3 ms·

> What more you want? Broader adoption of the GPLv3 and AGPLv3, for one thing. Getting Apple to get over their aversion of the GPL, for another. Ever wondered

> What more you want? Broader adoption of the GPLv3 and AGPLv3, for one thing. Getting Apple to get over their aversion of the GPL, for another. Ever wondered why macOS shipped with antiquated version of Bash, Emacs, Make...?

thomastjeffery 9y ago
> Getting Apple to get over their aversion of the GPL Apple isn't going to join the Free Software Movement. If they do, they will be something entirely different, using the same name. Apple's business model is based on proprietary software, and limiting users.
- tjr 9y ago
  Apple does sell some proprietary software for a fee, and they give away a lot of proprietary software for no cost. But it seems to me that most of their business model is selling hardware. I wonder what impact moving to all Free Software would actually have on their business? Or at least, making all of the software that they don't charge for, Free Software?
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    > they give away a lot of proprietary software for no cost. That is explicitly not the definition of free software, which is "free" as in "freedom", not "free beer". The monetary exchange for software copies is a separate topic. I do wish Stallman picked a less ambiguous word like "libre", but here we are. > But it seems to me that most of their business model is selling hardware. That's what I'm talking about. IOS is explicitly designed to be a "walled garden". That design is directly contradictory to free software design. It requires that users are unable to do certain things in IOS, meaning it requires IOS to be proprietary, and irriplaceable. > I wonder what impact moving to all Free Software would actually have on their business? That is a good question. Unfortunately, Apple (as it exists today) will quite certainly never show is. > Or at least, making all of the software that they don't charge for, Free Software? Any user level software would not be needed for their "walled garden" approach, so there is nothing but Apple's current mindset preventing them from releasing the source. Maybe someday they will realize this, after all, their current open source projects (LLVM/clang, etc.) have certainly flourished.

thomastjeffery 9y ago

> Getting Apple to get over their aversion of the GPL Apple isn't going to join the Free Software Movement. If they do, they will be something entirely different, using the same name. Apple's business model is based on proprietary software, and limiting users.

tjr 9y ago
Apple does sell some proprietary software for a fee, and they give away a lot of proprietary software for no cost. But it seems to me that most of their business model is selling hardware. I wonder what impact moving to all Free Software would actually have on their business? Or at least, making all of the software that they don't charge for, Free Software?
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  > they give away a lot of proprietary software for no cost. That is explicitly not the definition of free software, which is "free" as in "freedom", not "free beer". The monetary exchange for software copies is a separate topic. I do wish Stallman picked a less ambiguous word like "libre", but here we are. > But it seems to me that most of their business model is selling hardware. That's what I'm talking about. IOS is explicitly designed to be a "walled garden". That design is directly contradictory to free software design. It requires that users are unable to do certain things in IOS, meaning it requires IOS to be proprietary, and irriplaceable. > I wonder what impact moving to all Free Software would actually have on their business? That is a good question. Unfortunately, Apple (as it exists today) will quite certainly never show is. > Or at least, making all of the software that they don't charge for, Free Software? Any user level software would not be needed for their "walled garden" approach, so there is nothing but Apple's current mindset preventing them from releasing the source. Maybe someday they will realize this, after all, their current open source projects (LLVM/clang, etc.) have certainly flourished.