4 ms·

3.81 is the last release under GPLv2. Apple doesn't ship GPLv3 code. https://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=4932 https://savannah.gnu.org/forum/foru

3.81 is the last release under GPLv2. Apple doesn't ship GPLv3 code. https://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=4932 https://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=4932

AceJohnny2 10y ago
Oh, that's why. Godamnit. Welp, MacPorts it is, then.
- __david__ 10y ago
  Yup. Same reason bash on OS X is an ancient version. And Emacs.
jordigh 10y ago
> Apple doesn't ship GPLv3 code. I wish Apple would stop being so pig-headed about this. They're about the only major tech company that refuses to touch GPLv3. Google, Microsoft, Facebook; they've all got some contact with GPLv3 code without having their empires crumble. In the meantime, Apple's refusal to ship GPLv3 is doing nothing but making it more inconvenient for its customers to get modern software. But ever since Steve Jobs got pwned by GPLv2 and thus gcc got an ObjC frontend, Apple has been vowing, "nevar forget".
- mwfunk 10y ago
  I'm not sure pwned is the right word: (1) The ObjC/GCC thing happened in the '80s, and didn't prevent them from doing things like shipping (and updating) plenty of GPLv2 software with OS X when it first came out in the late '90s/early 2000s. Additionally, WebKit came out in 2005, and was forked from KHTML, which was LGPL. They didn't have to choose KHTML, they could've written something from scratch or used something else. Their issue is obviously with GPLv3, not the GPL in general. (2) Many, many, many people, including many people in what you would consider the hacker community, have serious issues with GPLv3. One might even say that for those people, GPLv3 is "doing nothing but making it more inconvenient for its customers to get modern software." And it's not like GPL < v3 was a universally beloved and accepted license either, it's pretty much been a font of endless flamewars since its inception decades ago. I personally think it's a great license as long as developers and users understand its requirements, but let's not kid ourselves that it's something everyone should universally embrace and use regardless of their own goals and ideals, or without fully understanding what requirements it imposes. (3) Back in the '80s, Jobs asked RMS if the ObjC front end could be distributed separately and linked by the user, and therefore not fall under the linkage requirement of the GPL. RMS said he'd ask his lawyers. He did, and his lawyers said it was a gray area that could potentially be abused. RMS decided to tell Jobs that he would not be OK with that arrangement. Jobs said "OK", et voila. GPL'd ObjC front end. That sounds more like grownups resolving a disagreement than pwnage, but whatever.
  - jordigh 10y ago
    I think the GPLv3 is more widely feared than understood. Most of the objections raised in the flamewars come from misunderstandings of its terms (e.g. the belief that it forbids encryption or it has patent anti-retaliation clauses worse than the Apache license), or from objections to early drafts of it. For example, the Linux devs refused to upgrade to GPLv3 after reading an early draft, and never reconsidered the question after the final draft was out. And yeah, I would consider what happened to Jobs to be "pwning". He was trying very hard to not have to give gcc any source code, and he failed. If he was happy with the GPL, we would have seen more contributions to gcc after that, but they never happened again.
    - sheepleherd 10y ago
      The GPL protects users; if you use software, a GPL license protects your right to make changes to the software via the source code to correct problems and make it suit your needs. I understand that many developers and suits to not wish to give this right to users, but trying to never mention that and calling yourself or anybody "pwned" by the GPL that other developers granted to you is quite simply propaganda. Protecting users' rights is not getting pwned, it's a failure to pwn your users with software that you don't have pwnership of.
- massysett 10y ago
  I guess it would be too much trouble for them to switch to BSD make? Apparently there is no BSD grep so I guess they are stuck with GNU on that one.
  - teamhappy 10y ago
    > I guess it would be too much trouble for them to switch to BSD make? Switching to FreeBSD's make would be super simple, but unfortunately it lacks plenty of features that GNU make has. > Apparently there is no BSD grep [...] Apple ships FreeBSD's grep.
    - massysett 10y ago
      Yes my mistake; FreeBSD's web man pages are still showing GNU grep even for -current, but my OS X system has BSD grep.

3.81 is the last release under GPLv2. Apple doesn't ship GPLv3 code. https://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=4932 https://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=4932

AceJohnny2 10y ago

Oh, that's why. Godamnit. Welp, MacPorts it is, then.

__david__ 10y ago
Yup. Same reason bash on OS X is an ancient version. And Emacs.

jordigh 10y ago

> Apple doesn't ship GPLv3 code. I wish Apple would stop being so pig-headed about this. They're about the only major tech company that refuses to touch GPLv3. Google, Microsoft, Facebook; they've all got some contact with GPLv3 code without having their empires crumble. In the meantime, Apple's refusal to ship GPLv3 is doing nothing but making it more inconvenient for its customers to get modern software. But ever since Steve Jobs got pwned by GPLv2 and thus gcc got an ObjC frontend, Apple has been vowing, "nevar forget".

mwfunk 10y ago
I'm not sure pwned is the right word: (1) The ObjC/GCC thing happened in the '80s, and didn't prevent them from doing things like shipping (and updating) plenty of GPLv2 software with OS X when it first came out in the late '90s/early 2000s. Additionally, WebKit came out in 2005, and was forked from KHTML, which was LGPL. They didn't have to choose KHTML, they could've written something from scratch or used something else. Their issue is obviously with GPLv3, not the GPL in general. (2) Many, many, many people, including many people in what you would consider the hacker community, have serious issues with GPLv3. One might even say that for those people, GPLv3 is "doing nothing but making it more inconvenient for its customers to get modern software." And it's not like GPL < v3 was a universally beloved and accepted license either, it's pretty much been a font of endless flamewars since its inception decades ago. I personally think it's a great license as long as developers and users understand its requirements, but let's not kid ourselves that it's something everyone should universally embrace and use regardless of their own goals and ideals, or without fully understanding what requirements it imposes. (3) Back in the '80s, Jobs asked RMS if the ObjC front end could be distributed separately and linked by the user, and therefore not fall under the linkage requirement of the GPL. RMS said he'd ask his lawyers. He did, and his lawyers said it was a gray area that could potentially be abused. RMS decided to tell Jobs that he would not be OK with that arrangement. Jobs said "OK", et voila. GPL'd ObjC front end. That sounds more like grownups resolving a disagreement than pwnage, but whatever.
- jordigh 10y ago
  I think the GPLv3 is more widely feared than understood. Most of the objections raised in the flamewars come from misunderstandings of its terms (e.g. the belief that it forbids encryption or it has patent anti-retaliation clauses worse than the Apache license), or from objections to early drafts of it. For example, the Linux devs refused to upgrade to GPLv3 after reading an early draft, and never reconsidered the question after the final draft was out. And yeah, I would consider what happened to Jobs to be "pwning". He was trying very hard to not have to give gcc any source code, and he failed. If he was happy with the GPL, we would have seen more contributions to gcc after that, but they never happened again.
  - sheepleherd 10y ago
    The GPL protects users; if you use software, a GPL license protects your right to make changes to the software via the source code to correct problems and make it suit your needs. I understand that many developers and suits to not wish to give this right to users, but trying to never mention that and calling yourself or anybody "pwned" by the GPL that other developers granted to you is quite simply propaganda. Protecting users' rights is not getting pwned, it's a failure to pwn your users with software that you don't have pwnership of.
massysett 10y ago
I guess it would be too much trouble for them to switch to BSD make? Apparently there is no BSD grep so I guess they are stuck with GNU on that one.
- teamhappy 10y ago
  > I guess it would be too much trouble for them to switch to BSD make? Switching to FreeBSD's make would be super simple, but unfortunately it lacks plenty of features that GNU make has. > Apparently there is no BSD grep [...] Apple ships FreeBSD's grep.
  - massysett 10y ago
    Yes my mistake; FreeBSD's web man pages are still showing GNU grep even for -current, but my OS X system has BSD grep.