5 ms·

Because Apple avoids GPLv3 like the plague, basically. That's why the included bash is so old too, AFAIK

by pdpi 10y ago

colejohnson66 10y ago
Which in this case is ridiculous. There are valid reasons for businesses to avoid GPL, but if they use GNU grep, the only thing they have to open source is their copy of GNU grep. It's not like doing so will force them to make their kernel GPL
- detaro 10y ago
  I'd assume their policy is because of the Tivoization clauses, which (as far as I understand them) would become an issue if they lock the OS down more, or want to share the environment with e.g. iOS devices.
  - CJefferson 10y ago
    Apple is moving towards forbidding write access to system directories, for example: sudo mv /bin/echo /bin/e mv: rename echo to e: Operation not permitted I'm not sure if this is getting close to falling foul of the GPL v3 -- if I can't replace these files, is that a problem?
    - pohl 10y ago
      Rather than replacing it, why not write it under /usr/local and edit your PATH?
      - CJefferson 10y ago
        Oh, I certainly could (and do for bash), but I believe the GPL v3 requires that you can replace any copies of programs with your own, which possibly Apple might worry they fall foul of, which might be why they don't want GPL v3 software (I'm guessing).
    - colejohnson66 10y ago
      Is there anything stopping you from booting into Linux to rename it, is there? Like how I can't delete files owned by SYSTEM on Windows, but can on Linux?
      - koenigdavidmj 10y ago
        You can even unset this within macOS; it just requires a reboot: 1. Hold Cmd-R as you reboot. That puts you in recovery mode. 2. Bring up a terminal. 3. Run 'csrutil disable' 4. Reboot back into regular mode
      - cmurf 10y ago
        Yes. Linux has no support for Core Storage, which is now used in default macOS layouts. So any hfsplus volume on Core Storage is rendered effectively not readable on an OS other than macOS, even if it's not encrypted.
    - spullara 10y ago
      That is System Integrity Protection implemented in the latest operating system: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204899 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204899 It is possible to disable it and even if you couldn't I don't think it has any impact on licensing.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        If you couldn't, it would conflict with the "anti-tivoization" rules applicable to "User Products" in the GPLv3, which requires that any GPLv3 code incorporated into a "User Product" is replaceable with modified versions, and that the manufacturer of the product provide all information necessary to the user to make that replacement.
        spullara 10y ago
        Hmm. Isn't it replaceable by changing the PATH and installing them in non-System Integrity areas of the operating system like /usr/local/bin?
- jlarocco 10y ago
  Actually, a strict "no GPLv3" policy makes a lot of sense because it side steps the whole issue and means they don't have to fork over a ton of money for legal reviews of something 95% of OSX users won't care about. It's easy enough for people who want GNU grep to install it themselves.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > There are valid reasons for businesses to avoid GPL, but if they use GNU grep, the only thing they have to open source is their copy of GNU grep. If they use GNU grep as part of a distribution that might be included with hardware, it means the GPLv3 anti-tivoization clauses affect any hardware that that distribution is on. Apple being first and foremost a consumer hardware manufacturer whose software exists to add value to that hardware, and wanting to maintain its ability to do what it wants with that hardware including not being constrained by the GPLv3's anti-tivoization clause (even if they aren't doing anything now that would fall afoul of it, they might want to in the future, and don't want to tie their hands in advance), has a very good reason not to touch GPLv3 at all. (There's other GPLv3 provisions that might be problematic, too, GPLv3 involves more than just a requirement to provide source also licensed under the GPLv3.)
  - belorn 10y ago
    Companies that want to remain in ownership control of property after they have sold it can't use GPLv3 licensed software, that is true. They could lease out the hardware to achieve the same effect, but for some reason some companies prefer to disguise the lease as a sale.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > They could lease out the hardware to achieve the same effect No, they could not. The GPLv3 requires modification information be provided to the "user" by whom a consumer product is "received", not only the "owner" by whom it is "purchased", so lease vs. sell has no effect on the obligations (at least no effect clear from the text of the license.)
      - belorn 10y ago
        Reading the sources to that, it seems the issue is extremly unclear. The big question is if you need additional copyright permission to lease out hardware that include software. For example. A car rental service buys a modern car that has software in it. Does they need additional copyright permission on top of the purchase in order to lease the car out? A taxi driver buys a modern car with the intention to rent out his service with the car. Is additional copyright permission required? A school provides students with access to the school computers. Is that conveying a copy of software? What if its "open door day", where the public is invited? A public library want to have public available computers. Are they conveying copies of software through that? If you looked at WIPO, it explicitly say no. If you looked at Information Society Directive 2001/29/EC, they explicitly say yes, under the condition that the offer is directed to the public. If you looked at the court cases that has interpreted those texts, then they are inconclusive.

Because Apple avoids GPLv3 like the plague, basically. That's why the included bash is so old too, AFAIK

by pdpi 10y ago

Because Apple avoids GPLv3 like the plague, basically. That's why the included bash is so old too, AFAIK

Which in this case is ridiculous. There are valid reasons for businesses to avoid GPL, but if they use GNU grep, the only thing they have to open source is their copy of GNU grep. It's not like doing so will force them to make their kernel GPL

detaro 10y ago
I'd assume their policy is because of the Tivoization clauses, which (as far as I understand them) would become an issue if they lock the OS down more, or want to share the environment with e.g. iOS devices.
- CJefferson 10y ago
  Apple is moving towards forbidding write access to system directories, for example: sudo mv /bin/echo /bin/e mv: rename echo to e: Operation not permitted I'm not sure if this is getting close to falling foul of the GPL v3 -- if I can't replace these files, is that a problem?
  - pohl 10y ago
    Rather than replacing it, why not write it under /usr/local and edit your PATH?
    - CJefferson 10y ago
      Oh, I certainly could (and do for bash), but I believe the GPL v3 requires that you can replace any copies of programs with your own, which possibly Apple might worry they fall foul of, which might be why they don't want GPL v3 software (I'm guessing).
  - colejohnson66 10y ago
    Is there anything stopping you from booting into Linux to rename it, is there? Like how I can't delete files owned by SYSTEM on Windows, but can on Linux?
    - koenigdavidmj 10y ago
      You can even unset this within macOS; it just requires a reboot: 1. Hold Cmd-R as you reboot. That puts you in recovery mode. 2. Bring up a terminal. 3. Run 'csrutil disable' 4. Reboot back into regular mode
    - cmurf 10y ago
      Yes. Linux has no support for Core Storage, which is now used in default macOS layouts. So any hfsplus volume on Core Storage is rendered effectively not readable on an OS other than macOS, even if it's not encrypted.
  - spullara 10y ago
    That is System Integrity Protection implemented in the latest operating system: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204899 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204899 It is possible to disable it and even if you couldn't I don't think it has any impact on licensing.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      If you couldn't, it would conflict with the "anti-tivoization" rules applicable to "User Products" in the GPLv3, which requires that any GPLv3 code incorporated into a "User Product" is replaceable with modified versions, and that the manufacturer of the product provide all information necessary to the user to make that replacement.
      - spullara 10y ago
        Hmm. Isn't it replaceable by changing the PATH and installing them in non-System Integrity areas of the operating system like /usr/local/bin?
jlarocco 10y ago
Actually, a strict "no GPLv3" policy makes a lot of sense because it side steps the whole issue and means they don't have to fork over a ton of money for legal reviews of something 95% of OSX users won't care about. It's easy enough for people who want GNU grep to install it themselves.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> There are valid reasons for businesses to avoid GPL, but if they use GNU grep, the only thing they have to open source is their copy of GNU grep. If they use GNU grep as part of a distribution that might be included with hardware, it means the GPLv3 anti-tivoization clauses affect any hardware that that distribution is on. Apple being first and foremost a consumer hardware manufacturer whose software exists to add value to that hardware, and wanting to maintain its ability to do what it wants with that hardware including not being constrained by the GPLv3's anti-tivoization clause (even if they aren't doing anything now that would fall afoul of it, they might want to in the future, and don't want to tie their hands in advance), has a very good reason not to touch GPLv3 at all. (There's other GPLv3 provisions that might be problematic, too, GPLv3 involves more than just a requirement to provide source also licensed under the GPLv3.)
- belorn 10y ago
  Companies that want to remain in ownership control of property after they have sold it can't use GPLv3 licensed software, that is true. They could lease out the hardware to achieve the same effect, but for some reason some companies prefer to disguise the lease as a sale.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > They could lease out the hardware to achieve the same effect No, they could not. The GPLv3 requires modification information be provided to the "user" by whom a consumer product is "received", not only the "owner" by whom it is "purchased", so lease vs. sell has no effect on the obligations (at least no effect clear from the text of the license.)
    - belorn 10y ago
      Reading the sources to that, it seems the issue is extremly unclear. The big question is if you need additional copyright permission to lease out hardware that include software. For example. A car rental service buys a modern car that has software in it. Does they need additional copyright permission on top of the purchase in order to lease the car out? A taxi driver buys a modern car with the intention to rent out his service with the car. Is additional copyright permission required? A school provides students with access to the school computers. Is that conveying a copy of software? What if its "open door day", where the public is invited? A public library want to have public available computers. Are they conveying copies of software through that? If you looked at WIPO, it explicitly say no. If you looked at Information Society Directive 2001/29/EC, they explicitly say yes, under the condition that the offer is directed to the public. If you looked at the court cases that has interpreted those texts, then they are inconclusive.