4 ms·

I'm confused, which part of the GPL v3 makes it impossible for Apple to distribute?

equark 16y ago
Well they can't link it against anything proprietary. Presumably they want to link into Finder in some way or into some of their other filesystem APIs.
- pedrocr 16y ago
  That can't be the case as GPLv2 has the same requirements in that area and Apple seems to be perfectly happy with it.
js2 16y ago
See http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2010-October/159151.html http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2010-October/159151.htm... for some discussion
- thaumaturgy 16y ago
  I don't see how anybody could read the GPL FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html) and not come away confused. It's awkward as hell. And then there's this part: > I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this? > You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. ...followed by a series of ifs-and-buts that include completely vague terms like "at arms length". MacOS X is a proprietary system. It includes support for Windows file sharing. Assuming that Samba was used for this, does this mean that MacOS was not incorporating Samba? Or does it mean that Apple was in violation? Or does it mean that somehow Apple was meeting one of the vague requirements for separation between Samba and MacOS? (I'm not raising this as a question of differences between GPL v2 and GPL v3.) Given the case histories involving the GPL so far, I could see Apple's legal team advising Apple to put as much distance between them and the GPL as possible. Non-compliance due to one gray area or another could force Apple to release tons of proprietary source code. I think that shrugging this situation off with "well, that's their decision" is completely disingenuous. Yes, it's their decision to make, but they will most certainly decide in a particular way as a direct result of the situation they're looking at.
  - kevinpet 16y ago
    <i>Non-compliance due to one gray area or another could force Apple to release tons of proprietary source code.</i> No, it cannot. Anyone who repeats this FUD is revealing he has no understanding of the issues. The GPL may not be exceedingly clear, but this is entirely an issue of copyright law. Maybe they will be forced to stop distributing something until they replace a component, and maybe they could be forced to pay damages, but there is no mechanism that the GPL could force them to release anything they didn't want to.
    - thaumaturgy 16y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits > The case was settled with release of the Monsoon version of the source and payment of an undisclosed amount of money... > The Xterasys case [ed: separate case] was settled on December 17 for release of source code used and an undisclosed payment. (I'm not including cases that were settled with a stipulation of "active compliance".) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#The_GPL_in_court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#The_GPL_in_court > Cisco settled the case six months later agreeing ... to make source code of FSF programs freely available on its website. Granted, that last one doesn't sound all that bad. Given that the GPL does compel the release of source code for derivative works, and given that one of the FSF's tactics in lawsuit settlements is to ask for the release of source code, let's not go misapplying the FUD label, OK? edit: I don't mean that to sound snarky. Rather, I'd like to see less "Bah, that's just FUD", and more explanation and clarity when responding to people's concerns about the GPL.
      - tzs 16y ago
        Those companies settled because they wanted to continue distributing their products as is. Hence, they released source in order to be allowed to do that. They could have instead replaced the GPL code with non-GPL code, possibly paid some damages, and been done with the matter with their source remaining secret.
      - caf 16y ago
        Settlements are agreements. No-one was forced to release source code, which is the language you used. It was their choice - they could have held out if they had wanted to. You can't force a GPL violator to release source. All you can do is offer them a deal where they release the source in exchange for less/no monetary damages.
pedrocr 16y ago
Nothing prevents redistribution, v3 seems to be equal to v2 in all the code sharing requirements. The two big-ticket additions seem to be the prevention of "tivoization" by having to distribute the keys to sign software to run on the device you distribute with GPLv3 software in it, and the requirement that if you grant some users a license to one of your patents you're granting that to every user of the GPLv3 software you distribute. One reason Apple would care is it is now shipping a bunch of locked down hardware (the iDevices). Although those probably don't run Samba right now they may have set up a general policy to not have that risk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Version_3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Vers...
- yuhong 16y ago
  I remember discussing this on a GCC mailing list back in mid-2008.
- tzs 16y ago
  A bigger problem may be licenses to other people's patents. Suppose Apple distributes Samba, and suppose someone NOT Apple owns a patent that Samba infringers. That party sues Apple, and it becomes clear to Apple that they are going to lose. Let's also assume Apple's Samba has some changes, so it is not 100% identical to the upstream. It looks like GPLv3 only gives Apple the option of stopping distributing Samba, or of finding a way to get a patent license that covers everyone who obtains a copy of Samba that can be traced back to Apple. The latter could get very expensive.
bcrescimanno 16y ago
IANAL, and I don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the GPL v3 vs. v2--however, my guess is that Apple employs at least a decent legal team who has concluded that the changes in GPLv3 may include language that could force them to open source more of OS X than they're comfortable with. Or, it may be completely unrelated to GPLv3 and Apple simply no longer wishes to "walk a fine line" in this particular area.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- gte910h 16y ago
  It's not that they'd have to release the source code, it's the cryptographic keys they'd have to release for iPhone stuff, as the code is ALSO on iOS, and you can't change it without the crypto keys. You never have to release source code if you violate the GPL, you just have to stop distributing the item till you rip out the GPL code, and pay damages to the copyright holder for infringement.
gte910h 16y ago
The part about cryptographic keys. It makes it so code signing on the iOS version of the MacOSX kernel would have to have public keys (the anti-tivoization provisions of GPLv3).

Well they can't link it against anything proprietary. Presumably they want to link into Finder in some way or into some of their other filesystem APIs.

pedrocr 16y ago
That can't be the case as GPLv2 has the same requirements in that area and Apple seems to be perfectly happy with it.

js2 16y ago

See http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2010-October/159151.html http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2010-October/159151.htm... for some discussion

thaumaturgy 16y ago
I don't see how anybody could read the GPL FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html) and not come away confused. It's awkward as hell. And then there's this part: > I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this? > You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. ...followed by a series of ifs-and-buts that include completely vague terms like "at arms length". MacOS X is a proprietary system. It includes support for Windows file sharing. Assuming that Samba was used for this, does this mean that MacOS was not incorporating Samba? Or does it mean that Apple was in violation? Or does it mean that somehow Apple was meeting one of the vague requirements for separation between Samba and MacOS? (I'm not raising this as a question of differences between GPL v2 and GPL v3.) Given the case histories involving the GPL so far, I could see Apple's legal team advising Apple to put as much distance between them and the GPL as possible. Non-compliance due to one gray area or another could force Apple to release tons of proprietary source code. I think that shrugging this situation off with "well, that's their decision" is completely disingenuous. Yes, it's their decision to make, but they will most certainly decide in a particular way as a direct result of the situation they're looking at.
- kevinpet 16y ago
  <i>Non-compliance due to one gray area or another could force Apple to release tons of proprietary source code.</i> No, it cannot. Anyone who repeats this FUD is revealing he has no understanding of the issues. The GPL may not be exceedingly clear, but this is entirely an issue of copyright law. Maybe they will be forced to stop distributing something until they replace a component, and maybe they could be forced to pay damages, but there is no mechanism that the GPL could force them to release anything they didn't want to.
  - thaumaturgy 16y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits > The case was settled with release of the Monsoon version of the source and payment of an undisclosed amount of money... > The Xterasys case [ed: separate case] was settled on December 17 for release of source code used and an undisclosed payment. (I'm not including cases that were settled with a stipulation of "active compliance".) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#The_GPL_in_court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#The_GPL_in_court > Cisco settled the case six months later agreeing ... to make source code of FSF programs freely available on its website. Granted, that last one doesn't sound all that bad. Given that the GPL does compel the release of source code for derivative works, and given that one of the FSF's tactics in lawsuit settlements is to ask for the release of source code, let's not go misapplying the FUD label, OK? edit: I don't mean that to sound snarky. Rather, I'd like to see less "Bah, that's just FUD", and more explanation and clarity when responding to people's concerns about the GPL.
    - tzs 16y ago
      Those companies settled because they wanted to continue distributing their products as is. Hence, they released source in order to be allowed to do that. They could have instead replaced the GPL code with non-GPL code, possibly paid some damages, and been done with the matter with their source remaining secret.
    - caf 16y ago
      Settlements are agreements. No-one was forced to release source code, which is the language you used. It was their choice - they could have held out if they had wanted to. You can't force a GPL violator to release source. All you can do is offer them a deal where they release the source in exchange for less/no monetary damages.

pedrocr 16y ago

Nothing prevents redistribution, v3 seems to be equal to v2 in all the code sharing requirements. The two big-ticket additions seem to be the prevention of "tivoization" by having to distribute the keys to sign software to run on the device you distribute with GPLv3 software in it, and the requirement that if you grant some users a license to one of your patents you're granting that to every user of the GPLv3 software you distribute. One reason Apple would care is it is now shipping a bunch of locked down hardware (the iDevices). Although those probably don't run Samba right now they may have set up a general policy to not have that risk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Version_3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Vers...

yuhong 16y ago
I remember discussing this on a GCC mailing list back in mid-2008.
tzs 16y ago
A bigger problem may be licenses to other people's patents. Suppose Apple distributes Samba, and suppose someone NOT Apple owns a patent that Samba infringers. That party sues Apple, and it becomes clear to Apple that they are going to lose. Let's also assume Apple's Samba has some changes, so it is not 100% identical to the upstream. It looks like GPLv3 only gives Apple the option of stopping distributing Samba, or of finding a way to get a patent license that covers everyone who obtains a copy of Samba that can be traced back to Apple. The latter could get very expensive.

bcrescimanno 16y ago

IANAL, and I don't claim to have any specific knowledge of the GPL v3 vs. v2--however, my guess is that Apple employs at least a decent legal team who has concluded that the changes in GPLv3 may include language that could force them to open source more of OS X than they're comfortable with. Or, it may be completely unrelated to GPLv3 and Apple simply no longer wishes to "walk a fine line" in this particular area.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
gte910h 16y ago
It's not that they'd have to release the source code, it's the cryptographic keys they'd have to release for iPhone stuff, as the code is ALSO on iOS, and you can't change it without the crypto keys. You never have to release source code if you violate the GPL, you just have to stop distributing the item till you rip out the GPL code, and pay damages to the copyright holder for infringement.

gte910h 16y ago

The part about cryptographic keys. It makes it so code signing on the iOS version of the MacOSX kernel would have to have public keys (the anti-tivoization provisions of GPLv3).