was the _first_ Unix. do names like “Berkeley Systems Distribution”, Thompson, Ritchie, etc.. sound familiar? That’s where it all started.
And BSD has nothing to do with System 5, either.
BSD is Unix, you ought to read up on the history of Unix. Linux has been recognized as “Unix-like”.
Apple open sourcing zeroconf is a very good thing. My bet, watch this take off.
I believe Kernhigan, Ritchie, and Pike developed UNIX at Bell Labs (now Lucent) which is Sys V UNIX. BSD also developed their UNIX which is also UNIX. I’m not sure if Thomson was at Berkley… but he ended up at Sun.
The last real BSD I believe was that 4.3 Tahoe release back in the late 1980s… before Berkley stopped working on it and made it “FreeBSD” (I think… I forget it was a long time ago).
Last…. I believe Sun’s original OS (Sun OS which is different than Solaris.. one is termed the Operating “Environment”) was based on BSD Unix. However after about Sun Os 2.4 (I think.. it might have been 2.5) it was migrated to use Sys V.
A couple of cents.
Rendezvous is a case of technology where Apple is arriving late in the game. Microsoft and friends have had a solution for about 2 years now. Intel and I believe IBM even have code that’s already openg sourced. Funny that Apple felt the need to hack this over again when it’s a pretty free standard yet they won’t fix basic flaws in the Quicktime format.
Most of you probably didn’t know that you have already a UPnP stack for Windows on your installation CD if it’s not installed already. Problem is that so few things use it at the moment.
I really find it ironic, how so my Linux people care so much about licences, and many of you will be the first people to go download your warezed copy of Office what ever number it is this time. Or that MP3 of that song you don’t want to pay money for. “The Man uses licenses does that make them any less valid because its the man?”
Its funny how you all talk about how you want to keep software
open for anyone but all kinds of restrictions to control blah blah
You all sound like you should be working inside Microsofts Law talking guy department in Redmond.
The real deal on what this is about is Apple is open sourcing a product, and you should be happy that they are doing this because quite frankly, i did not think Apple does that kinda thing.
Did you guys read the article? Because i did not see anything argueing about licensing.
And this is the bottom line because its at the bottom
Well, it’s not that ironic, actually. Though it’s true we all skip the law in certain moments, we’d like to work with licenses we like. As in, the famous Stallman problem with printer drivers (it’s not like I like Stallman that much, but the example is fine).
About the control, the GPL isn’t as free as, i.e., the BSD, for the developer, as in he must give the source code when redistributing the program. But I don’t see much more control beyond that, like “you can’t release the changes in the code unless you send them to the original developer, and you can’t ake credit for them ,yaddah yaddah…”.
And of course (most) people are happy Apple open sourced Rendezvous, even if it’s using the Apple license, but I can’t help thinking it would be better if it was licensed under a license less restrictive. Though I’m happy too
Here we go again. UNIX is a trademark of the OpenGroup for which you need certification from to call your OS a UNIX system. Of course it’s really a bit of a scam because you have to pay a lot of money for the certification but it does help promote standards.
The BSD (distribution) of UNIX back in the 70’s and 80’s, before the OpenGroup owned the tradmark, was a bunch of hacks to the original Bell Labs UNIX that grew into a seperate UNIX. But then there was the fraccas with AT&T (which is over now, repeat OVER) and the rest is history.