5 ms·
Well they didn't have to move, just to be captain pedantic :-). They chose to do so, as they made a policy decision not to use any GPLv3 code. Which is their ri
by jra_samba 5y ago
Well they didn't have to move, just to be captain pedantic :-). They chose to do so, as they made a policy decision not to use any GPLv3 code. Which is their right to do so, of course.
Apple have been moving to only permissively licenced code for a while now.
- KolenCh 5y agoSorry, a genuine question: it seems that they have to move as GPLv3 is anti-tivolization and Apple is TiVo-like (namely macOS are only licensed on Apple hardware.) So in this case apple’s action is a direct response to FSF’s decision to be anti-tivolization? Ie they are forced to either change their model to comply, or not use GPLv3 licensed softwares?
- jra_samba 5y agoWell for Apples motives you would have to ask Apple. But from an external view of Apple, yes - this does seem to be a direct response to the GPLv3 anti-tivoization clause. Again, this is perfectly within their rights so I don't want anyone to think I'm complaining about this (anymore:-). I'm more annoyed with the FSF over GPLv3 than Apple. At least Apple have the courage of their convictions, which cannot be said anymore of the FSF.