5 ms·

Assuming that Apple Legal is not lying (a big ask, as they have an incentive to spread FUD around GPLv3 and blame the license so to discourage projects from usi

by cyphar 9y ago

Assuming that Apple Legal is not lying (a big ask, as they have an incentive to spread FUD around GPLv3 and blame the license so to discourage projects from using it so they aren't forced to develop their own variants of more GPLv3 projects) there's also a possibility that they are misinformed or have come to a wrong conclusion. Also, there's nothing stopping an opinion from a lawyer from being FUD. Apple Legal isn't your lawyer, they don't have a responsibility to tell you the whole truth or give you information that is in your best interest.

eridius 9y ago
That's absurd. There's literally no reason for Apple Legal to lie. If Apple Legal was lying about the downsides of GPLv3, then that means there's no reason why Apple would care about software being GPLv3, which means there's no incentive to try and convince people to stop using it! Also, it's not like Apple Legal is telling anyone outside the company about this. Apple's not releasing any public statements asking people not to use GPLv3. So how exactly are they supposed to be discouraging its use when the people using it don't know what Apple Legal thinks about it?
- cyphar 9y ago
  > There's literally no reason for Apple Legal to lie. Yes there is. Apple doesn't want to use GPLv3 for other reasons (they don't want users to have full control over their machines -- which they've proven time and time again with the iThings). But rather than saying "sorry, we don't want you to be able to control your machines" (which would be bad PR) they spread rumors about "GPLv3 means your software cannot be secure against certain attacks". > Also, it's not like Apple Legal is telling anyone outside the company about this. Hence this whole comment thread is a discussion about theoretical views of Apple Legal. My whole point is predicated on "someone actually knows for sure that this is the opinion of legal".
  - eridius 9y ago
    > they don't want users to have full control over their machines Oh come on. You sound like a caricature now. "Not having control over their machines" is not a goal and it makes you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist to claim it is. Security is a goal, and unfortunately security often conflicts with having complete control over the device. But that's different than saying Apple actively wants to prevent users from having control over their devices. > they spread rumors No they aren't. Apple doesn't make any public statements about GPLv3, period. Apple can't possibly be spreading rumors if they're not talking to people. > My whole point is predicated on "someone actually knows for sure that this is the opinion of legal". I do. I know for sure this is the position of Apple Legal. Which is why I said this was their position in the first place.
    - cyphar 9y ago
      > "Not having control over their machines" is not a goal and it makes you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist to claim it is. I agree that security is a primary goal of Apple. And many of the restrictions have a mostly valid security justification. But "ability to have full control of your machine and be able to replace components" is clearly not part of Apple's goals. So they don't spend any time thinking about solving the problem with that constraint. What security do you get from not being able to replace the window manager? Because if you want to claim that "Apple prioritises users being able to control all parts of their machines, and security prevents this from being possible" then you have to give a security justification for every un-configurable restriction. > Apple doesn't make any public statements about GPLv3, period. Apple can't possibly be spreading rumors if they're not talking to people. Well, we're talking about it right now aren't we? I'm aware they didn't make any public statements, but this whole discussion is pointless if we are just going to say "I know this is their true opinion and they have no reason to lie to me because they didn't say it publicly, therefore [contentious statement about GPLv3] is effectively correct and there's no point in discussing this further". > I know for sure this is the position of Apple Legal. You know that this is what Apple Legal told you, or someone who knows someone at Apple Legal told you. Unless you're part of Apple Legal in which case you've now made a public statement about GPLv3. This is the very definition of a rumor.

by cyphar 9y ago

eridius 9y ago

That's absurd. There's literally no reason for Apple Legal to lie. If Apple Legal was lying about the downsides of GPLv3, then that means there's no reason why Apple would care about software being GPLv3, which means there's no incentive to try and convince people to stop using it! Also, it's not like Apple Legal is telling anyone outside the company about this. Apple's not releasing any public statements asking people not to use GPLv3. So how exactly are they supposed to be discouraging its use when the people using it don't know what Apple Legal thinks about it?

cyphar 9y ago
> There's literally no reason for Apple Legal to lie. Yes there is. Apple doesn't want to use GPLv3 for other reasons (they don't want users to have full control over their machines -- which they've proven time and time again with the iThings). But rather than saying "sorry, we don't want you to be able to control your machines" (which would be bad PR) they spread rumors about "GPLv3 means your software cannot be secure against certain attacks". > Also, it's not like Apple Legal is telling anyone outside the company about this. Hence this whole comment thread is a discussion about theoretical views of Apple Legal. My whole point is predicated on "someone actually knows for sure that this is the opinion of legal".
- eridius 9y ago
  > they don't want users to have full control over their machines Oh come on. You sound like a caricature now. "Not having control over their machines" is not a goal and it makes you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist to claim it is. Security is a goal, and unfortunately security often conflicts with having complete control over the device. But that's different than saying Apple actively wants to prevent users from having control over their devices. > they spread rumors No they aren't. Apple doesn't make any public statements about GPLv3, period. Apple can't possibly be spreading rumors if they're not talking to people. > My whole point is predicated on "someone actually knows for sure that this is the opinion of legal". I do. I know for sure this is the position of Apple Legal. Which is why I said this was their position in the first place.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    > "Not having control over their machines" is not a goal and it makes you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist to claim it is. I agree that security is a primary goal of Apple. And many of the restrictions have a mostly valid security justification. But "ability to have full control of your machine and be able to replace components" is clearly not part of Apple's goals. So they don't spend any time thinking about solving the problem with that constraint. What security do you get from not being able to replace the window manager? Because if you want to claim that "Apple prioritises users being able to control all parts of their machines, and security prevents this from being possible" then you have to give a security justification for every un-configurable restriction. > Apple doesn't make any public statements about GPLv3, period. Apple can't possibly be spreading rumors if they're not talking to people. Well, we're talking about it right now aren't we? I'm aware they didn't make any public statements, but this whole discussion is pointless if we are just going to say "I know this is their true opinion and they have no reason to lie to me because they didn't say it publicly, therefore [contentious statement about GPLv3] is effectively correct and there's no point in discussing this further". > I know for sure this is the position of Apple Legal. You know that this is what Apple Legal told you, or someone who knows someone at Apple Legal told you. Unless you're part of Apple Legal in which case you've now made a public statement about GPLv3. This is the very definition of a rumor.