6 ms·

An OS X web server... As another comment mentioned OS X is hindered by the fact they refuse to use GPL 3 code http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-p

by trengrj 11y ago

An OS X web server... As another comment mentioned OS X is hindered by the fact they refuse to use GPL 3 code http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/ http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/. This results in their userspace code being out of date (i.e. they still use bash version 3.2) and having bugs like these.

the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
> As another comment mentioned OS X is hindered by the fact they refuse to use GPL 3 code They do not refuse, they cannot include it from a legal point of view.
- hedwall 11y ago
  What is the difference between GPL2 and GPL3 that makes this impossible from a legal POV?
  - Someone 11y ago
    I don't think anybody knows whether there is a real difference, but the increased strictness of GPL3 such as its anti-TIVOization (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization) clauses certainly make a lot of lawyers concerned. Where exactly the border lies between and not linking is a grey area, legally, that hasn't become clearer with GPL3. It wouldn't surprise me to see bash go from the standard install, too. Apple is slowly removing all GPL code from its OS.
    - autoreleasepool 11y ago
      I hope they make ZSH the standard shell. It's similar enough to bash to not disrupt most workflows and Apple has been able to update it due to its permissive license. I use ZSH as my main shell on OS X. I find it superior to bash in almost every way (especially with oh-my-zsh) except in ubiquity. Even so, I have no problem using bash if that's all that's available, the two shells are fairly compatible.
      - mitchty 11y ago
        It was the primary shell in 10.2 or 10.3 after tcsh or csh (its been a while I can't remember well).
  - anonbanker 11y ago
    if someone uses your software in a way that is honoring the GPLv3, but you don't like, you lose any ability to sue or further restrict them. Even though the ghost of Steve Jobs (Forstall) is no longer haunting the building, Apple learned the lesson of "sue early, sue often", and Stallman/Moglen sort of got in the way of that with GPLv3. Tivoization was another issue, especially with Apple's tendency to lock down their platform.
- geofft 11y ago
  Does that affect regular OS X desktops/laptops? It makes sense for Apple TVs and iOS devices (well, as much sense as locking them down in the first place) but for OS X, the anti-TiVoization clause merely requires that the end user be able to replace those binaries. And there's always a way to turn off System Integrity Protection. Or are they worried about something else, like the patent clauses?
  - msbarnett 11y ago
    The patent clauses. They're so vague and untested a lot of corporate lawyers balk at having anything to do with them.
- belorn 11y ago
  Apple could agree to any software licenses they wish, but they choose not to with GPLv3. There is nothing legally that prevent them from giving users access to source code, nor giving users permission to change software running on devices that they have bought from Apple. Apple refuse to do this. No one know for sure but the common suspicion is that they want to avoid competition by locking users to a single platform where apple has a artificial created monopoly.
  - matt4077 11y ago
    Or maybe they just don't want to give away one of their core products for free.
    - anonbanker 11y ago
      yeah, best not use free software if you get the willies from the word "free".
    - belorn 11y ago
      Which core product would that be? GPL require that you give out source code of derivative works (work based on someone else work). One could be accused to think that the core products of Apple is the devices that they sells. What clause in GPLv3 require that they give devices out for free?
tedunangst 11y ago
So all BSD systems have the same bug??
- pmarin 11y ago
  Most BSD systems not include GPL code in their base system if it is not necesary but you can install it from ports or whatever they have.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- anonbanker 11y ago
  ITT: tedunangst asks a question he already knows the answer to. upvoted.

by trengrj 11y ago

the_mitsuhiko 11y ago

> As another comment mentioned OS X is hindered by the fact they refuse to use GPL 3 code They do not refuse, they cannot include it from a legal point of view.

hedwall 11y ago
What is the difference between GPL2 and GPL3 that makes this impossible from a legal POV?
- Someone 11y ago
  I don't think anybody knows whether there is a real difference, but the increased strictness of GPL3 such as its anti-TIVOization (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization) clauses certainly make a lot of lawyers concerned. Where exactly the border lies between and not linking is a grey area, legally, that hasn't become clearer with GPL3. It wouldn't surprise me to see bash go from the standard install, too. Apple is slowly removing all GPL code from its OS.
  - autoreleasepool 11y ago
    I hope they make ZSH the standard shell. It's similar enough to bash to not disrupt most workflows and Apple has been able to update it due to its permissive license. I use ZSH as my main shell on OS X. I find it superior to bash in almost every way (especially with oh-my-zsh) except in ubiquity. Even so, I have no problem using bash if that's all that's available, the two shells are fairly compatible.
    - mitchty 11y ago
      It was the primary shell in 10.2 or 10.3 after tcsh or csh (its been a while I can't remember well).
- anonbanker 11y ago
  if someone uses your software in a way that is honoring the GPLv3, but you don't like, you lose any ability to sue or further restrict them. Even though the ghost of Steve Jobs (Forstall) is no longer haunting the building, Apple learned the lesson of "sue early, sue often", and Stallman/Moglen sort of got in the way of that with GPLv3. Tivoization was another issue, especially with Apple's tendency to lock down their platform.
geofft 11y ago
Does that affect regular OS X desktops/laptops? It makes sense for Apple TVs and iOS devices (well, as much sense as locking them down in the first place) but for OS X, the anti-TiVoization clause merely requires that the end user be able to replace those binaries. And there's always a way to turn off System Integrity Protection. Or are they worried about something else, like the patent clauses?
- msbarnett 11y ago
  The patent clauses. They're so vague and untested a lot of corporate lawyers balk at having anything to do with them.
belorn 11y ago
Apple could agree to any software licenses they wish, but they choose not to with GPLv3. There is nothing legally that prevent them from giving users access to source code, nor giving users permission to change software running on devices that they have bought from Apple. Apple refuse to do this. No one know for sure but the common suspicion is that they want to avoid competition by locking users to a single platform where apple has a artificial created monopoly.
- matt4077 11y ago
  Or maybe they just don't want to give away one of their core products for free.
  - anonbanker 11y ago
    yeah, best not use free software if you get the willies from the word "free".
  - belorn 11y ago
    Which core product would that be? GPL require that you give out source code of derivative works (work based on someone else work). One could be accused to think that the core products of Apple is the devices that they sells. What clause in GPLv3 require that they give devices out for free?

tedunangst 11y ago

So all BSD systems have the same bug??

pmarin 11y ago
Most BSD systems not include GPL code in their base system if it is not necesary but you can install it from ports or whatever they have.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
anonbanker 11y ago
ITT: tedunangst asks a question he already knows the answer to. upvoted.