4 ms·
Apple was not “forced” to abandon GPLv3 software. GPLv3 contains two key provisions Apple seems to have a problem with: It forbids locking down hardware so that
by erlehmann_ 10y ago
Apple was not “forced” to abandon GPLv3 software. GPLv3 contains two key provisions Apple seems to have a problem with: It forbids locking down hardware so that users cannot actually run software they want (tivoization) and it forbids patent lawsuits against users of the GPLv3 software. Apple's hostility towards GPLv3 very likely has nothing to do with dynamic linking.
- ZenoArrow 10y agoThat's your projection of the events. I'm confident if you looked in the Samba mailing lists you could get a more definitive view of why Apple did what they did.
- erlehmann_ 10y agoIf you are confident about this, please explain why you think Apple did remove GPLv3 software and provide evidence. I have searched for a few minutes and did not find anything.
- ZenoArrow 10y agoHmm, yeah, looking into this Apple devs didn't seem to have discussed the change on the Samba mailing lists, earliest news item I can find about it is this, but it's from unnamed sources... http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/23/inside_mac_os_x_10_7_lion_server_apple_replaces_samba_for_windows_networking_services.html http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/23/inside_mac_os_x_10...
- wolfgke 10y agoI can't find any indication in this article that Apple's reason was the fear of dynamic linking as you claimed (in cotrast to erlehmann_'s claim that Apple had problems with the "no locking down" and "no patent lawsuits" clauses in the GPLv3).