5 ms·

So, anyone got a good resource on why Apple is so afraid of GPLv3? Surely this shouldn't be a problem as long as they statically compile the executables?

pjmlp 2y ago
Not only Apple, everyone. I never worked at any company that allows for GPLv3 dependencies, and even GPLv2 aren't welcomed, unless validated by legal team first.
- jeroenhd 2y ago
  But Apple did ship GPLv2. They're shipping open source tools with infectious licenses like they always did. This isn't like the normal "take someone else's work for free but don't give anything back" approach most companies follow when they decide to avoid GPL code.
banqjls 2y ago
The TiVo clause.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  It wouldn’t apply to the kernel. Also, a lot of the command line tools are not distributed as part of the OS.
  - jhasse 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Eggpants 2y ago
      lol. You must be a hoot at parties.
    - mistrial9 2y ago
      from the point of view of the GPL side of the aisle, yes agree they are evil. Shareholders who want returns are on the other side of the aisle, so to speak, and definitely see "risk" and "no" when it comes to anything close to GPL. OK no problem, except that the code that Apple Computer profits mightily with, substantially originates in the former. recall the John Gilmore camp handing out "don't tread on me Apple" buttons 35 years ago.. it has been going on that long. Apple knows very well what they are doing.
Arnt 2y ago
Apple doesn't say. IMO you should not trust other people's statements about Apple's reasoning.
ndegruchy 2y ago
In all likelihood they just don't want to broach the idea of having to fight (and potentially lose) the GPL3 in court. Given the case history on the GPL2, it seems like more work than it's worth. They can just replace the parts that are "problematic" in their eyes and avoid a whole class of issues.
Aurornis 2y ago
My perspective on GPL and related licenses changed a lot after working with lawyers on the topic. Some of the things I thought to be completely safe were not as definitive to the lawyers. I don’t know Apple’s reasoning, but I know that choosing non-GPL licenses when available was one of the guiding principals given to us by corporate lawyers at another company.
- cosmic_cheese 2y ago
  A lot of it is indeed the legal murkiness. On the engineering level, other liceneses likely get selected because it’s easy. You don’t need to consult the legal department to know how to comply with licenses like MIT, BSD, etc, so you just pull the thing in, make any required attributions, and continue on with your day. It’s a lot less friction, which is extremely attractive.
  - KerrAvon 2y ago
    Yes, although even for the more liberal licenses you actually still want legal review at a sufficiently large company to ensure that your engineering read of the license is accurate. What if someone changed the wording slightly in some way that turns out to be legally significant, etc.
    - cosmic_cheese 2y ago
      That might apply in a handful of cases, but the vast majority will check out when a quick diff against a reference license file shows that the only changes are party names.
      - KerrAvon 2y ago
        I think it's very unlikely to happen, in general. I'm just saying a large corporation will want to check every time because they cannot really afford to do otherwise.
        2y ago
ninkendo 2y ago
GPL3 closes what was considered a loophole, where device makers would ship a product derived from GPL’d code, and release the source, but provide no ability for users to actually compile and run that source on the device (this was called “tivo-ization” at the time, because TiVo did it.) So for iOS, it’s pretty obvious why they don’t use gplv3… because it would violate the terms. For macOS they could certainly get away with shipping gplv3 code, but they do a lot of code sharing between iOS and macOS (and watchOS/tvOS/visionOS/etc) and it doesn’t make much sense to build on a gplv3 foundation for just one of these operating systems and not the others. So it’s simpler to just not use it at all. It also means they’re more free to lock down macOS from running your own code on it in the future, without worrying about having to rip out all the gpl3 code when it happens. Better to just not build on it in the first place.
- KerrAvon 2y ago
  No, this doesn't quite scan, because there's no reason they couldn't ship a current of `bash` or any number of other GPL3 things. Aurornis is probably closest to the mark: it is legally ambiguous, and Apple probably does not want to be a test case for GPL3 compliance.
  - ninkendo 2y ago
    If they shipped a gpl3 version of bash on iOS, they would be in violation. This isn’t really a question: gpl3 requires you to not only provide the source if you use it in a product, but the ability to modify it and run your modified version. Which iOS doesn’t let you do. Now, macOS would be fine in shipping a gpl3 bash. But not iOS. (Yes, iOS has bash. Or ar least they used to, they may be all on zsh now, I’m not sure.) So, the question becomes to Apple, do we ship different bash versions for different devices, and treat macOS as being different, and have to worry about only using newer bash features on macOS? Or do we keep the same old version on all platforms, and just eschew the new bash everywhere? It’s a pretty simple decision IMO, especially because users can just use brew on macOS and put their own bash on there if they want. Others are pointing out that gpl3 is less tested in court and that lawyers are just more uncertain/afraid of gpl3 than gpl2, especially with respect to patents… but I don’t think these are mutually exclusive. It’s clear that they can’t ship gpl3 on 4 out of their 5 operating systems. macOS is an outlier, and from an engineering standpoint it’s a lot simpler to just keep them all the same than it is to ship different scripts/etc for different platforms. It can be both reasons.
quotemstr 2y ago
Companies develop idiosyncratic cultures and either learn to live with them or die. Apple's learned to live with a legal culture deathly afraid of the GPLv3. Some influential director or someone made a decision 20 years ago and the GPLv3 superstition became self perpetuating, reality be damned. Outside incentives never became strong enough to override it. Every company has its stupid superstitions.
toast0 2y ago
They're respecting the terms of the license. Especially when a piece of software changes from GPLv2 to GPLv3, it's asking Apple to stop updating, and they do as asked.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
WD-42 2y ago
Probably because they are working towards a future where they don’t have to worry about releasing source code for anything, while being free to make any modifications they want. They just need time to code around all the FOSS they’ve leeched off of the last couple decades or wait for BSD licensed projects like this pop up to do that work for them.
m463 2y ago
"Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software." -- https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
gtsop 2y ago
Because they are clearly against users' rights, the only thing GPL is trying to protect. The exact technicalities I believe are not very important (yet they might be interesting).

pjmlp 2y ago

Not only Apple, everyone. I never worked at any company that allows for GPLv3 dependencies, and even GPLv2 aren't welcomed, unless validated by legal team first.

jeroenhd 2y ago
But Apple did ship GPLv2. They're shipping open source tools with infectious licenses like they always did. This isn't like the normal "take someone else's work for free but don't give anything back" approach most companies follow when they decide to avoid GPL code.

banqjls 2y ago

The TiVo clause.

rbanffy 2y ago
It wouldn’t apply to the kernel. Also, a lot of the command line tools are not distributed as part of the OS.
- jhasse 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Eggpants 2y ago
    lol. You must be a hoot at parties.
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    from the point of view of the GPL side of the aisle, yes agree they are evil. Shareholders who want returns are on the other side of the aisle, so to speak, and definitely see "risk" and "no" when it comes to anything close to GPL. OK no problem, except that the code that Apple Computer profits mightily with, substantially originates in the former. recall the John Gilmore camp handing out "don't tread on me Apple" buttons 35 years ago.. it has been going on that long. Apple knows very well what they are doing.

Arnt 2y ago

Apple doesn't say. IMO you should not trust other people's statements about Apple's reasoning.

ndegruchy 2y ago

In all likelihood they just don't want to broach the idea of having to fight (and potentially lose) the GPL3 in court. Given the case history on the GPL2, it seems like more work than it's worth. They can just replace the parts that are "problematic" in their eyes and avoid a whole class of issues.

Aurornis 2y ago

My perspective on GPL and related licenses changed a lot after working with lawyers on the topic. Some of the things I thought to be completely safe were not as definitive to the lawyers. I don’t know Apple’s reasoning, but I know that choosing non-GPL licenses when available was one of the guiding principals given to us by corporate lawyers at another company.

cosmic_cheese 2y ago
A lot of it is indeed the legal murkiness. On the engineering level, other liceneses likely get selected because it’s easy. You don’t need to consult the legal department to know how to comply with licenses like MIT, BSD, etc, so you just pull the thing in, make any required attributions, and continue on with your day. It’s a lot less friction, which is extremely attractive.
- KerrAvon 2y ago
  Yes, although even for the more liberal licenses you actually still want legal review at a sufficiently large company to ensure that your engineering read of the license is accurate. What if someone changed the wording slightly in some way that turns out to be legally significant, etc.
  - cosmic_cheese 2y ago
    That might apply in a handful of cases, but the vast majority will check out when a quick diff against a reference license file shows that the only changes are party names.
    - KerrAvon 2y ago
      I think it's very unlikely to happen, in general. I'm just saying a large corporation will want to check every time because they cannot really afford to do otherwise.
      - 2y ago

ninkendo 2y ago

GPL3 closes what was considered a loophole, where device makers would ship a product derived from GPL’d code, and release the source, but provide no ability for users to actually compile and run that source on the device (this was called “tivo-ization” at the time, because TiVo did it.) So for iOS, it’s pretty obvious why they don’t use gplv3… because it would violate the terms. For macOS they could certainly get away with shipping gplv3 code, but they do a lot of code sharing between iOS and macOS (and watchOS/tvOS/visionOS/etc) and it doesn’t make much sense to build on a gplv3 foundation for just one of these operating systems and not the others. So it’s simpler to just not use it at all. It also means they’re more free to lock down macOS from running your own code on it in the future, without worrying about having to rip out all the gpl3 code when it happens. Better to just not build on it in the first place.

KerrAvon 2y ago
No, this doesn't quite scan, because there's no reason they couldn't ship a current of `bash` or any number of other GPL3 things. Aurornis is probably closest to the mark: it is legally ambiguous, and Apple probably does not want to be a test case for GPL3 compliance.
- ninkendo 2y ago
  If they shipped a gpl3 version of bash on iOS, they would be in violation. This isn’t really a question: gpl3 requires you to not only provide the source if you use it in a product, but the ability to modify it and run your modified version. Which iOS doesn’t let you do. Now, macOS would be fine in shipping a gpl3 bash. But not iOS. (Yes, iOS has bash. Or ar least they used to, they may be all on zsh now, I’m not sure.) So, the question becomes to Apple, do we ship different bash versions for different devices, and treat macOS as being different, and have to worry about only using newer bash features on macOS? Or do we keep the same old version on all platforms, and just eschew the new bash everywhere? It’s a pretty simple decision IMO, especially because users can just use brew on macOS and put their own bash on there if they want. Others are pointing out that gpl3 is less tested in court and that lawyers are just more uncertain/afraid of gpl3 than gpl2, especially with respect to patents… but I don’t think these are mutually exclusive. It’s clear that they can’t ship gpl3 on 4 out of their 5 operating systems. macOS is an outlier, and from an engineering standpoint it’s a lot simpler to just keep them all the same than it is to ship different scripts/etc for different platforms. It can be both reasons.

quotemstr 2y ago

Companies develop idiosyncratic cultures and either learn to live with them or die. Apple's learned to live with a legal culture deathly afraid of the GPLv3. Some influential director or someone made a decision 20 years ago and the GPLv3 superstition became self perpetuating, reality be damned. Outside incentives never became strong enough to override it. Every company has its stupid superstitions.

toast0 2y ago

They're respecting the terms of the license. Especially when a piece of software changes from GPLv2 to GPLv3, it's asking Apple to stop updating, and they do as asked.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

WD-42 2y ago

Probably because they are working towards a future where they don’t have to worry about releasing source code for anything, while being free to make any modifications they want. They just need time to code around all the FOSS they’ve leeched off of the last couple decades or wait for BSD licensed projects like this pop up to do that work for them.

m463 2y ago

"Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software." -- https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

gtsop 2y ago

Because they are clearly against users' rights, the only thing GPL is trying to protect. The exact technicalities I believe are not very important (yet they might be interesting).