7 ms·

Apple’s Great GPL Purge (2012)

67 points by LaSombra 7y ago

classics2 7y ago
I can’t imagine why they would want software with viral licenses out of their codebase.
- lolc 7y ago
  Pick your poison. Where the GPL is viral, proprietary licences are fatal.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
    To Apple itself, though? They already release Darwin source that they have no legal obligation to, AFAIK they're hardly taking patches from the community, and it's their own software so it's not like they're dealing with a difficult upstream. Why would Apple suffer if they took Darwin fully closed source?
    - lolc 7y ago
      The analogy talks about the conditions under which code can be mingled. Permissive licences allow free mingling (benign), GPL code causes all mingled code to become GPL (viral), proprietary code cannot be mingled (fatal).
  - elcaminocomplex 7y ago
    Specifically in what way are proprietary licenses deadly? Lock-in can certainly be problematic but with more open interchange formats that’s becoming less of an issue. Saying proprietary licenses are deadly without explanation seems more like zealotry than reasoned consideration. Thankfully we have alternatives to the GPL like MIT and Apache for people who want to share source but not force that choice on others.
    - arminiusreturns 7y ago
      GPL has had decades of reasoned consideration, and v3 in particular is one of that few holdouts in an era of tivoization that puts the user in a prison. It is inevitably the users who suffer, and in greater numbers. Tivoization is fatal in the sense of freedom of the user, which is the most important freedom in many peoples eyes. I've said it before and I'll say it again. BSD is about freedom for the devs. GPL is about freedom for the user. Not all users are devs, but all devs are users, and users should take precedence. Proprietary doesn't give a crap about either, and its defenders are the ones most closely resembling religious zealotry... as in false in almost every way but clung to mostly because it benefits it's pushers.
      - sojmq 7y ago
        The Venn diagram of "devs" and "users who would like to tinker with the firmware of their iphones" is pretty much a circle. Most users don't have time to do that; if the software of their phone doesn't work they'll get another phone, not another software.
        wahern 7y ago
        The usual retort to this argument is to analogize devs to mechanics: most car owners don't want to tinker with their engines, but even car owners appreciate the freedom to choose their own mechanic, and assume the mechanic has the ability to utilize and access to alternative parts.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        arminiusreturns 7y ago
        Why stop at phones, what about x86 too? When does it stop? I side with freedom, and say phones should be more free, instead of making excuses about why they aren't. This is why I fully support pinephone and Librem 5's work, however imperfect. The right to repair, in my opinion, inherently requires the right to root. Firmware in particular is behind, (which is why I have some holdout hope for power and risc/mips architectures in the future), but we can still fight for software freedom at least.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- m463 7y ago
  Because they're in violation? bash + rootless.h for example. Because they want to restrict your ability to run code (ios does this) GPL3 doesn't allow it. Because their lawyers told them to?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
    I do wonder if iOS isn't the real answer, in particular to avoiding GPLv3 stuff.
- lupire 7y ago
  The OP gives a much more likely explanation. Check it out.
- lazyguy2 7y ago
  It doesn't really matter. With Linux desktop improving and Microsoft 'WSL 2' Apple is rapidly losing it's relevance.
  - baroffoos 7y ago
    With the absolute garbage apple has released in the macbook range for the last few years its a surprise they have any relevance at all.
- Digital-Citizen 7y ago
  Because a lot of GPL'd software is best of breed and (contrary to other threads here) apparently integrates quite well. It says a lot about Apple's view of their customers (none of it good) that they'd rather distribute a badly broken proprietary SMB replacement for Samba than continue with Samba until a suitable replacement that meets with Apple's licensing desires could be found. GPL-licensed software helped get MacOS X to where it is; Apple has been a GPL licensee for most of MacOS X's existence (and still is for some programs). And as for that tired slur about the GPL being a "viral license", Robert Chassell's essay (reproduced below) still applies. Software freedom is good for us all, and being treated with equal rights to run, share, and modify the program was apparently very useful to a lot of people (apparently including people at Apple). From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/vaccination.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/vaccination.en.html When others hurt me, I try to defend myself. But some tell me that this makes them sick. They tell me that I should permit people to rob me of my work. They tell me that I should never try to defend myself. They tell me that I should stop using the GNU General Public License, a license that vaccinates me against hurt. Instead, I should adopt a license that permits other people to rob me with impunity. They want me to adopt a license that forbids me from fighting back. They want me to give up my right to benefit from a derivative of my own work, a right I possess under current copyright law. Of course, the language is a little less feverish than this. Usually, I myself am not called “infectious”. Rather, the legal defense that I use is called “infectious”. The license I choose is called “viral”. In every day language, words such as “infect” and “virus” describe disease. The rhetoric is metaphorical. A legal tool is not a disease organism; but it is popular to think of the law as an illness, so the metaphor has impact. The people who want to rob me use language that says I make them sick when I stop them from robbing me. They do not want to draw attention to the so-called “disease” that makes them ill: my health and my rights, and the health and rights of other people. Instead, they choose metaphor to twist people's thinking. They do not want anyone to think that I am a good citizen for stopping crime. They want the metaphor to fool others into thinking that I am a disease agent. The GNU General Public License protects me. The connotation of “virus” and “infect” is that my choice of defense gives an illness to those who want to rob me. I want freedom from their robbery; but they want the power to hurt me. They get sick when they cannot hurt me. To use another health and illness-related metaphor, the GNU General Public License vaccinates me; it protects me from theft. Note that the theft about which I am talking is entirely legal in some situations: if you license your work under a modified BSD license, or a similar license, then others may legally take your work, make fixes or improvements to it, and forbid you from using that code. I personally dislike this arrangement, but it exists.
rodgerd 7y ago
Perhaps Richard Stallman spending years bragging that he beat Steve Jobs that one time was a long-term mistake.
yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
For once, I don't see what the big deal is. If anything, I think it surprising that Apple didn't fully excise GPL stuff long ago; as this blogger notes, it's not like they couldn't pull BSD components in. > They already annoyed and inconvenienced a lot of people with the Samba and GCC removal. I'm curious at both of these, albeit for different reasons. I'm pretty sure there are BSD-licensed smb stacks, so this doesn't strike me as a licensing issue so much as a "wanting to remove a component that they have no interest in" issue. And why was removing GCC inconvenient? Clang is a perfectly serviceable C compiler.
- lukeh 7y ago
  Not too much in the way of BSD licensed CIFS server stacks, at least last time I checked. Most of them are proprietary or GPL (or CDDL, in the case of Solaris').
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    "macOS, starting with Mac OS X Lion, has an Apple-developed SMB server implementation called SMBX." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_that_support_SMB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_that_support_...
    - lukeh 7y ago
      I know, I worked on it :) It's not open source though.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
    I was actually thinking of the CDDL one in ZFS when I made that comment:) Granted, technically not BSD-licensed, but not GPL and ... less copyleft, anyways.
- asveikau 7y ago
  Clang has been getting better and better over time. Getting rid of GCC is a no-brainer now, but maybe not at the start of the decade.
thrillgore 7y ago
The damning change for me was seeing CUPS (which they bought outright, mind you) go from GPL to Apache 2.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  Apple develops the software; it can license the software however it likes.
  - thrillgore 7y ago
    They didn't for quite a long time. They've been anti-GNU for a long time. And they've pretty much supplied or funded all the tools needed to replace the GNU userland.
quotemstr 7y ago
I've never understood why Apple feared the GPLv3 so much. Other companies have shipped GPLv3 code for years and haven't suffered for it. What exactly does Apple think would go wrong if it started shipping a modern bash with macOS? Shipping a bundled GPLv3 program doesn't require that the whole system be free software.
pmoriarty 7y ago
Releasing all my code as AGPL is one small way in which I oppose the corporatization of the internet.
rgovostes 7y ago
Note that in Catalina, the default shell changed from a very outdated GPLv2 version of Bash to Zsh.
- sigjuice 7y ago
  The old bash still ships with Catalina.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    I’d expect that change at some point in the near future.
    - astrodust 7y ago
      Based on the banner you get when you use bash, yeah. They're pushing zsh really hard.
vr46 7y ago
GPL has long caused a problem for people who want to tightly integrate software - LLVM and Clang with Xcode for example - and reap the benefits. When GPL software has to be used taped to the end of a stick like GCC, it’s a constraint for their vision. Maybe someone who knows this better than I do will refute this point, but I don’t think that the code analysis tools and developer assistance in Xcode would be possible with GCC.
- saidajigumi 7y ago
  Beyond licensing, there are software design/architectural issues at play, ala: Clang is designed as an API from its inception, allowing it to be reused by source analysis tools, refactoring, IDEs (etc) as well as for code generation. GCC is built as a monolithic static compiler, which makes it extremely difficult to use as an API and integrate into other tools. Further, its historic design and current policy makes it difficult to decouple the front-end from the rest of the compiler. via https://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html https://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html, with more points for/against each option at that page.
  - shagie 7y ago
    You can see a bit of the gcc monolith and the llvm approach battle it out within the policy of what gets added to Emacs - https://lwn.net/Articles/632773/ https://lwn.net/Articles/632773/
- wahern 7y ago
  Two ironies here: 1) clang and LLVM APIs are so unstable that tight integration effectively requires maintaining your own fork. 2) One of the original complaints about GCC was that Stallman stonewalled addition of a richer, stable plugin API. Fast forward to today, GCC plugins are now first-class and, AFAIU, the plugins API is more stable and dependable. OTOH, turns out people aren't using plugins as much as originally thought, though the Linux kernel infrastructure does.
hyperion2010 7y ago
No emacs on iOS is thus a sad song that may be sung til the end of time.
myrandomcomment 7y ago
The current GPL3 is idealistic. It is politically motivated. We live in a capitalist world. That is the fact. No comment on the value of either. The fact is the companies are motivated by money. That is the way it works. GPL3 is scary from that point of view.
geofft 7y ago
> There are two big changes in GPL v3. The first is that it explicitly prohibits patent lawsuits against people for actually using the GPL-licensed software you ship. The second is that it carefully prevents TiVoization, locking down hardware so that people can’t actually run the software they want. > So, which of those things are they planning for OS X, eh? Seems pretty obvious in retrospect (and probably would have been obvious at the time, too) - they don't care about locking down Macs, but they do care about locking down iPhones and iPads. The remaining GPL software, which has stayed steady for a couple of releases, are all things you don't need on iOS: emacs, screen, etc.
- AceJohnny2 7y ago
  > The remaining GPL software, which has stayed steady for a couple of releases, are all things you don't need on iOS: emacs, screen, etc. And those are getting removed too. (can't immediately find the Apple Technote about that, and don't have Catalina installed to verify if that's already happened)
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    Emacs is definitely gone, I was shocked to find. I must say, having Emacs (even aging Emacs) in the default distribution of OSX was helpful from time to time, needing to edit a configuration file on a colleague's Mac.
    - riffic 7y ago
      Good use-case for vim
- saurik 7y ago
  > Seems pretty obvious in retrospect (and probably would have been obvious at the time, too) - they don't care about locking down Macs, but they do care about locking down iPhones and iPads. Are we sure yet? Apple ships a read only system partition now, and requires the users to go through hoops to remove that, and they have been adding more and more of the random codesign and entitlement locking features to their base operating system (to use their AuthKit library to authenticate for Apple services, for example, you now need to not only disable System Integrity Protection, but patch the Apple Mobile File Integrity Daemon... which occurs to me maybe is now macOS instead of Mobile? ;P). These are the same steps as jaikbreaking an iOS device, only without the "exploits" (though still with patching code). I was able to find a good walkthrough of the process here: https://pvieito.com/2016/12/amfid-patching https://pvieito.com/2016/12/amfid-patching > The remaining GPL software, which has stayed steady for a couple of releases, are all things you don't need on iOS: emacs, screen, etc. If it causes you to rethink your position here, you might want to try running emacs on the latest version of macOS...
fmajid 7y ago
> Ship tmux with the control key rebound to ^A and probably nobody will care too much that you’ve removed screen In case he hadn't noticed, OS X has Emacs keybindings by default and perverting tmux into vi-friendly Emacs-hostile screen defaults won't fly...

67 points by LaSombra 7y ago

classics2 7y ago

I can’t imagine why they would want software with viral licenses out of their codebase.

lolc 7y ago
Pick your poison. Where the GPL is viral, proprietary licences are fatal.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
  To Apple itself, though? They already release Darwin source that they have no legal obligation to, AFAIK they're hardly taking patches from the community, and it's their own software so it's not like they're dealing with a difficult upstream. Why would Apple suffer if they took Darwin fully closed source?
  - lolc 7y ago
    The analogy talks about the conditions under which code can be mingled. Permissive licences allow free mingling (benign), GPL code causes all mingled code to become GPL (viral), proprietary code cannot be mingled (fatal).
- elcaminocomplex 7y ago
  Specifically in what way are proprietary licenses deadly? Lock-in can certainly be problematic but with more open interchange formats that’s becoming less of an issue. Saying proprietary licenses are deadly without explanation seems more like zealotry than reasoned consideration. Thankfully we have alternatives to the GPL like MIT and Apache for people who want to share source but not force that choice on others.
  - arminiusreturns 7y ago
    GPL has had decades of reasoned consideration, and v3 in particular is one of that few holdouts in an era of tivoization that puts the user in a prison. It is inevitably the users who suffer, and in greater numbers. Tivoization is fatal in the sense of freedom of the user, which is the most important freedom in many peoples eyes. I've said it before and I'll say it again. BSD is about freedom for the devs. GPL is about freedom for the user. Not all users are devs, but all devs are users, and users should take precedence. Proprietary doesn't give a crap about either, and its defenders are the ones most closely resembling religious zealotry... as in false in almost every way but clung to mostly because it benefits it's pushers.
    - sojmq 7y ago
      The Venn diagram of "devs" and "users who would like to tinker with the firmware of their iphones" is pretty much a circle. Most users don't have time to do that; if the software of their phone doesn't work they'll get another phone, not another software.
      - wahern 7y ago
        The usual retort to this argument is to analogize devs to mechanics: most car owners don't want to tinker with their engines, but even car owners appreciate the freedom to choose their own mechanic, and assume the mechanic has the ability to utilize and access to alternative parts.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - arminiusreturns 7y ago
        Why stop at phones, what about x86 too? When does it stop? I side with freedom, and say phones should be more free, instead of making excuses about why they aren't. This is why I fully support pinephone and Librem 5's work, however imperfect. The right to repair, in my opinion, inherently requires the right to root. Firmware in particular is behind, (which is why I have some holdout hope for power and risc/mips architectures in the future), but we can still fight for software freedom at least.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
m463 7y ago
Because they're in violation? bash + rootless.h for example. Because they want to restrict your ability to run code (ios does this) GPL3 doesn't allow it. Because their lawyers told them to?
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
  I do wonder if iOS isn't the real answer, in particular to avoiding GPLv3 stuff.
lupire 7y ago
The OP gives a much more likely explanation. Check it out.
lazyguy2 7y ago
It doesn't really matter. With Linux desktop improving and Microsoft 'WSL 2' Apple is rapidly losing it's relevance.
- baroffoos 7y ago
  With the absolute garbage apple has released in the macbook range for the last few years its a surprise they have any relevance at all.
Digital-Citizen 7y ago
Because a lot of GPL'd software is best of breed and (contrary to other threads here) apparently integrates quite well. It says a lot about Apple's view of their customers (none of it good) that they'd rather distribute a badly broken proprietary SMB replacement for Samba than continue with Samba until a suitable replacement that meets with Apple's licensing desires could be found. GPL-licensed software helped get MacOS X to where it is; Apple has been a GPL licensee for most of MacOS X's existence (and still is for some programs). And as for that tired slur about the GPL being a "viral license", Robert Chassell's essay (reproduced below) still applies. Software freedom is good for us all, and being treated with equal rights to run, share, and modify the program was apparently very useful to a lot of people (apparently including people at Apple). From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/vaccination.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/vaccination.en.html When others hurt me, I try to defend myself. But some tell me that this makes them sick. They tell me that I should permit people to rob me of my work. They tell me that I should never try to defend myself. They tell me that I should stop using the GNU General Public License, a license that vaccinates me against hurt. Instead, I should adopt a license that permits other people to rob me with impunity. They want me to adopt a license that forbids me from fighting back. They want me to give up my right to benefit from a derivative of my own work, a right I possess under current copyright law. Of course, the language is a little less feverish than this. Usually, I myself am not called “infectious”. Rather, the legal defense that I use is called “infectious”. The license I choose is called “viral”. In every day language, words such as “infect” and “virus” describe disease. The rhetoric is metaphorical. A legal tool is not a disease organism; but it is popular to think of the law as an illness, so the metaphor has impact. The people who want to rob me use language that says I make them sick when I stop them from robbing me. They do not want to draw attention to the so-called “disease” that makes them ill: my health and my rights, and the health and rights of other people. Instead, they choose metaphor to twist people's thinking. They do not want anyone to think that I am a good citizen for stopping crime. They want the metaphor to fool others into thinking that I am a disease agent. The GNU General Public License protects me. The connotation of “virus” and “infect” is that my choice of defense gives an illness to those who want to rob me. I want freedom from their robbery; but they want the power to hurt me. They get sick when they cannot hurt me. To use another health and illness-related metaphor, the GNU General Public License vaccinates me; it protects me from theft. Note that the theft about which I am talking is entirely legal in some situations: if you license your work under a modified BSD license, or a similar license, then others may legally take your work, make fixes or improvements to it, and forbid you from using that code. I personally dislike this arrangement, but it exists.

rodgerd 7y ago

Perhaps Richard Stallman spending years bragging that he beat Steve Jobs that one time was a long-term mistake.

yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago

For once, I don't see what the big deal is. If anything, I think it surprising that Apple didn't fully excise GPL stuff long ago; as this blogger notes, it's not like they couldn't pull BSD components in. > They already annoyed and inconvenienced a lot of people with the Samba and GCC removal. I'm curious at both of these, albeit for different reasons. I'm pretty sure there are BSD-licensed smb stacks, so this doesn't strike me as a licensing issue so much as a "wanting to remove a component that they have no interest in" issue. And why was removing GCC inconvenient? Clang is a perfectly serviceable C compiler.

lukeh 7y ago
Not too much in the way of BSD licensed CIFS server stacks, at least last time I checked. Most of them are proprietary or GPL (or CDDL, in the case of Solaris').
- big_chungus 7y ago
  "macOS, starting with Mac OS X Lion, has an Apple-developed SMB server implementation called SMBX." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_that_support_SMB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_that_support_...
  - lukeh 7y ago
    I know, I worked on it :) It's not open source though.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
  I was actually thinking of the CDDL one in ZFS when I made that comment:) Granted, technically not BSD-licensed, but not GPL and ... less copyleft, anyways.
asveikau 7y ago
Clang has been getting better and better over time. Getting rid of GCC is a no-brainer now, but maybe not at the start of the decade.

thrillgore 7y ago

The damning change for me was seeing CUPS (which they bought outright, mind you) go from GPL to Apache 2.

big_chungus 7y ago
Apple develops the software; it can license the software however it likes.
- thrillgore 7y ago
  They didn't for quite a long time. They've been anti-GNU for a long time. And they've pretty much supplied or funded all the tools needed to replace the GNU userland.

quotemstr 7y ago

I've never understood why Apple feared the GPLv3 so much. Other companies have shipped GPLv3 code for years and haven't suffered for it. What exactly does Apple think would go wrong if it started shipping a modern bash with macOS? Shipping a bundled GPLv3 program doesn't require that the whole system be free software.

pmoriarty 7y ago

Releasing all my code as AGPL is one small way in which I oppose the corporatization of the internet.

rgovostes 7y ago

Note that in Catalina, the default shell changed from a very outdated GPLv2 version of Bash to Zsh.

sigjuice 7y ago
The old bash still ships with Catalina.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  I’d expect that change at some point in the near future.
  - astrodust 7y ago
    Based on the banner you get when you use bash, yeah. They're pushing zsh really hard.

vr46 7y ago

GPL has long caused a problem for people who want to tightly integrate software - LLVM and Clang with Xcode for example - and reap the benefits. When GPL software has to be used taped to the end of a stick like GCC, it’s a constraint for their vision. Maybe someone who knows this better than I do will refute this point, but I don’t think that the code analysis tools and developer assistance in Xcode would be possible with GCC.

saidajigumi 7y ago
Beyond licensing, there are software design/architectural issues at play, ala: Clang is designed as an API from its inception, allowing it to be reused by source analysis tools, refactoring, IDEs (etc) as well as for code generation. GCC is built as a monolithic static compiler, which makes it extremely difficult to use as an API and integrate into other tools. Further, its historic design and current policy makes it difficult to decouple the front-end from the rest of the compiler. via https://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html https://clang.llvm.org/comparison.html, with more points for/against each option at that page.
- shagie 7y ago
  You can see a bit of the gcc monolith and the llvm approach battle it out within the policy of what gets added to Emacs - https://lwn.net/Articles/632773/ https://lwn.net/Articles/632773/
wahern 7y ago
Two ironies here: 1) clang and LLVM APIs are so unstable that tight integration effectively requires maintaining your own fork. 2) One of the original complaints about GCC was that Stallman stonewalled addition of a richer, stable plugin API. Fast forward to today, GCC plugins are now first-class and, AFAIU, the plugins API is more stable and dependable. OTOH, turns out people aren't using plugins as much as originally thought, though the Linux kernel infrastructure does.

hyperion2010 7y ago

No emacs on iOS is thus a sad song that may be sung til the end of time.

myrandomcomment 7y ago

The current GPL3 is idealistic. It is politically motivated. We live in a capitalist world. That is the fact. No comment on the value of either. The fact is the companies are motivated by money. That is the way it works. GPL3 is scary from that point of view.

geofft 7y ago

> There are two big changes in GPL v3. The first is that it explicitly prohibits patent lawsuits against people for actually using the GPL-licensed software you ship. The second is that it carefully prevents TiVoization, locking down hardware so that people can’t actually run the software they want. > So, which of those things are they planning for OS X, eh? Seems pretty obvious in retrospect (and probably would have been obvious at the time, too) - they don't care about locking down Macs, but they do care about locking down iPhones and iPads. The remaining GPL software, which has stayed steady for a couple of releases, are all things you don't need on iOS: emacs, screen, etc.

AceJohnny2 7y ago
> The remaining GPL software, which has stayed steady for a couple of releases, are all things you don't need on iOS: emacs, screen, etc. And those are getting removed too. (can't immediately find the Apple Technote about that, and don't have Catalina installed to verify if that's already happened)
- microcolonel 7y ago
  Emacs is definitely gone, I was shocked to find. I must say, having Emacs (even aging Emacs) in the default distribution of OSX was helpful from time to time, needing to edit a configuration file on a colleague's Mac.
  - riffic 7y ago
    Good use-case for vim
saurik 7y ago
> Seems pretty obvious in retrospect (and probably would have been obvious at the time, too) - they don't care about locking down Macs, but they do care about locking down iPhones and iPads. Are we sure yet? Apple ships a read only system partition now, and requires the users to go through hoops to remove that, and they have been adding more and more of the random codesign and entitlement locking features to their base operating system (to use their AuthKit library to authenticate for Apple services, for example, you now need to not only disable System Integrity Protection, but patch the Apple Mobile File Integrity Daemon... which occurs to me maybe is now macOS instead of Mobile? ;P). These are the same steps as jaikbreaking an iOS device, only without the "exploits" (though still with patching code). I was able to find a good walkthrough of the process here: https://pvieito.com/2016/12/amfid-patching https://pvieito.com/2016/12/amfid-patching > The remaining GPL software, which has stayed steady for a couple of releases, are all things you don't need on iOS: emacs, screen, etc. If it causes you to rethink your position here, you might want to try running emacs on the latest version of macOS...

fmajid 7y ago

> Ship tmux with the control key rebound to ^A and probably nobody will care too much that you’ve removed screen In case he hadn't noticed, OS X has Emacs keybindings by default and perverting tmux into vi-friendly Emacs-hostile screen defaults won't fly...