3 ms·

> "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 pri

by 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.

eridius 9y ago
"Having complete control over their machines" being a non-goal is not the same thing as "not having complete control over their machines" as a goal. And trying to spread malicious rumors about GPLv3 only matters for the latter, not for the former. > What security do you get from not being able to replace the window manager? Well, you could argue that a third-party window manager could be snooping on all of the content visible on your screen (that otherwise isn't available to third-party apps) and could be doing whatever they want with that potentially-sensitive info. But that doesn't even matter, because the real answer here is "it's a massive amount of work to support third-party window managers, since the window manager is such a crucial and low-level and highly-integrated part of the system, and there's no motivation for Apple to expend that tremendous amount of work, especially because they'd likely end up with a far-less-stable system as a result". > Well, we're talking about it right now aren't we? We are, yes. Apple isn't. No matter what I say on the subject, that doesn't mean Apple is spreading rumors. I don't work for Apple. > This is the very definition of a rumor. You're free to accuse me of spreading rumors if you want. And I can't very well deny that because I can't provide any verification, but this interpretation of GPLv3 is a fairly common interpretation so I don't see that there's any reason to doubt it. But you can't accuse Apple of spreading rumors because people like me are making statements about this.
- cyphar 9y ago
  > Well, you could argue that a third-party window manager could be snooping on all of the content visible on your screen And Apple's APIs let you snoop on those events anyway (that's how the semi-third party window manager-managers work), this is not an argument... > because the real answer here is "it's a massive amount of work to support third-party window managers, since the window manager is such a crucial and low-level and highly-integrated part of the system, and there's no motivation for Apple to expend that tremendous amount of work, ...so what you're saying is "they don't want to put the effort into being able to replace core components of the system"? Because that's what I'm saying. I'm just saying it in a less charitable way than that. > but this interpretation of GPLv3 is a fairly common interpretation so I don't see that there's any reason to doubt it. It's only a common interpretation if you believe the rumors about Apple's view (and you're not the only person spreading them). FSF does not make that claim. Effectively everyone who uses GPLv3 doesn't make that claim (as far as I know). The only people that I've seen make that claim are people who say "this is the justification that Apple told me off-the-record but since they said it off-the-record we can't discuss it's merits". Do you see why I would suspect that this rumor spreading is co-ordinated? We went through this bullshit back with UEFI and GRUB in the Linux community. The agreement was that GPLv3 is fine so long as it is possible to replace the keys (and wiping the machine on key replacement is what you want to happen anyway, so that's fine and it solves the security issues). If you want to start claiming that it's a "common interpretation" you need to show that there is a larger community than the Linux community that uses the GPLv3. And you won't find one. Because it's not a common interpretation in the community that uses that license.
  - eridius 9y ago
    > It's only a common interpretation if you believe the rumors about Apple's view Why do you keep talking about rumors? And why do you keep talking as if this is somehow unique to Apple? I'm pretty sure Apple's not the only company that believes this. In fact, I have no idea why the FSF would even claim otherwise; Apple's interpretation seems to be perfectly in line with the entire point of the anti-TiVoization clause. If Apple were to accidentally ship GPLv3 software on iOS 11, under whatever interpretation you subscribe to, how is Apple supposed to remain in compliance with GPLv3 without releasing their root signing keys? Remember, we're talking about shipping this on existing devices, not on some hypothetical future device where they can add extra user-swappable keys to the bootloader. You keep insisting that Apple's interpretation is wrong, but you haven't provided any alternative interpretation. > If you want to start claiming that it's a "common interpretation" you need to show that there is a larger community than the Linux community that uses the GPLv3 That's a catch-22. There isn't a larger community because GPLv3 is toxic to companies. Nobody else is going to create a larger ecosystem of GPLv3 code because doing so basically means turning into Linux.

by cyphar 9y ago

eridius 9y ago

"Having complete control over their machines" being a non-goal is not the same thing as "not having complete control over their machines" as a goal. And trying to spread malicious rumors about GPLv3 only matters for the latter, not for the former. > What security do you get from not being able to replace the window manager? Well, you could argue that a third-party window manager could be snooping on all of the content visible on your screen (that otherwise isn't available to third-party apps) and could be doing whatever they want with that potentially-sensitive info. But that doesn't even matter, because the real answer here is "it's a massive amount of work to support third-party window managers, since the window manager is such a crucial and low-level and highly-integrated part of the system, and there's no motivation for Apple to expend that tremendous amount of work, especially because they'd likely end up with a far-less-stable system as a result". > Well, we're talking about it right now aren't we? We are, yes. Apple isn't. No matter what I say on the subject, that doesn't mean Apple is spreading rumors. I don't work for Apple. > This is the very definition of a rumor. You're free to accuse me of spreading rumors if you want. And I can't very well deny that because I can't provide any verification, but this interpretation of GPLv3 is a fairly common interpretation so I don't see that there's any reason to doubt it. But you can't accuse Apple of spreading rumors because people like me are making statements about this.

cyphar 9y ago
> Well, you could argue that a third-party window manager could be snooping on all of the content visible on your screen And Apple's APIs let you snoop on those events anyway (that's how the semi-third party window manager-managers work), this is not an argument... > because the real answer here is "it's a massive amount of work to support third-party window managers, since the window manager is such a crucial and low-level and highly-integrated part of the system, and there's no motivation for Apple to expend that tremendous amount of work, ...so what you're saying is "they don't want to put the effort into being able to replace core components of the system"? Because that's what I'm saying. I'm just saying it in a less charitable way than that. > but this interpretation of GPLv3 is a fairly common interpretation so I don't see that there's any reason to doubt it. It's only a common interpretation if you believe the rumors about Apple's view (and you're not the only person spreading them). FSF does not make that claim. Effectively everyone who uses GPLv3 doesn't make that claim (as far as I know). The only people that I've seen make that claim are people who say "this is the justification that Apple told me off-the-record but since they said it off-the-record we can't discuss it's merits". Do you see why I would suspect that this rumor spreading is co-ordinated? We went through this bullshit back with UEFI and GRUB in the Linux community. The agreement was that GPLv3 is fine so long as it is possible to replace the keys (and wiping the machine on key replacement is what you want to happen anyway, so that's fine and it solves the security issues). If you want to start claiming that it's a "common interpretation" you need to show that there is a larger community than the Linux community that uses the GPLv3. And you won't find one. Because it's not a common interpretation in the community that uses that license.
- eridius 9y ago
  > It's only a common interpretation if you believe the rumors about Apple's view Why do you keep talking about rumors? And why do you keep talking as if this is somehow unique to Apple? I'm pretty sure Apple's not the only company that believes this. In fact, I have no idea why the FSF would even claim otherwise; Apple's interpretation seems to be perfectly in line with the entire point of the anti-TiVoization clause. If Apple were to accidentally ship GPLv3 software on iOS 11, under whatever interpretation you subscribe to, how is Apple supposed to remain in compliance with GPLv3 without releasing their root signing keys? Remember, we're talking about shipping this on existing devices, not on some hypothetical future device where they can add extra user-swappable keys to the bootloader. You keep insisting that Apple's interpretation is wrong, but you haven't provided any alternative interpretation. > If you want to start claiming that it's a "common interpretation" you need to show that there is a larger community than the Linux community that uses the GPLv3 That's a catch-22. There isn't a larger community because GPLv3 is toxic to companies. Nobody else is going to create a larger ecosystem of GPLv3 code because doing so basically means turning into Linux.