3 ms·
Not mentioned and highly significant: Apple hasn't shipped anything which is licensed under GPL v3. That cuts them off from a lot of upstream development, inc
by rst 12y ago
Not mentioned and highly significant: Apple hasn't shipped anything which is licensed under GPL v3. That cuts them off from a lot of upstream development, including particularly upstream versions of bash.
I'm not sure they've ever published a reason for this, but outside speculation centers around the v3 patent grant and anti-tivoization clauses.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago> I'm not sure they've ever published a reason for this, but outside speculation centers around the v3 patent grant and anti-tivoization clauses. I've heard this more than once but it doesn't make any sense. GPLv2 says this: "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." Ask your lawyer what happens if you license a piece of software to someone and then try to sue them for patent infringement for using that software. And OS X doesn't stop you from compiling your own bash (or whatever else) and replacing the one Apple shipped, so I don't see how the anti-tivoization clause would affect them either. It just doesn't make any sense. I half suspect that there are a few IP lawyers (and/or Microsoft) who don't like the GPL for ideological reasons and go around spreading FUD about it to discourage people from using it.
- cpach 12y agoIs it significant though? I can’t really see why bash of all software should be critical. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, other operating systems do not rely on bash being installed.