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 specia

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.)