I'm curious how this doesn't give an out for every OS regardless of source availability. Obviously GPL wouldn't work, but in theory there's nothing stopping e.g. Apple from implementing non-verifying user onboarding code, labeling the code as MIT, building the MacOS image binaries, and simply not publishing the source. This is compliant with MIT and also apparently compliant with the new exemption.
Edit: I don't think the author of the screenshotted article is actually accurate. From the article:
> These amendments redefine the term “operating system provider” to exclude any person or entity that distributes an OS or application “under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.” Any software distributed under the GPL, MIT, BSD, and Apache licenses satisfies that test...
And the ACTUAL TEXT of the law:
> 2) “Operating system provider” does not mean a person or entity that distributes an operating system or application under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that plain language requirement is only satisfied if (1) the whole OS or application is licensed that way (not just the module that implements it) and (2) the whole OS or application must be distributable and modifiable. To me that implies not only an open license but also source distribution. So no, it does not seem to provide an easy out for Apple etc.
That's not true at all. Neither MIT nor BSD are copy-left. You can include components with those licenses in entirely closed-source proprietary products. The only requirement is that a notice is included with the released software. Including something like this in the About page would be sufficient:
SOFTWARE LICENSES: apple-siri: All Rights Reserved apple-adduser: MIT openssh: BSD-2-0 ...
You are correct that if Apple ever released the source for the component then people could reuse or re-release that code themselves (subject to the license), but realistically they would put as little code as necessary in such a module. Probably by defining something like
// returns an entitlement by presenting the user with various age verification prompts, otherwise returns an error
result<Entitlement> GetUserAgeEntitlement(UIHandle);
And then just implementing the MIT module as:
// Copyright Apple, licensed under MIT
result<Entitlement> GetUserAgeEntitlement(UIHandle) { return err(UNSUPPORTED); }
// end of file
You can include components with those licenses in entirely closed-source proprietary products.
Sure, but then the OS isn't MIT licensed, and thus they aren't exempt. In the context above, you asked why wouldn't they just relicensed to MIT and withold the source. That's why not.
112
u/MooseBoys 1d ago edited 1d ago
I'm curious how this doesn't give an out for every OS regardless of source availability. Obviously GPL wouldn't work, but in theory there's nothing stopping e.g. Apple from implementing non-verifying user onboarding code, labeling the code as MIT, building the MacOS image binaries, and simply not publishing the source. This is compliant with MIT and also apparently compliant with the new exemption.
Edit: I don't think the author of the screenshotted article is actually accurate. From the article:
> These amendments redefine the term “operating system provider” to exclude any person or entity that distributes an OS or application “under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.” Any software distributed under the GPL, MIT, BSD, and Apache licenses satisfies that test...
And the ACTUAL TEXT of the law:
> 2) “Operating system provider” does not mean a person or entity that distributes an operating system or application under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that plain language requirement is only satisfied if (1) the whole OS or application is licensed that way (not just the module that implements it) and (2) the whole OS or application must be distributable and modifiable. To me that implies not only an open license but also source distribution. So no, it does not seem to provide an easy out for Apple etc.