Talk:Apple Public Source License

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Apple Inc. Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Details

I came to this article hoping to get a brief overview of what the APSL says without reading the entire license. Instead I found a partial history of the license and some comments about what the FSF thinks of it with no supporting reasons. It would be nice if someone would update the article to emphasize the actual meaning of the license rather than simply spreading FSF propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.242.7 (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes a summary of the terms and requirements seems necessary 188.220.243.64 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What portions of Darwin are GPL? And how would you explain Apple relicensing GPL code under their own proprietary license?

Apple could have kept the source from it's BSD derivative completely closed (think Microsoft and TCP/IP, or Kerberos) BASH, although distributed with OSX and the Darwin core, is not a part of it. User:67.30.50.157

AFAIK, re-licensing is permissable, as long as the new license does not violate any provisions of the old license. I doublechecked and you're right, Apple provides bash under the GPL, and not under the APSL. I also checked up on the BSD license, and it's much more liberal than I had thought it was. Sorry :-)

I like the way you've stated that Apple's choice to use an open source license was to keep the open source community involved.

--cprompt 08:48, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Copyleft

THe side bar says it's Copyleft, but the text says it is not copyleft? Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.42.212 (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the license, I think it would be categorized as "partial copyleft." Basically, it only has control over source originally under the APSL, and not the entire file. In addition, it does not affect proprietary blobs included in the original source. Finally, you only need to distribute the source code to your modifications, and only if you distribute a modified version externally. --Evil Eccentric (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GPL Incompatible

What is the reason for why the APSL is GPL incompatible? For example, the original BSD license was GPL-incompatible due to the advertising clause. I don't wish the article gain too much of a GPL/FSF bias, but GPL compatibility is an important aspect of software licenses for me, and hopefully for many other people. C xong (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason is because it has a partial copyleft. Any source originally under the APSL must remain under the APSL; therefore, APSL-licensed code can't be covered by the GPL. This is similar to the incompatibility with the Mozilla Public License. I might add this into the article if I have time. See also [1] for more information from the Free Software Foundation. --Evil Eccentric (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LGPL-compatibility

AFAIK, it is LGPL compatible because according to GNU, the only thing preventing it from being GPL compatible is that "it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary." It is to my knowledge that the LGPL allows that also. Any ideas? --72.219.142.167 (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]