4 ms·

> 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

by 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...
belorn 7y ago
> The first is that it explicitly prohibits patent lawsuits against people for actually using the GPL-licensed software you ship Its a bit more complex than that. You are also prohibited from distributing the software if you are knowingly relying on a patent license from a third party. A common interpretation in the past, and suspect it still rings true today, is that Apple do not know the scope and extent of their patent agreements with other companies, but they don't want to rely on ignorance when distributing software to millions of customers. The worst case would look like this: Third-party company sue a Apple customer over a patent. Customer accuse Apple for misleading them and convince a developer to aid them. Developer sue Apple for infringement. Somewhere, somehow a memo from a lawyer actually did inform someone at apple that the third-party company had such patent, meaning that apple knowingly infringed the copyright (much higher fines/punishment).

by geofft 7y ago

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...

belorn 7y ago

> The first is that it explicitly prohibits patent lawsuits against people for actually using the GPL-licensed software you ship Its a bit more complex than that. You are also prohibited from distributing the software if you are knowingly relying on a patent license from a third party. A common interpretation in the past, and suspect it still rings true today, is that Apple do not know the scope and extent of their patent agreements with other companies, but they don't want to rely on ignorance when distributing software to millions of customers. The worst case would look like this: Third-party company sue a Apple customer over a patent. Customer accuse Apple for misleading them and convince a developer to aid them. Developer sue Apple for infringement. Somewhere, somehow a memo from a lawyer actually did inform someone at apple that the third-party company had such patent, meaning that apple knowingly infringed the copyright (much higher fines/punishment).