4 ms·

As Apple own it anyway, what difference would releasing it as gpl make? They could still do as they like, as it’s theirs. Do they accept significant code from

As Apple own it anyway, what difference would releasing it as gpl make? They could still do as they like, as it’s theirs. Do they accept significant code from the community? This is why I find the “use agpl” claims about projects run by a company disingenuous- they’re using the licence restriction to prevent competition while they have the freedom to offer “enterprise” editions however they wish.

kmeisthax 5y ago
Apple licenses their software as Apache 2 so a CLA isn't necessary, everyone is free to make proprietary forks. Companies that want to release software as GPL but also sell exceptions or make forks either cannot accept third-party contributions (as then they'd be bound by the contributor's derivative copyright interest in the code) or have to require contributors sign CLAs. Projects with distributed copyright interest and a copyleft license governing all of that, like the Linux kernel, practically cannot relicense or sell exceptions. That's the power of the GPL: everyone has to contribute on a level playing field.
- stephenr 5y ago
  You’re missing the question I asked though. Does Apple accept significant code contributions from outside the project? Because if they don’t, the gpl wouldn’t help. But regardless of that - I think this is the perfect example of the copyleft crowd not understanding the concept of compromise. Apple creates something, releases it as open source but also maintains some private extensions, and the response is: well why didn’t you give it all to us?
  - Qwertious 5y ago
    >Does Apple accept significant code contributions from outside the project? Yes, they do. LLVM has a large number of non-Apple contributors.
lmm 5y ago
> As Apple own it anyway, what difference would releasing it as gpl make? Apple don't own it. They piggyback off a lot of other people's work in LLVM.

kmeisthax 5y ago

Apple licenses their software as Apache 2 so a CLA isn't necessary, everyone is free to make proprietary forks. Companies that want to release software as GPL but also sell exceptions or make forks either cannot accept third-party contributions (as then they'd be bound by the contributor's derivative copyright interest in the code) or have to require contributors sign CLAs. Projects with distributed copyright interest and a copyleft license governing all of that, like the Linux kernel, practically cannot relicense or sell exceptions. That's the power of the GPL: everyone has to contribute on a level playing field.

stephenr 5y ago
You’re missing the question I asked though. Does Apple accept significant code contributions from outside the project? Because if they don’t, the gpl wouldn’t help. But regardless of that - I think this is the perfect example of the copyleft crowd not understanding the concept of compromise. Apple creates something, releases it as open source but also maintains some private extensions, and the response is: well why didn’t you give it all to us?
- Qwertious 5y ago
  >Does Apple accept significant code contributions from outside the project? Yes, they do. LLVM has a large number of non-Apple contributors.

lmm 5y ago

> As Apple own it anyway, what difference would releasing it as gpl make? Apple don't own it. They piggyback off a lot of other people's work in LLVM.