4 ms·

> GPLv2 which doesn't require the freedom to RUN the program It does. This is the first freedom of free software. I'm not sure the issues with distributing GPL

by jraph 3y ago

> GPLv2 which doesn't require the freedom to RUN the program It does. This is the first freedom of free software. I'm not sure the issues with distributing GPL software on the App store are specific to the GPLv3. I don't fully understand things on this, but [1] seems to be a good entry point. > apple seems to ship software with gplv2 (old bash, etc) but no GPLv3 software. This is an Apple policy / a choice that they make. They could decide to distribute GPLv3 software with Mac legally, but chose not to. > by modifying and shipping bash binaries without full source - it is missing rootless.h (not the X11 file) I would be interested in knowing more about this. I'm surprised they've not been already sued if they violate bash's license. [1] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/9500/is-apple-allowed-to-distribute-gplv3-licensed-software-through-its-ios-app-store https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/9500/is-apple...

saagarjha 3y ago
Sued by whom? The bash people seem like they have better things to do than sue Apple.
- jraph 3y ago
  The Free Software Foundation. Bash is part of the GNU project. As a consequence, I believe contributors assign their copyright to the FSF. I downloaded a random release of bash 3 (3.0.16) and opened a random C file from it and it is indeed "Copyright (C) 1993-2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc." I appreciate that individual developers might not have the time & energy to engage in a lawsuit against Apple, but the FSF is bigger, and has all the incentive to be firm with the terms of the GPL licenses for the licenses to look strong. Developers can also certainly request help from the Software Freedom Conservancy [1] or the Software Freedom Law Center [2] (which has helped BusyBox win several lawsuits) for this kind of stuff. Apparently the SFLC has helped the FSF in the past, against Cisco, if I'm to believe [2]. [1] https://sfconservancy.org/ https://sfconservancy.org/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center
- shagie 3y ago
  shagie@Mac-Pro ~ % bash --version GNU bash, version 3.2.57(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin23) Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. I will note that is an interesting date as version 3 of the GPL was released on 29 June 2007 -- https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/ https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/ has version 3.2.57. Opening up the 'COPYING' file from that distribution: GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. Apple is scrupulous at ensuring that they only distribute GPL Version 2 software, if at all (they've made efforts to switch to using BSD licensed software wherever possible). There's no reason for bash people or FSF to sue Apple as they are strictly following the license.
  - saagarjha 3y ago
    Apple’s violation of GPL has nothing to do with which version they’re using and everything to do with failing to provide source code promptly that matches the OS they’re shipping.
    - BSDobelix 3y ago
      That one? https://opensource.apple.com/source/bash/bash-123.40.1/version.h.auto.html https://opensource.apple.com/source/bash/bash-123.40.1/versi...
      - saagarjha 3y ago
        Nope; see the conversation above for why not.
    - shagie 3y ago
      The source for the version that Apple ships is at https://opensource.apple.com/source/bash/bash-123.40.1/ https://opensource.apple.com/source/bash/bash-123.40.1/
m463 3y ago
> It does. This is the first freedom of free software. I don't think so: The Free Software Foundation explicitly forbade tivoization in version 3 of the GNU General Public License. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization I think this is one of the reasons GPLv3 came along.
- jraph 3y ago
  Forbidding tivoization does not forbid running the program, it forbids embedding the program in some piece of hardware and then not providing a means for the end user to run their own modified version on this same hardware. If a TV is to use some GPLv3 program, then it must allow the user to replace the program with their own version. And yes, tivoization is a major reason why GPLv3 was written indeed, it was seen as a loophole to fix by the FSF.
  - m463 3y ago
    But what about apple restricting you from running a binary? If you don't have an apple id, you can't run apps? And you cannot redistribute the binary to someone else, since it won't run.
    - jraph 3y ago
      I agree with you on this, I guess I was bothered by the phrasing.
- shmerl 3y ago
  From what I remember, GPLv3 is simply a clarification of GPLv2, the intent was always the same for all the purposes. But how lawyers see it could be another matter.
  - shagie 3y ago
    That isn't necessarily what some contributors of software under GPL version 2 thought. --- Linus Torvalds says GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for - https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU The start of the video: Q: do you agree that you undermine GPL version 3 and how can I get you to stop Linus: what Q: how can we get you to stop Linus: oh I hate GPL version 3 undermined it on purpose I actually thought the GPL version 3 extensions were horrible. I understand why people would want to do them but I think it should have been a completely new license. My argument for liking version 2 - and I still think version 2 is a great license - was that I give you source code you give me your changes back we're even. Right - that's that's my take on GPL version 2 it's that simple and version 3 extended that in ways that I personally am really uncomfortable with; namely I give you source code that means that if you use that source code you can't use it on your device unless you follow my rules and to me that's that's a violation of everything version 2 stood for ...

by jraph 3y ago

saagarjha 3y ago

Sued by whom? The bash people seem like they have better things to do than sue Apple.

jraph 3y ago
The Free Software Foundation. Bash is part of the GNU project. As a consequence, I believe contributors assign their copyright to the FSF. I downloaded a random release of bash 3 (3.0.16) and opened a random C file from it and it is indeed "Copyright (C) 1993-2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc." I appreciate that individual developers might not have the time & energy to engage in a lawsuit against Apple, but the FSF is bigger, and has all the incentive to be firm with the terms of the GPL licenses for the licenses to look strong. Developers can also certainly request help from the Software Freedom Conservancy [1] or the Software Freedom Law Center [2] (which has helped BusyBox win several lawsuits) for this kind of stuff. Apparently the SFLC has helped the FSF in the past, against Cisco, if I'm to believe [2]. [1] https://sfconservancy.org/ https://sfconservancy.org/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center
shagie 3y ago
shagie@Mac-Pro ~ % bash --version GNU bash, version 3.2.57(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin23) Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. I will note that is an interesting date as version 3 of the GPL was released on 29 June 2007 -- https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/ https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/ has version 3.2.57. Opening up the 'COPYING' file from that distribution: GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. Apple is scrupulous at ensuring that they only distribute GPL Version 2 software, if at all (they've made efforts to switch to using BSD licensed software wherever possible). There's no reason for bash people or FSF to sue Apple as they are strictly following the license.
- saagarjha 3y ago
  Apple’s violation of GPL has nothing to do with which version they’re using and everything to do with failing to provide source code promptly that matches the OS they’re shipping.
  - BSDobelix 3y ago
    That one? https://opensource.apple.com/source/bash/bash-123.40.1/version.h.auto.html https://opensource.apple.com/source/bash/bash-123.40.1/versi...
    - saagarjha 3y ago
      Nope; see the conversation above for why not.
  - shagie 3y ago
    The source for the version that Apple ships is at https://opensource.apple.com/source/bash/bash-123.40.1/ https://opensource.apple.com/source/bash/bash-123.40.1/

m463 3y ago

> It does. This is the first freedom of free software. I don't think so: The Free Software Foundation explicitly forbade tivoization in version 3 of the GNU General Public License. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization I think this is one of the reasons GPLv3 came along.

jraph 3y ago
Forbidding tivoization does not forbid running the program, it forbids embedding the program in some piece of hardware and then not providing a means for the end user to run their own modified version on this same hardware. If a TV is to use some GPLv3 program, then it must allow the user to replace the program with their own version. And yes, tivoization is a major reason why GPLv3 was written indeed, it was seen as a loophole to fix by the FSF.
- m463 3y ago
  But what about apple restricting you from running a binary? If you don't have an apple id, you can't run apps? And you cannot redistribute the binary to someone else, since it won't run.
  - jraph 3y ago
    I agree with you on this, I guess I was bothered by the phrasing.
shmerl 3y ago
From what I remember, GPLv3 is simply a clarification of GPLv2, the intent was always the same for all the purposes. But how lawyers see it could be another matter.
- shagie 3y ago
  That isn't necessarily what some contributors of software under GPL version 2 thought. --- Linus Torvalds says GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for - https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU The start of the video: Q: do you agree that you undermine GPL version 3 and how can I get you to stop Linus: what Q: how can we get you to stop Linus: oh I hate GPL version 3 undermined it on purpose I actually thought the GPL version 3 extensions were horrible. I understand why people would want to do them but I think it should have been a completely new license. My argument for liking version 2 - and I still think version 2 is a great license - was that I give you source code you give me your changes back we're even. Right - that's that's my take on GPL version 2 it's that simple and version 3 extended that in ways that I personally am really uncomfortable with; namely I give you source code that means that if you use that source code you can't use it on your device unless you follow my rules and to me that's that's a violation of everything version 2 stood for ...