4 ms·

Is Apple still reducing dependencies on GPL code? http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/ http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purg

Is Apple still reducing dependencies on GPL code? http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/ http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/

fapjacks 10y ago
Thanks for posting. This is what I was coming here to say, also.
grzm 10y ago
You might find the recent HN discussion on this topic useful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12894721 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12894721 From what I gather (welcome to correction, as I haven't looked at this in depth), there are two main things going on here: - replacing GPL code with BSD code - staying with earlier versions of GPL code rather than update to GPLv3 versions
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
abritinthebay 10y ago
Might want to be honest: not GPL, just GPLv3 Can't really blame them either. This was the exact result that most (outside of the GPL bubble) predicted when v3 was released.
- mwfunk 10y ago
  Yeah, this should not be a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention for the last 10 years. GPLv3 was incredibly divisive, both inside and outside the open source community. Admittedly, for some people this may have been part of its intent- to draw more lines in the sand, to force out those that the FSF deems as having insufficient ideological purity. The FSF doesn't shy away from calling out its enemies- to my eyes, over the decades it has been far more concerned with condemning what it perceives as being evil, rather than promotion of what it perceives as being good.
  - abritinthebay 10y ago
    Oh yeah, it was totally it's goal and I don't begrudge them that. The problem is that by v3 the GPL was so ingrained as THE OSS license that many projects and devs just used v3 out of habit. Now for some they may be fine with it, and that's cool, but I think it's telling that we've seen a resurgence of MIT, Apache, Mozilla, LGPL, and BSD licenses. GPLv3 has been extremely damaging to OSS, intentionally or not, as companies associate OSS with it - which is a shame.
    - sedachv 10y ago
      > The problem is that by v3 the GPL was so ingrained as THE OSS license that many projects and devs just used v3 out of habit. As Stallman would point out, GPL is Free Software, not OSS. > GPLv3 has been extremely damaging to OSS, intentionally or not, as companies associate OSS with it - which is a shame. If companies really want to continue shipping crapware locked-down IoT and ARM systems they can pay for the development of the software themselves. Since it is effectively impossible to run your own Linux distribution on the vast majority of Android devices, contributing ARM-related Linux code as a hobbyist is literally working for Google/phone manufacturers for free. Stallman did not start GNU so you could sit on your Macbook writing ad-tech apps to deploy to AWS and the Google Play Store.
      - abritinthebay 10y ago
        > As Stallman would point out, GPL is Free Software, not OSS. Yes I know that, you know that, but it had positioned itself (deliberately) as the first choice & was very effective at it. Or put another way: a PC doesn't have to include Windows but there's a reason the campaign was Mac vs PC not Mac vs Windows. Also you seem to think I care what Stallman thinks or wants. I really don't.
- Washuu 10y ago
  If I even remotely sneeze near a piece of GPLv3 code at work a team of lawyers gets restless.
  - slrz 10y ago
    Does your company otherwise contribute to non-GPLv3 free software?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
RRRA 10y ago
Yeah, like many, they pretend they're doing FOSS while dropping the (F)reedom part. GPLv3 is about stopping TIVO-isation, but TIVO tactics is what Apple specializes in. Locking people in with other people's (F)ree software. The sad part is that GPLv3 is just fine for all (F)OSS project. But to them, it's about making sure their project governance can never really be moved to a more neutral foundation if they ever feel the need to put all their energy behind one project and close it down again... The "freedom" to take away freedom from others isn't one. A bit like how Android 3.x was code-dumped after the fact, when 4 came out... Open you say? And yes, non-copyleft would work as well, and I have nothing against them a priori, but that's as long as the governance model is built around neutral foundations, proper community management, etc. What the GPL does, is prevent the imbalance when a company decide it doesn't care about the community around a project because they have the bigger share and run with it. I would understand more discussions around AGPLv3, but GPLv3 is just fine. (On a side note, I'm always fascinated by the GPL bashing here... well... I guess it is expected considering money > freedom for some who can't think passed their project's legacy.)

Is Apple still reducing dependencies on GPL code? http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/ http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/

fapjacks 10y ago

Thanks for posting. This is what I was coming here to say, also.

grzm 10y ago

You might find the recent HN discussion on this topic useful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12894721 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12894721 From what I gather (welcome to correction, as I haven't looked at this in depth), there are two main things going on here: - replacing GPL code with BSD code - staying with earlier versions of GPL code rather than update to GPLv3 versions

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

abritinthebay 10y ago

Might want to be honest: not GPL, just GPLv3 Can't really blame them either. This was the exact result that most (outside of the GPL bubble) predicted when v3 was released.

mwfunk 10y ago
Yeah, this should not be a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention for the last 10 years. GPLv3 was incredibly divisive, both inside and outside the open source community. Admittedly, for some people this may have been part of its intent- to draw more lines in the sand, to force out those that the FSF deems as having insufficient ideological purity. The FSF doesn't shy away from calling out its enemies- to my eyes, over the decades it has been far more concerned with condemning what it perceives as being evil, rather than promotion of what it perceives as being good.
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  Oh yeah, it was totally it's goal and I don't begrudge them that. The problem is that by v3 the GPL was so ingrained as THE OSS license that many projects and devs just used v3 out of habit. Now for some they may be fine with it, and that's cool, but I think it's telling that we've seen a resurgence of MIT, Apache, Mozilla, LGPL, and BSD licenses. GPLv3 has been extremely damaging to OSS, intentionally or not, as companies associate OSS with it - which is a shame.
  - sedachv 10y ago
    > The problem is that by v3 the GPL was so ingrained as THE OSS license that many projects and devs just used v3 out of habit. As Stallman would point out, GPL is Free Software, not OSS. > GPLv3 has been extremely damaging to OSS, intentionally or not, as companies associate OSS with it - which is a shame. If companies really want to continue shipping crapware locked-down IoT and ARM systems they can pay for the development of the software themselves. Since it is effectively impossible to run your own Linux distribution on the vast majority of Android devices, contributing ARM-related Linux code as a hobbyist is literally working for Google/phone manufacturers for free. Stallman did not start GNU so you could sit on your Macbook writing ad-tech apps to deploy to AWS and the Google Play Store.
    - abritinthebay 10y ago
      > As Stallman would point out, GPL is Free Software, not OSS. Yes I know that, you know that, but it had positioned itself (deliberately) as the first choice & was very effective at it. Or put another way: a PC doesn't have to include Windows but there's a reason the campaign was Mac vs PC not Mac vs Windows. Also you seem to think I care what Stallman thinks or wants. I really don't.
Washuu 10y ago
If I even remotely sneeze near a piece of GPLv3 code at work a team of lawyers gets restless.
- slrz 10y ago
  Does your company otherwise contribute to non-GPLv3 free software?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

RRRA 10y ago

Yeah, like many, they pretend they're doing FOSS while dropping the (F)reedom part. GPLv3 is about stopping TIVO-isation, but TIVO tactics is what Apple specializes in. Locking people in with other people's (F)ree software. The sad part is that GPLv3 is just fine for all (F)OSS project. But to them, it's about making sure their project governance can never really be moved to a more neutral foundation if they ever feel the need to put all their energy behind one project and close it down again... The "freedom" to take away freedom from others isn't one. A bit like how Android 3.x was code-dumped after the fact, when 4 came out... Open you say? And yes, non-copyleft would work as well, and I have nothing against them a priori, but that's as long as the governance model is built around neutral foundations, proper community management, etc. What the GPL does, is prevent the imbalance when a company decide it doesn't care about the community around a project because they have the bigger share and run with it. I would understand more discussions around AGPLv3, but GPLv3 is just fine. (On a side note, I'm always fascinated by the GPL bashing here... well... I guess it is expected considering money > freedom for some who can't think passed their project's legacy.)