2 ms·
Can you point to actual statements by any company on "why we avoid the GPL?" Here is a great example of Google reversing course on the AGPL (when they reversed
by sounds 9y ago
Can you point to actual statements by any company on "why we avoid the GPL?"
Here is a great example of Google reversing course on the AGPL (when they reversed their decision to ban AGPL code from Google Code in Sep 2010):
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/31/google_on_open_source_licenses/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/31/google_on_open_sour...
Apple also _still_ ships GPL code in macOS Sierra 10.12:
http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/ http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/
People use GPL software, extensively.
Any use of GPL software is a compliment to the software authors.
Any contribution back to the software will improve it for everyone. Would it really be so hard for Apple to maintain a GPLv2 fork of bash that backported the security fixes, a la RedHat?
- eridius 9y agoI'm not aware of public statements, I don't know why any big company would actually go on record as saying that. But what I described above is paraphrasing what I personally was told by a lawyer who worked for a big company. Also, your own link shows that over time Apple has been shipping fewer and fewer GPL-licensed packages, and explicitly makes the case that Apple is trying to get rid of GPL-licensed software. > People use GPL software, extensively. People use all sorts of software. I have no idea why this statement is relevant to big companies shipping GPL software. > Any use of GPL software is a compliment to the software authors. I'm even more confused by the inclusion of this statement.