Summary
Apple’s Swift language, now in its second version, is expected to be released as open source under a permissive license, though the specific license remains unconfirmed. Industry commentators suggest it may be an Apache or BSD style license, which are popular due to their flexible terms that facilitate business adoption. Apple intends to make only the Swift language open, not iOS, thereby retaining control and avoiding fragmentation issues seen with Android. Choosing a widely accepted license like Apache can accelerate community adoption but may not fully align with Apple’s business interests. The ultimate licensing decision will influence Swift’s adoption and its impact on the open source community.
Apple’s Swift programming language, then in its second version, was reported to be made available as open source software under a permissive licence. The specific licence under which it would be released had not been confirmed at the time; commentary in the technology press suggested that Swift 2.0 would most probably be released under the Apache Licence or another BSD-style licence. Over the preceding five years, permissive licences had overtaken viral GPL-type licences in prevalence, with estimates suggesting that more than sixty per cent of all open source software is governed by the Apache Licence.
Implications of a Permissive Licence
Software released under the Apache Licence or comparable licences carries minimal restrictions: primarily attribution requirements and liability limitations. Such terms make the software highly suitable for commercial adoption. The Apache Licence has been used extensively with Google’s Android platform, which at the time accounted for an estimated eighty per cent of all devices shipped in developing countries, though fragmentation of the Android ecosystem had created challenges for updates and broader adoption.
Apple’s Strategic Objectives
By open-sourcing Swift 2.0, Apple sought to capture the benefits that open source development offers for application development and technological progress. Apple stated that iOS would not be made open source; only the programming language itself would be released under an open licence. This distinction would allow Apple to retain control over iOS while avoiding the fragmentation problems that had affected Android.
The choice of licence would carry significant strategic implications. A bespoke licence crafted to advance Apple’s commercial interests through open sourcing could provide precise control, but achieving recognition and adoption within the developer community would take time. Open source developers have historically regarded companies with primarily proprietary business models with some caution, and an adoption lag in such circumstances would be predictable. The Apache Licence, by contrast, is well recognised and widely accepted by the open source community, offering the advantage of faster and more straightforward adoption, though it may provide less flexibility to serve Apple’s long-term business objectives.
Disclaimer
This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified attorney before acting on any matter discussed here.