Talk:Apple Public Source License
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- yes a summary of the terms and requirements seems necessary 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
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:18.104.22.168
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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  for more information from the Free Software Foundation. --Evil Eccentric (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
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? --22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)