4 ms·

Sorry, are you asking why Apple and Microsoft do not allow distribution of GPLv3 licensed packages? Given that they haven't made any public statements about it

by lambda 12y ago

Sorry, are you asking why Apple and Microsoft do not allow distribution of GPLv3 licensed packages? Given that they haven't made any public statements about it, it's hard to say with certainty; you can only speculate. But the major things that the GPLv3 changed, which companies like Apple and Microsoft are likely to object to, are the anti-Tivoization clauses, the patent license clauses, and the "no effective DRM" clauses. If you check the information about what changed in GPLv3 (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html), those were pretty much the only extra restrictions added. The anti-Tivoization clause says that if you distribute the software along with hardware, you must also distribute (or provide users with a way to change) any keys that are necessary for users to run their own modified version of software on that hardware. Given that both Apple and Microsoft ship locked down phones that don't allow users to modify their software, and are increasingly moving towards locked-down App Store models even on desktop and laptop computers, they may not want to risk every being obliged to follow that requirement. The patent grant clause is likely the one that worries them the most. That says that if you distribute the software, and your distribution of the software relies on patents that you either hold or license from someone else, you must either pass along the rights in those licenses (if possible), or give up the patent license (that is, if you have licensed a patent from someone but don't have the ability to transfer that license to downstream recipients, than you may only distribute the software if you give up that patent license, putting you and your users on equal footing if the holder of the patent decides to enforce it). The DRM clause may also bother them, but I doubt that they would avoid using software due to it, since it only applies to software which is itself used as part of a DRM system, saying that it can't be considered an effective technological measure (as the other freedoms provided by the GPL allow users to replace it), and so none of the legally enforced restrictions on removing DRM can apply. Since that only applies to code that is used as part of a DRM system itself, I don't think that would cause them particular problems, as long as they avoid linking any of their DRM systems to GPLed code, but there may be cases in which it would come up. Anyhow, I can't really say which of these is the reason that they don't allow it, as they have never made any public statements about that. My guess would be the patent clause, followed by the Tivoization clause, followed by the DRM cluase, in order of importance.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
You're just describing the changes in the license, and none of those seem particularly objectionable. You seem to agree that the DRM restriction is quite harmless. The anti-tivoization clause might reasonably apply to iOS, but I don't think iOS includes any version of these utilities, and that still wouldn't explain excluding them from OS X. It's not like they couldn't just take them back out later on. And the patent license seems least objectionable of all. The primary change from GPLv2 seems to be having to include some language accounting for it in the agreement for any patents they license, which they have every incentive to do regardless in order to be covered in case an employee puts an Ubuntu ISO somewhere public, and in the worst case they're still only in the same situation they would be if the patent in question had been owned by some patent troll. Also, the post I responded to is talking about "Apple and other proprietary software publishers." So Apple is more the exception than the rule in having any trouble at all with the anti-tivoization clause since most software vendors don't make their own hardware. I still don't see anything that should make it so untouchable.
- lambda 12y ago
  Have you watched Apple's patent war with Samsung? They rely heavily on patents to attack competitors. If they distributed something under the GPLv3, then there's the chance that Samsung could have looked at that, said "hey, that GPLed package implements something that your patent license covered, that means that we now have a license to that patent." Or there's all of the patents that the license from other parties, like the H.264 patent portfolio. Those patents they can't relicense; so if any of those apply to any of the GPLv3 software they tried to distribute, they would be in violation of one or both of the licenses. Also, the post I responded to is talking about "Apple and other proprietary software publishers." Well, this thread is about Apple, and the one you were responding to was comparing Apple with Microsoft. The part about "other proprietary software vendors" was in there, but I'm not trying to back that up since that's too broad a category to discuss as a whole. There are several different kind of proprietary software vendors, that sell software in many different ways, and so discussing them as a category is likely not to be useful. For example, vendors who sell closed-source, proprietary applications could never use any GPLed code, as linking to it would mean they were required to release the code of the whole application under the GPL. So there there's really no different between GPLv2 and v3. Vendors who sell bundled software hardware combos could ship GPLed software, and embedded Linux is common there. However, some of them like to lock down their hardware, not allowing it to be upgraded or modified by end users. The anti-Tivoization clause specifically forbids that, so they may avoid GPLv3 software in order to avoid the anti-Tivoization clause. One example here is Android, where they even avoid GPLv2, for software that ships on phones, almost everywhere except for the kernel. There are also some proprietary software vendors who do ship GPLv3 software. For example, Oracle, one of the biggest and most notorious proprietary software vendors, actually does ship Oracle Linux, a distro which contains an awful lot of GPLv3 software. So its clear that not every company has made the same decision; some avoid it like the plague (Microsoft and Apple), some avoid it in certain products but not others (Google avoids it Android, but ships GPLv3 code in Chrome OS), and some are fine with shipping it. You can't really make any blanket statements about all proprietary software companies. But anyhow, as I said, for cases such as Apple, it's very obvious that they are fine shipping GPLv2 software, but very clear from their actions that they won't ship GPLv3. There are three major additional restrictions in the GPLv3, and we can speculate which one was the tipping point for Apple. My money is on patents, but I think that the anti-Tivoization may play a role too. However, unless they publicly say something, or someone leaks some internal communication about it, we will just be left speculating as to why.

by lambda 12y ago

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

You're just describing the changes in the license, and none of those seem particularly objectionable. You seem to agree that the DRM restriction is quite harmless. The anti-tivoization clause might reasonably apply to iOS, but I don't think iOS includes any version of these utilities, and that still wouldn't explain excluding them from OS X. It's not like they couldn't just take them back out later on. And the patent license seems least objectionable of all. The primary change from GPLv2 seems to be having to include some language accounting for it in the agreement for any patents they license, which they have every incentive to do regardless in order to be covered in case an employee puts an Ubuntu ISO somewhere public, and in the worst case they're still only in the same situation they would be if the patent in question had been owned by some patent troll. Also, the post I responded to is talking about "Apple and other proprietary software publishers." So Apple is more the exception than the rule in having any trouble at all with the anti-tivoization clause since most software vendors don't make their own hardware. I still don't see anything that should make it so untouchable.

lambda 12y ago
Have you watched Apple's patent war with Samsung? They rely heavily on patents to attack competitors. If they distributed something under the GPLv3, then there's the chance that Samsung could have looked at that, said "hey, that GPLed package implements something that your patent license covered, that means that we now have a license to that patent." Or there's all of the patents that the license from other parties, like the H.264 patent portfolio. Those patents they can't relicense; so if any of those apply to any of the GPLv3 software they tried to distribute, they would be in violation of one or both of the licenses. Also, the post I responded to is talking about "Apple and other proprietary software publishers." Well, this thread is about Apple, and the one you were responding to was comparing Apple with Microsoft. The part about "other proprietary software vendors" was in there, but I'm not trying to back that up since that's too broad a category to discuss as a whole. There are several different kind of proprietary software vendors, that sell software in many different ways, and so discussing them as a category is likely not to be useful. For example, vendors who sell closed-source, proprietary applications could never use any GPLed code, as linking to it would mean they were required to release the code of the whole application under the GPL. So there there's really no different between GPLv2 and v3. Vendors who sell bundled software hardware combos could ship GPLed software, and embedded Linux is common there. However, some of them like to lock down their hardware, not allowing it to be upgraded or modified by end users. The anti-Tivoization clause specifically forbids that, so they may avoid GPLv3 software in order to avoid the anti-Tivoization clause. One example here is Android, where they even avoid GPLv2, for software that ships on phones, almost everywhere except for the kernel. There are also some proprietary software vendors who do ship GPLv3 software. For example, Oracle, one of the biggest and most notorious proprietary software vendors, actually does ship Oracle Linux, a distro which contains an awful lot of GPLv3 software. So its clear that not every company has made the same decision; some avoid it like the plague (Microsoft and Apple), some avoid it in certain products but not others (Google avoids it Android, but ships GPLv3 code in Chrome OS), and some are fine with shipping it. You can't really make any blanket statements about all proprietary software companies. But anyhow, as I said, for cases such as Apple, it's very obvious that they are fine shipping GPLv2 software, but very clear from their actions that they won't ship GPLv3. There are three major additional restrictions in the GPLv3, and we can speculate which one was the tipping point for Apple. My money is on patents, but I think that the anti-Tivoization may play a role too. However, unless they publicly say something, or someone leaks some internal communication about it, we will just be left speculating as to why.