3 ms·
I can see it makes sense for Apple (anti-tivoization is something they do not want). > I can't say for certain why they can't use GPLv3 - just that no company
by graemep 2y ago
I can see it makes sense for Apple (anti-tivoization is something they do not want).
> I can't say for certain why they can't use GPLv3 - just that no company I've ever worked for (n=4 since GPLv3 came out) - will allow it on premise
So they do not allow the use of things like Bash or GNU coreutils? That seems quite restrictive and difficult.
- swiftcoder 2y agoThey often use older version of things like Bash and Coreutils, or equivalents from other ecosystems (i.e. Apple ships the BSD versions thereof)
- graemep 2y agoSo, for example, if they use RHEL version 6 or later they will install it without the default shell? Apple is different as they produce their own OS. I am asking about non-software companies avoiding GPL3 which would be necessary for (as the comment I responded to earlier in the tread claims) the use of GPL3 providing a motive to pay for licenses for dual licensed software in a way GPL2 does not.