33 ms·
Apple used to be ok distributing gplv2 programs, what spooked them with v3? Is it the anti-locked-device provisions?
by mkj 3y ago
Apple used to be ok distributing gplv2 programs, what spooked them with v3? Is it the anti-locked-device provisions?
- yarg 3y agohttps://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2023-04/msg00013.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nano-devel/2023-04/msg000... > Apple has been moving away from the direction of openness and toward absolute software and hardware control for a long long time, presumably proportional to the amount of market share they maintained at the time - i.e. embracing open standards and software as the little guy in the late 90s, stomping them out as much as possible now as a market leader. I sincerely hope this is not a surprise to anyone on this list. I don't think that's an unreasonable take. https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store... > Apple's Terms of Service impose restrictive limits on use and distribution for any software distributed through the App Store, and the GPL doesn't allow that. This specific case involves other issues, but this is the one that's most unique and deserves explanation. Apple's desire for complete control over their walled garden is incompatible with the GPL.
- Spooky23 3y agoThe patent assignment stuff.
- usr1106 3y agoNot sure. Probably the anti-tivoization clause is worse from Apple's perspective. Definitely for iPhones. It would mean that the user can update their phone firmware after they have modified a GPLv3-licensed component. Whether they would affect Macs in any way I don't know.
- hnfong 3y agoThis is Linus' take - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU