3 ms·

> (A)GPLv3 does not prevent their projects from being used. In practice, it does in many cases. Many companies have a blanket policy of avoiding these licences

> (A)GPLv3 does not prevent their projects from being used. In practice, it does in many cases. Many companies have a blanket policy of avoiding these licences. But I agree that they make more sense for apps than libraries.

notpushkin 2y ago
I’m wondering how’s it going with the whole dual-licensing schtik.
panzi 2y ago
So they don't use Linux, bash, or GCC?
- HideousKojima 2y ago
  Linux is GPLv2, not 3
- KingLancelot 2y ago
  [dead]
- vinceguidry 2y ago
  Apple doesn't ship any of these anymore.
  - koiueo 2y ago
    And guess what application developers install immediately after getting their MacBooks? The GPL licensed git. If I'm forced to use MacOS, I'm fine installing git, GNU make or whatever I want for myself. But I don't see any downsides in Apple being unable to distribute those applications together with their OS.
    - vinceguidry 2y ago
      Last time I was forced to use MacOS, I did all my work in a Linux VM. And still hated it.
    - kstrauser 2y ago
      > And guess what application developers install immediately after getting their MacBooks? The GPL licensed git. Why would they do that? I didn't, because macOS ships with version 2.39.5 as /usr/bin/git. You're free to upgrade to a newer version, of course, but the included one is recent enough for most uses.
      - koiueo 2y ago
        Does macOS include git? Oh. My bad. I concluded from the previous comment that Apple doesn't ship bash because it's GPL and hence doesn't ship anything GPL. And my point was: this is fine. Even if it was true. But as this is not the case, I see even fewer arguments against GPL licenses.
        kstrauser 2y ago
        Apple shies away from GPLv3 code. They ship a ton of GPLv2 code, though. And as you mentioned, even if they didn't, it just takes a moment to install Homebrew and get whatever else you want. Apple doesn't stop me from installing a new Emacs.
        vinceguidry 2y ago
        Sure, Apple won't stop you. But the defaults matter. If you're writing a shell script and you want it to run on MacOS, you need to target the ancient version it's actually shipping, or you have to tell your whole team to install a later version. If your servers are running Linux then you'll be dealing with platform inconsistencies all day long. Ask me how I know.
- zamadatix 2y ago
  Change "use" to "distribute" (what the license cares about) and you're bang on.
  - trelane 2y ago
    This is a huge difference. The GPL and its flavor are explicitly not about use. They place zero restrictions on use. Unlike, say, just about all proprietary software. It only governs distribution and especially prevents distributors from locking their users in, and from placing restrictions on their users' use of the software.
    - chungy 2y ago
      If you count AGPLv3 as a "flavor" of GPL, then it absolutely does place restrictions on use.
      - trelane 2y ago
        Depends on your definition of "user"/"use" and "distribution" really. If the service provider is the "user," and performing actions with it on behalf of the ultimate user is "use," and not "distribution," then you are technically correct. It restricts the service provider from forcing their customers to be dependent on the them and/or restricting the end users' use of the service, like the GPL does for proprietary software the user runs on their machine. I personally disagree that running something on behalf of a user makes you the end user, but there's always the GPL if you think that.
- layer8 2y ago
  Not in their products. Internal use is fine, but where it gets dicey from a legal point of view is when you distribute GPLv3 binaries as an integrated part of your product.
  - Tijdreiziger 2y ago
    Many vendors use Linux in their products. Think: smartphones (Android), routers, smarthome/IoT devices, other embedded devices.
    - jlokier 2y ago
      Linux in Android is GPLv2 not GPLv3. The v2-v3 difference is a big deal to some. Linux developers made an intentional decision to stick with GPLv2 and to remove the "or later version" option, so you can't include it into GPLv3 projects as you can with most other GPLv2 software. GPLv3 avoidance is why Apple ships ancient versions of Rsync, Bash and Make on its current OSes instead of the current versions, and replaced Samba with its own inferior SMB service.
- GuinansEyebrows 2y ago
  Notably, macOS ships mainly BSD-derived userland utils and for the rare GNU software, it's GPLv2 stuff (hence zsh as the default shell, while shipping bash 3.whatever for compatibility).
- int_19h 2y ago
  From my past experience, it goes something like this. If software is GPLv2, it's penalized relative to more permissive options when it comes to picking one. In practice it means that it's avoided unless it's "too big to avoid", or because the very nature of what you're doing requires it - this is the case for e.g. Linux and R. If software is GPLv3, it's considered radioactive and is avoided at all costs, even if it means rewriting large amounts of code from scratch.
consp 2y ago
GPLv3 with interpreted code is a legal nightmare you do not want. Compiled is manageable. Then again I've seen companies publishing stuff on GitHub, when asked about the license; slapping GPLv3 on it but also forcing you to take a license with them for commercial use. Yea no, thanks. You just made a poison pill somehow even more lethal.
overfeed 2y ago
This is even more damning because it means the maintainers want their MIT-licensed projects to be used by for-profit companies, but bellyache when certain big-tech companies fulfill the maintainer's vision.

notpushkin 2y ago

I’m wondering how’s it going with the whole dual-licensing schtik.

panzi 2y ago

So they don't use Linux, bash, or GCC?

HideousKojima 2y ago
Linux is GPLv2, not 3
KingLancelot 2y ago
[dead]
vinceguidry 2y ago
Apple doesn't ship any of these anymore.
- koiueo 2y ago
  And guess what application developers install immediately after getting their MacBooks? The GPL licensed git. If I'm forced to use MacOS, I'm fine installing git, GNU make or whatever I want for myself. But I don't see any downsides in Apple being unable to distribute those applications together with their OS.
  - vinceguidry 2y ago
    Last time I was forced to use MacOS, I did all my work in a Linux VM. And still hated it.
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    > And guess what application developers install immediately after getting their MacBooks? The GPL licensed git. Why would they do that? I didn't, because macOS ships with version 2.39.5 as /usr/bin/git. You're free to upgrade to a newer version, of course, but the included one is recent enough for most uses.
    - koiueo 2y ago
      Does macOS include git? Oh. My bad. I concluded from the previous comment that Apple doesn't ship bash because it's GPL and hence doesn't ship anything GPL. And my point was: this is fine. Even if it was true. But as this is not the case, I see even fewer arguments against GPL licenses.
      - kstrauser 2y ago
        Apple shies away from GPLv3 code. They ship a ton of GPLv2 code, though. And as you mentioned, even if they didn't, it just takes a moment to install Homebrew and get whatever else you want. Apple doesn't stop me from installing a new Emacs.
        vinceguidry 2y ago
        Sure, Apple won't stop you. But the defaults matter. If you're writing a shell script and you want it to run on MacOS, you need to target the ancient version it's actually shipping, or you have to tell your whole team to install a later version. If your servers are running Linux then you'll be dealing with platform inconsistencies all day long. Ask me how I know.
zamadatix 2y ago
Change "use" to "distribute" (what the license cares about) and you're bang on.
- trelane 2y ago
  This is a huge difference. The GPL and its flavor are explicitly not about use. They place zero restrictions on use. Unlike, say, just about all proprietary software. It only governs distribution and especially prevents distributors from locking their users in, and from placing restrictions on their users' use of the software.
  - chungy 2y ago
    If you count AGPLv3 as a "flavor" of GPL, then it absolutely does place restrictions on use.
    - trelane 2y ago
      Depends on your definition of "user"/"use" and "distribution" really. If the service provider is the "user," and performing actions with it on behalf of the ultimate user is "use," and not "distribution," then you are technically correct. It restricts the service provider from forcing their customers to be dependent on the them and/or restricting the end users' use of the service, like the GPL does for proprietary software the user runs on their machine. I personally disagree that running something on behalf of a user makes you the end user, but there's always the GPL if you think that.
layer8 2y ago
Not in their products. Internal use is fine, but where it gets dicey from a legal point of view is when you distribute GPLv3 binaries as an integrated part of your product.
- Tijdreiziger 2y ago
  Many vendors use Linux in their products. Think: smartphones (Android), routers, smarthome/IoT devices, other embedded devices.
  - jlokier 2y ago
    Linux in Android is GPLv2 not GPLv3. The v2-v3 difference is a big deal to some. Linux developers made an intentional decision to stick with GPLv2 and to remove the "or later version" option, so you can't include it into GPLv3 projects as you can with most other GPLv2 software. GPLv3 avoidance is why Apple ships ancient versions of Rsync, Bash and Make on its current OSes instead of the current versions, and replaced Samba with its own inferior SMB service.
GuinansEyebrows 2y ago
Notably, macOS ships mainly BSD-derived userland utils and for the rare GNU software, it's GPLv2 stuff (hence zsh as the default shell, while shipping bash 3.whatever for compatibility).
int_19h 2y ago
From my past experience, it goes something like this. If software is GPLv2, it's penalized relative to more permissive options when it comes to picking one. In practice it means that it's avoided unless it's "too big to avoid", or because the very nature of what you're doing requires it - this is the case for e.g. Linux and R. If software is GPLv3, it's considered radioactive and is avoided at all costs, even if it means rewriting large amounts of code from scratch.

consp 2y ago

GPLv3 with interpreted code is a legal nightmare you do not want. Compiled is manageable. Then again I've seen companies publishing stuff on GitHub, when asked about the license; slapping GPLv3 on it but also forcing you to take a license with them for commercial use. Yea no, thanks. You just made a poison pill somehow even more lethal.

overfeed 2y ago

This is even more damning because it means the maintainers want their MIT-licensed projects to be used by for-profit companies, but bellyache when certain big-tech companies fulfill the maintainer's vision.