4 ms·

Because the newer tools changed the licensing terms, and the corporate lawyers won’t let anything under GPL3 anywhere near anything if they can help it. GPL2 w

Because the newer tools changed the licensing terms, and the corporate lawyers won’t let anything under GPL3 anywhere near anything if they can help it. GPL2 was viral, but the terms were easier to stomach. Apple is allergic to GPLv3 code because there is a clause in the license requiring you provide a way to run modified version of the software which would require Apple to let users self sign executables. This is a simple result of the GPL going where Apple will not, so OSX is stuck with whatever is MIT, BSD, Apache, or GPL2 licensed. I like the GPL, I license my open source stuff under it, but it doesn’t work for all cases. Apple is fine with not using software licensed under the GPL, when it conflicts with other company principles. Simple as.

rfoo 3y ago
> Apple is allergic to GPLv3 code because there is a clause in the license requiring you provide a way to run modified version of the software which would require Apple to let users self sign executables. Wow, I don't know this before. Good job FSF! This, should, be, a, basic, right.
- spacedcowboy 3y ago
  You can of course sign your own binaries. You can’t alter them sign a system binary. I’m good with that.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > You can of course sign your own binaries. I don't believe the license allows them to charge an extra fee for this, and for good reason. It deters hobbyists from doing it. > You can’t alter them sign a system binary. What's a "system binary"? The bash executable runs entirely in user mode.
wubrr 3y ago
> Apple is allergic to GPLv3 code because there is a clause in the license requiring you provide a way to run modified version of the software which would require Apple to let users self sign executables. Does that really add up though? You can install and run 3rd party software on macos without any signing needed.
wubrr 3y ago
> Apple is fine with not using software licensed under the GPL, when it conflicts with other company principles. Apple can be fine with whatever they want and choose whatever principles they want. Doesn't mean it leads to good software or that I need to like it.
- spacedcowboy 3y ago
  Right, but you’re not important in this context. - Apple is shipping stuff out to customers. - Whatever is shipped has to satisfy corporate policy. - The GPLv3 does not do so. That’s what matters. The only way what you care about has any impact on the above is if there is a meaningful impact for Apple for following the policy, and Apple suffering some sort of loss (be it monetary, PR, legal etc). Thus far, the non-presence of GPLv3 software does not appear to have hit that bar.
  - wubrr 3y ago
    Of course I'm important in this context. The context is literally me talking about issues that _I_ find with macos. Saying 'company X does Y because company X's policy is do to Y' is a useless truism that adds nothing to the conversation.

rfoo 3y ago

> Apple is allergic to GPLv3 code because there is a clause in the license requiring you provide a way to run modified version of the software which would require Apple to let users self sign executables. Wow, I don't know this before. Good job FSF! This, should, be, a, basic, right.

spacedcowboy 3y ago
You can of course sign your own binaries. You can’t alter them sign a system binary. I’m good with that.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > You can of course sign your own binaries. I don't believe the license allows them to charge an extra fee for this, and for good reason. It deters hobbyists from doing it. > You can’t alter them sign a system binary. What's a "system binary"? The bash executable runs entirely in user mode.

wubrr 3y ago

> Apple is allergic to GPLv3 code because there is a clause in the license requiring you provide a way to run modified version of the software which would require Apple to let users self sign executables. Does that really add up though? You can install and run 3rd party software on macos without any signing needed.

wubrr 3y ago

> Apple is fine with not using software licensed under the GPL, when it conflicts with other company principles. Apple can be fine with whatever they want and choose whatever principles they want. Doesn't mean it leads to good software or that I need to like it.

spacedcowboy 3y ago
Right, but you’re not important in this context. - Apple is shipping stuff out to customers. - Whatever is shipped has to satisfy corporate policy. - The GPLv3 does not do so. That’s what matters. The only way what you care about has any impact on the above is if there is a meaningful impact for Apple for following the policy, and Apple suffering some sort of loss (be it monetary, PR, legal etc). Thus far, the non-presence of GPLv3 software does not appear to have hit that bar.
- wubrr 3y ago
  Of course I'm important in this context. The context is literally me talking about issues that _I_ find with macos. Saying 'company X does Y because company X's policy is do to Y' is a useless truism that adds nothing to the conversation.