4 ms·
> 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
by jitl 2y ago
> 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.
how does locking down macOS have anything to do w/ GPL compliance? Apple is free to do whatever BS with the OS they ship in terms of terminal access, user permission level, etc regardless of GPL of any code on the device. I could ship a GPLv3 system tomorrow that disallows user root access and as long as I make the OS source freely available and redistributable, it's fine.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ninkendo 2y agoIf you make a device which uses GPL’d code, and provide all the covered source code you used, but prevent users from putting any modified code on the device, you are in violation of GPLv3, but not GPLv2. That means this sentence: > I could ship a GPLv3 system tomorrow that disallows user root access and as long as I make the OS source freely available and redistributable, it's fine. Is not true for gpl3. It’s called the “tivo-ization” loophole, and it’s one of the principal reasons the GPL3 was made in the first place. I think you’re just wrong. (Note: I’m not claiming Apple is would be in violation for shipping e.g. a GPLv3 bash on macOS, today, only that they would be in violation for doing that on iOS today, or if in the future they locked down macOS in the same way that iOS was, then for macOS too.)
- pabs3 2y agoCorrection, that is a GPLv2 violation too. Some discussion: https://lwn.net/Articles/858905/ https://lwn.net/Articles/858905/
- NewsaHackO 2y ago[flagged]