3 ms·
We can clearly see that since the move to GPL3, Apple is reimplementing a lot of free software previously licensed under GPL2 (I wonder how long the default she
by pilif 13y ago
We can clearly see that since the move to GPL3, Apple is reimplementing a lot of free software previously licensed under GPL2 (I wonder how long the default shell remains outdated bash. I wonder what they will move to). And unlike clang, not all of their replacements are free software.
Case in point: their SMB stack.
To me this shows that Apple would just not have used (and contributed to) any free software if it was all GPL3. The world would be a worse place. In fact, the world has gotten considerably worse, Apple-wise, when we lost Samba in OSX.
The patent clauses in GPL3 make that license completely unsuitable for any company (with cautious lawyers) that owns significant patents. I can really kind if understand Apple here.
- belorn 13y agoJust to put it into perspective, the the patent clauses in GPLv3 was initially copied from the apache license almost word for word. The only significant change that FSF did was adding an additional point regarding patent agreements. They describe that: If you have an expressed permission to practice a patent or covenant not to sue for patent infringement, such agreement is seen as identical as if you were holding the patent yourself. If you are in a company that has significant amount of patents, and who would prefer keeping a patent rather than gaining benefit from free and open source software, then one need to keep an eye on any software one want to distribute that has apache, GPL or any other licenses with a patent clause in them. If you are in a company that has significant amount of patent agreements, then one need to keep an eye on any software one want to distribute that got GPLv3 software in it. Apple do have a few such agreements.