4 ms·

Allegedly, Apple hates GPLv3.

sjwright 8y ago
And it’s worth remembering: Linus Torvalds hates GPLv3 as well. Meanwhile, updating gnu tools is pretty straightforward with homebrew, so the consequences of this view are minimal—for me, so far.
- belorn 8y ago
  Linus Torvalds has in multiple talks said that he does not hate gplv3. He thinks limiting DRM (tivo case) in the license is something he do not want for the kernel, and he strongly disliked the method where GPLv2 automatically upgrades to GPLv3 with the "or any newer version", since his view is that GPLv3 and GPLv2 is two very different licenses because of the DRM clause. During the debconf talk, he said that describing gplv3 as being similar to gplv2 was immoral. Here is a direct quote "I actually think version 3 is a fine license" - Linus Torvalds FSF view DRM as just being a physical version of a legal restriction, and they often quote laws that makes it illegal to bypass DRM as proof that DRM is also a legal restriction. Thus in GPLv3 they treat them as identical and they don't see it as a change in how the GPL license work. Linus strongly disagree on this. This is very different from the Apple case and I doubt anyone can find similar quotes from them.
Someone 8y ago
Their lawyers likely strongly advised against bundling GPLv3 software with their OS because there is a non-zero risk that some judge, somewhere, some day, will claim that requires them to release the source of all their software under GPLv3. I think that, if GPLv3 ever gets sufficiently tested in courts all around the world (which is highly unlikely) that stance could change.
- jononor 8y ago
  Why would GPLv3 be substantially different risk than GPLv2?
  - rbanffy 8y ago
    GPLv3 has anti-TiVoization and patent protection built in.
    - jononor 8y ago
      Yes, but that doesn't make it more likely that anyone would have to open source their apps or OS?
      - rbanffy 8y ago
        No, but those fears weren't rational to begin with.
tzakrajs 8y ago
You would hate it too if you had to open source the entirety of your OS or application because a GPLv3 COPYING file was floating about in there.
- oblio 8y ago
  When they included Bash and other GNU tools in their OS to draw developers to their platform, while said platform was dying, they didn't hate that...
StreamBright 8y ago
Not only Apple but almost every enterprise.

And it’s worth remembering: Linus Torvalds hates GPLv3 as well. Meanwhile, updating gnu tools is pretty straightforward with homebrew, so the consequences of this view are minimal—for me, so far.

belorn 8y ago
Linus Torvalds has in multiple talks said that he does not hate gplv3. He thinks limiting DRM (tivo case) in the license is something he do not want for the kernel, and he strongly disliked the method where GPLv2 automatically upgrades to GPLv3 with the "or any newer version", since his view is that GPLv3 and GPLv2 is two very different licenses because of the DRM clause. During the debconf talk, he said that describing gplv3 as being similar to gplv2 was immoral. Here is a direct quote "I actually think version 3 is a fine license" - Linus Torvalds FSF view DRM as just being a physical version of a legal restriction, and they often quote laws that makes it illegal to bypass DRM as proof that DRM is also a legal restriction. Thus in GPLv3 they treat them as identical and they don't see it as a change in how the GPL license work. Linus strongly disagree on this. This is very different from the Apple case and I doubt anyone can find similar quotes from them.

Someone 8y ago

Their lawyers likely strongly advised against bundling GPLv3 software with their OS because there is a non-zero risk that some judge, somewhere, some day, will claim that requires them to release the source of all their software under GPLv3. I think that, if GPLv3 ever gets sufficiently tested in courts all around the world (which is highly unlikely) that stance could change.

jononor 8y ago
Why would GPLv3 be substantially different risk than GPLv2?
- rbanffy 8y ago
  GPLv3 has anti-TiVoization and patent protection built in.
  - jononor 8y ago
    Yes, but that doesn't make it more likely that anyone would have to open source their apps or OS?
    - rbanffy 8y ago
      No, but those fears weren't rational to begin with.

tzakrajs 8y ago

You would hate it too if you had to open source the entirety of your OS or application because a GPLv3 COPYING file was floating about in there.

oblio 8y ago
When they included Bash and other GNU tools in their OS to draw developers to their platform, while said platform was dying, they didn't hate that...

StreamBright 8y ago

Not only Apple but almost every enterprise.