Re: Apple Sauce

Roy T. Fielding (
Sun, 25 Apr 1999 19:14:14 -0700

>Actually I think that RMS and Perens both have a valid point. Either the
>source is "open" and you are giving it away or you aren't. Simple
>distinction. Apple put restrictions on the license saying that they can
>revoke the license to use the code. If apple can tell people to stop using
>the software then it wasn't a gift, then its not open source. Apple can
>make up some new term for it if they like, like the "Improve our software
>for free and we'll tell you that you're screwed" license. But its not open

Personally, I have never accepted the OSI definition of open source.
They may have tried (and failed) to trademark the term, but to me the
term still means that the code is visible and modifiable, not that it
is given away. The important thing is that you can see what the code
is doing and why, are able to modify it for your own personal use, and
the investment doesn't disappear if the company behind it collapses or
simply loses interest in the product.

The world doesn't need another FSF. I thought that the OSI was going
put together an alternative, but it looks like they are still hung up
on the freedom religion even without Perens. As far as I'm concerned,
they represent no one but themselves.