2 ms·

Nobody said Apple is incapable of designing such a system. But that's not the system they have today. It seems your entire argument is based on a hypothetical a

Nobody said Apple is incapable of designing such a system. But that's not the system they have today. It seems your entire argument is based on a hypothetical alternate universe where iOS allowed for user-swappable keys. But that's not what this thread was about, so your entire argument is completely moot. > This is all just more FUD. Please stop calling things FUD just because you don't like it.

cyphar 9y ago
> But that's not what this thread was about, so your entire argument is completely moot. I guess you were in a different thread than me. The discussion started with saying that "they don't use GPLv3 purely because of security concerns as they cannot have a secure system". I outlined that yes you can, you said that "currently Apple's system doesn't work that way" and now you're saying that discussing whether or not it is possible to create such a system is off-topic. Maybe I just misunderstood what you meant, but if that's the case then it still doesn't justify you broadly making incorrect claims about the GPLv3. You should say something like "Because Apple doesn't have the ability to replace the keys by the user, they cannot use GPLv3 as that would make their system insecure". You cannot omit the first part as it makes the statement incorrect. > Please stop calling things FUD just because you don't like it. "GPLv3 is toxic to companies" is FUD. It promotes fear through the use of the word "toxic", it promotes uncertainty by challenging a well-established license with vague concerns, and it seeds doubt in whether the license will be toxic to their company. As many companies do use and ship GPLv3 software and aren't being killed by this hypothetical toxicity, this is FUD. It just so happens that I don't like that you said it, but that's because I don't like people spreading FUD. ;)

cyphar 9y ago

> But that's not what this thread was about, so your entire argument is completely moot. I guess you were in a different thread than me. The discussion started with saying that "they don't use GPLv3 purely because of security concerns as they cannot have a secure system". I outlined that yes you can, you said that "currently Apple's system doesn't work that way" and now you're saying that discussing whether or not it is possible to create such a system is off-topic. Maybe I just misunderstood what you meant, but if that's the case then it still doesn't justify you broadly making incorrect claims about the GPLv3. You should say something like "Because Apple doesn't have the ability to replace the keys by the user, they cannot use GPLv3 as that would make their system insecure". You cannot omit the first part as it makes the statement incorrect. > Please stop calling things FUD just because you don't like it. "GPLv3 is toxic to companies" is FUD. It promotes fear through the use of the word "toxic", it promotes uncertainty by challenging a well-established license with vague concerns, and it seeds doubt in whether the license will be toxic to their company. As many companies do use and ship GPLv3 software and aren't being killed by this hypothetical toxicity, this is FUD. It just so happens that I don't like that you said it, but that's because I don't like people spreading FUD. ;)