4 ms·

There is a total prohibition on AGPL software at most MAANGs.

shagie 3y ago
Apple doesn't even touch the GPL if it can avoid it (thus why its software is mostly based on BSD licensed code). It would even be further beyond the pale to say "here is a linker for 3rd party developers to use... oh, and its AGPL, sorry 'bout that." So to the question from the GP: > Why didn't Apple just use mold? Because they won't tell 3rd party developers to use AGPl software or require a 3rd party developer to use a different 3rd party developer's licensed software that may change. If Apple is going to release something, they're going to develop it and release it themselves with as few other encumbrances as possible.
- tinus_hn 3y ago
  They don’t touch GPLv3 code; they avoid GPLv2 code because it can be relicensed GPLv3. That’s why they are shipping ancient bash and switching to another shell, for instance.
dietr1ch 3y ago
There's software that could be used if public builds were used, and contributions were made in the open, but lawyers and security guys don't really like the risk that comes from using something you didn't built.
- shagie 3y ago
  If Apple was releasing software as part of the Xcode package, would AGPL code be acceptable to include in that package as libraries for 3rd party developers to use?
  - dietr1ch 3y ago
    Sorry, I was talking about software used by FAANG employees (sorry Meta, I hate your new name, not sorry really). Now, thinking about that case, I guess that Apple could make it easy for people to depend on AGPL software that they download on their own, and that Apple only provides some sort of index or crawlers for it. No need for Apple to have AGPL software on their end.
mananaysiempre 3y ago
And scaring those corps into buying instead of complying was explicitly the author’s reason[1] for choosing AGPL instead of GPL even though there was no expectation the difference would ever actually matter. I remember an SFC blog post[2] expressing distaste for such scare-tactics applications of copyleft on the part of MySQL AB in the early 2000s. (As opposed to the initial goal of copyleft, that is using a legal hack to eventually force most software to become free/libre.) This case is maybe less unpleasant, but only marginally so, I think. [1] https://gist.github.com/lleyton/9c0b75d065f37333ea9851b6cad1d1e6 https://gist.github.com/lleyton/9c0b75d065f37333ea9851b6cad1..., discussed today at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36225016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36225016 [2] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/jan/06/copyleft-equality/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/jan/06/copyleft-equality...

Apple doesn't even touch the GPL if it can avoid it (thus why its software is mostly based on BSD licensed code). It would even be further beyond the pale to say "here is a linker for 3rd party developers to use... oh, and its AGPL, sorry 'bout that." So to the question from the GP: > Why didn't Apple just use mold? Because they won't tell 3rd party developers to use AGPl software or require a 3rd party developer to use a different 3rd party developer's licensed software that may change. If Apple is going to release something, they're going to develop it and release it themselves with as few other encumbrances as possible.

tinus_hn 3y ago
They don’t touch GPLv3 code; they avoid GPLv2 code because it can be relicensed GPLv3. That’s why they are shipping ancient bash and switching to another shell, for instance.

dietr1ch 3y ago

There's software that could be used if public builds were used, and contributions were made in the open, but lawyers and security guys don't really like the risk that comes from using something you didn't built.

shagie 3y ago
If Apple was releasing software as part of the Xcode package, would AGPL code be acceptable to include in that package as libraries for 3rd party developers to use?
- dietr1ch 3y ago
  Sorry, I was talking about software used by FAANG employees (sorry Meta, I hate your new name, not sorry really). Now, thinking about that case, I guess that Apple could make it easy for people to depend on AGPL software that they download on their own, and that Apple only provides some sort of index or crawlers for it. No need for Apple to have AGPL software on their end.

mananaysiempre 3y ago

And scaring those corps into buying instead of complying was explicitly the author’s reason[1] for choosing AGPL instead of GPL even though there was no expectation the difference would ever actually matter. I remember an SFC blog post[2] expressing distaste for such scare-tactics applications of copyleft on the part of MySQL AB in the early 2000s. (As opposed to the initial goal of copyleft, that is using a legal hack to eventually force most software to become free/libre.) This case is maybe less unpleasant, but only marginally so, I think. [1] https://gist.github.com/lleyton/9c0b75d065f37333ea9851b6cad1d1e6 https://gist.github.com/lleyton/9c0b75d065f37333ea9851b6cad1..., discussed today at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36225016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36225016 [2] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/jan/06/copyleft-equality/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/jan/06/copyleft-equality...