PDA

View Full Version : Isnt apple breaking the law?



MONODA
December 1st, 2007, 07:41 AM
First I just want to say that I do not have any evidence of this but here it is anyway. Ok so the other day I was reading an article about how mac os x was written by modifying BSD(which is free) but apple is still selling copies of os X for a profit, isnt that breaking some law. Im really not sure I was just thinking about this the other day. What do you think?

Nano Geek
December 1st, 2007, 07:47 AM
First I just want to say that I do not have any evidence of this but here it is anyway. Ok so the other day I was reading an article about how mac os x was written by modifying BSD(which is free) but apple is still selling copies of os X for a profit, isnt that breaking some law. Im really not sure I was just thinking about this the other day. What do you think?I don't know much about the BSD license, but I think it allows you to do that.

Crashmaxx
December 1st, 2007, 07:49 AM
That's not the way the BSD license works. In fact, it is perhaps its biggest flaw. Basically, you can use BSD code for anything you want. Even include it in proprietary software. So there is no reason they can't sell it. The can even just sell BSD if they wanted.

Now the GPL is much better in this way. If Apple had used GPL code they could still sell it. But all the code they put it in would also need to be under the GPL and open source. So anyone could compile it and run it for free if they wanted. And if this had happened, it is likely that you could easily incorporate some of those changes into Linux and have an easy way of running OSX software. Which would give us a 'native' port of Photoshop, for example.

Anyway, whether they are doing something 'wrong' is up to debate, but there is no legal problem with what they have done.

SunnyRabbiera
December 1st, 2007, 08:07 AM
Yeh the BSD license has no issue with this, and to me its actually a more free license then the GPL...
I feel the latest GPL is too restrictive, I know the reasons behind it but I do not fully agree on its terms.
The BSD license is along the middle, thus why I see more companies taking the BSD license then the GPL one in the future.
I really hate the bickering between GPL advocates and BSD ones though, I see good reasons for using either one.

samjh
December 1st, 2007, 08:13 AM
It's a bit of a stretch to say OS X is modified from BSD, even though it is technically true.

OS X uses the XNU kernel, which was developed by NeXT, a company founded by Steve Jobs (co-founder of Apple) and later bought by Apple. XNU uses BSD's implementation of the POSIX standard, and uses the Mach kernel with performance and other improvements from BSD.

Hope that clears things up. :)

The XNU kernel is FOSS, by the way: released under the Apple Public Source License. :)

sethvath
December 1st, 2007, 08:27 AM
The BSD License allows proprietary commercial use, and for the software released under the license to be incorporated into proprietary commercial products. Works based on the material may even be released under a proprietary license (but still must maintain the license requirements). Some notable examples of this are the use of BSD networking code in Microsoft products, and the use of numerous FreeBSD components in Mac OS X.

It is possible for something to be distributed with the BSD License and some other license to apply as well. This was in fact the case with very early versions of BSD itself, which included proprietary material from AT&T. source: wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license)

One way to think of this is a derivative license. Much like ubuntu is a derivative of debian yet why is canonical allowed to sell copies/support to companies that choose to use ubuntu?

MONODA
December 1st, 2007, 08:28 AM
Oh thanks guys I was just a bit confused I thought that the BSD license was the same as GPL. Thanks for clearing things up:)

yatt
December 1st, 2007, 08:28 AM
First I just want to say that I do not have any evidence of this but here it is anyway. Ok so the other day I was reading an article about how mac os x was written by modifying BSD(which is free) but apple is still selling copies of os X for a profit, isnt that breaking some law. Im really not sure I was just thinking about this the other day. What do you think?The license BSD is under makes it perfectly legal to do this. Actually, the BSD license states that Apple can do this, even if they don't change anything.

The BSD license is extremely permissive. It basically sets out to allow you to do whatever to the code under the license.

tehkain
December 1st, 2007, 03:58 PM
Apple does include a large amount of (L)GPLed code. It is perfectly fine(not ethically) to sell copies of GPLed code. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html. They have to make changes publicly available as always.

n3tfury
December 1st, 2007, 04:03 PM
First I just want to say that I do not have any evidence of this but here it is anyway. Ok so the other day I was reading an article about how mac os x was written by modifying BSD(which is free) but apple is still selling copies of os X for a profit, isnt that breaking some law. Im really not sure I was just thinking about this the other day. What do you think?

i'm sure someone would have raised a stink and won a LONG time ago.

SunnyRabbiera
December 1st, 2007, 04:07 PM
The BSD License allows proprietary commercial use, and for the software released under the license to be incorporated into proprietary commercial products. Works based on the material may even be released under a proprietary license (but still must maintain the license requirements). Some notable examples of this are the use of BSD networking code in Microsoft products, and the use of numerous FreeBSD components in Mac OS X.

It is possible for something to be distributed with the BSD License and some other license to apply as well. This was in fact the case with very early versions of BSD itself, which included proprietary material from AT&T. source: wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license)

One way to think of this is a derivative license. Much like ubuntu is a derivative of debian yet why is canonical allowed to sell copies/support to companies that choose to use ubuntu?
well most of ubuntu's core is open source and most of the apllications ubuntu uses are open source.
what ubuntu is doing is nothing new, Mandriva has done this too and so has redhat, most of the stuff made by those distros have been made open

Lostincyberspace
December 1st, 2007, 05:20 PM
Apple does include a large amount of (L)GPLed code. It is perfectly fine(not ethically) to sell copies of GPLed code. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html. They have to make changes publicly available as always.

It is perfectly ethical to sell copies of gpled code any time you by SUSE or RED HAT thats what your doing. But it is unethical to sell the rights to the code, and technically illegal.