4 ms·

I don't believe this to be true, and I don't know where this comes from. Their documented GPLv3 reluctance predated code signing on their platforms by many year

by mwfunk 7y ago

I don't believe this to be true, and I don't know where this comes from. Their documented GPLv3 reluctance predated code signing on their platforms by many years. FWIW, GPLv3 was controversial even amongst GPLv2 advocates for all sorts of reasons, never mind amongst actual lawyers. No conspiracy theories required, even if you disagree with their position. The Linux kernel and many other non-GNU projects never updated to GPLv3 and it had nothing to do with enforcing anyone's walled gardens.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mrpippy 7y ago
Agreed. I think the GPLv3 patent clauses were and are a much bigger problem with Apple legal
- lloeki 7y ago
  Indeed, and there is already a facility to replace code/binaries without signing: disable SIP.
- maheart 7y ago
  I'd disagree (I agree with the original post). Apache 2 requires a patent grant and I've heard very few instances of this license being avoided (besides the OpenBSD folk). I really do think the fear of GPLv3 comes from the anti-Tivovization requirement -- which would essentially require that 3rd parties (e.g. me) be allowed to install modifications (e.g. modified libs/binaries) of a GPLv3 application onto the controlled iPhone.