5 ms·

Yes, 3.81 is GPLv2 or later, 3.82 is GPLv3.

by blattimwind 7y ago

panpanna 7y ago
But why would GPLv3 be a problem for Apple in this case? Is this a more political move?
- detaro 7y ago
  They appear to have a general rule of never using GPLv3, even if it would be fine for some tools. (It'd be problematic for things that could also be a part of iOS, or components they'd lock down with unavoidable SIP-like mechanisms, option they likely want to keep open for parts of the system)
  - panpanna 7y ago
    This is a horrible decision and is bad for developers everywhere.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      Apple is actively ripping out software licensed under earlier versions of GPL as well, as they're now horribly out of date.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      It's a terrible decision for developers everywhere but what about Apple's profits?
- goodcanadian 7y ago
  GPLv3 requires open hardware in the sense that you can replace the operating system with anything you want. That is probably not a position that Apple wants to formally accept. Our company has a similar problem in that there are safety implications if we were to allow the user to replace our system with their own, therefore GPLv3 is off limits to us.
  - panpanna 7y ago
    I don't think your interpretation of GPLv3 is correct. This is a standalone utility, is has nothing to do with the OS.
    - nrclark 7y ago
      It actually is correct, I think. If you're selling hardware that ships with any GPLv3 software of any kind, the license requires that you don't restrict users from installing their own OS if they want. This was intended as a workaround for so-called "tivoizaion", where TiVo boxes were open source but would only boot signed firmware (and the keys were confidential). Apple didn't want this, so they blacklisted all GPLv3 software. So did most companies that ship embedded Linux products like smart TVs.
      - panpanna 7y ago
        No, I don't think completely different software "infect" each other this way. Consider this: Canonical ships Ubuntu which is based on the GPLv3 licensed Linux kernel. Yet their distribution contains all kind of software including gplv2, Apache, BSD and even proprietary. Some are from canonical themselves, and they are in no ways "infected" by the gplv3 license. Also, tivo-ization was about TiVo publishing a Linux code that could not be used by anyone since the hardware would reject it (due to missing signing keys). These days these issues are solved by having keys and such in the bootloader which is BSD licensed (see for example Android).
        nrclark 7y ago
        The Tivoization clause applies to hardware vendors, with hardware covered by GPLv3's definition of a "User Product". Ubuntu itself isn't a valid comparison, because it's not a physical product. And computers that ship with Ubuntu don't violate GPLv3, because you can install anything you want on them without restriction. The license incompatibility isn't intrinsic to MacOS, it's intrinsic to Apple's computers. Which ship with MacOS. If MacOS included GPLv3 software, Apple wouldn't be able to pre-install it unless they provided all users with signing keys to install their own modified versions of the GPLv3 software on-target. Check out the GPLv3's "User Product" and "Installation Information" sections for more details - they're written in plain English, and are pretty clear. Basically - if you want to sell hardware that comes with any GPLv3 software installed, then you need to empower your customers to replace or modify that software on their devices. Not the entire OS, mind. Just the pieces that are GPLv3. But that requirement prevents a hardware vendor from doing something like saying "I'll only boot a signed/verified root filesystem" or "The rootfs (or even just /usr) is read-only to everything except for signed OS updates". So it's not that shipping GPLv3 Make/Coreutils would infect MacOS and require Apple to release the MacOS source. Instead, it's that shipping GPLv3 Make/Coreutils would prevent Apple from locking down their computers and code-signing MacOS (unless they provided the OS-level signing keys on request).

Yes, 3.81 is GPLv2 or later, 3.82 is GPLv3.

panpanna 7y ago

But why would GPLv3 be a problem for Apple in this case? Is this a more political move?

detaro 7y ago
They appear to have a general rule of never using GPLv3, even if it would be fine for some tools. (It'd be problematic for things that could also be a part of iOS, or components they'd lock down with unavoidable SIP-like mechanisms, option they likely want to keep open for parts of the system)
- panpanna 7y ago
  This is a horrible decision and is bad for developers everywhere.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Apple is actively ripping out software licensed under earlier versions of GPL as well, as they're now horribly out of date.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    It's a terrible decision for developers everywhere but what about Apple's profits?
goodcanadian 7y ago
GPLv3 requires open hardware in the sense that you can replace the operating system with anything you want. That is probably not a position that Apple wants to formally accept. Our company has a similar problem in that there are safety implications if we were to allow the user to replace our system with their own, therefore GPLv3 is off limits to us.
- panpanna 7y ago
  I don't think your interpretation of GPLv3 is correct. This is a standalone utility, is has nothing to do with the OS.
  - nrclark 7y ago
    It actually is correct, I think. If you're selling hardware that ships with any GPLv3 software of any kind, the license requires that you don't restrict users from installing their own OS if they want. This was intended as a workaround for so-called "tivoizaion", where TiVo boxes were open source but would only boot signed firmware (and the keys were confidential). Apple didn't want this, so they blacklisted all GPLv3 software. So did most companies that ship embedded Linux products like smart TVs.
    - panpanna 7y ago
      No, I don't think completely different software "infect" each other this way. Consider this: Canonical ships Ubuntu which is based on the GPLv3 licensed Linux kernel. Yet their distribution contains all kind of software including gplv2, Apache, BSD and even proprietary. Some are from canonical themselves, and they are in no ways "infected" by the gplv3 license. Also, tivo-ization was about TiVo publishing a Linux code that could not be used by anyone since the hardware would reject it (due to missing signing keys). These days these issues are solved by having keys and such in the bootloader which is BSD licensed (see for example Android).
      - nrclark 7y ago
        The Tivoization clause applies to hardware vendors, with hardware covered by GPLv3's definition of a "User Product". Ubuntu itself isn't a valid comparison, because it's not a physical product. And computers that ship with Ubuntu don't violate GPLv3, because you can install anything you want on them without restriction. The license incompatibility isn't intrinsic to MacOS, it's intrinsic to Apple's computers. Which ship with MacOS. If MacOS included GPLv3 software, Apple wouldn't be able to pre-install it unless they provided all users with signing keys to install their own modified versions of the GPLv3 software on-target. Check out the GPLv3's "User Product" and "Installation Information" sections for more details - they're written in plain English, and are pretty clear. Basically - if you want to sell hardware that comes with any GPLv3 software installed, then you need to empower your customers to replace or modify that software on their devices. Not the entire OS, mind. Just the pieces that are GPLv3. But that requirement prevents a hardware vendor from doing something like saying "I'll only boot a signed/verified root filesystem" or "The rootfs (or even just /usr) is read-only to everything except for signed OS updates". So it's not that shipping GPLv3 Make/Coreutils would infect MacOS and require Apple to release the MacOS source. Instead, it's that shipping GPLv3 Make/Coreutils would prevent Apple from locking down their computers and code-signing MacOS (unless they provided the OS-level signing keys on request).