I'm very much for open source and all, and I'd love to see Apple as the bad guy here (since I think they're a Bad Guy), but I'm not sure what is the big deal.

I'm very much for open source and all, and I'd love to see Apple as the bad guy here (since I think they're a Bad Guy), but I'm not sure what is the big deal. AFAICT, every CPU vendor has a libm implementation. Apple wants to be tight-lipped about its hardware. [Maybe] Since hardware reviewers seem to get their information on the hardware from compilers, Apple is removing as much information as practical to avoid competitive information leaking. It's a bummer to see a reduction in the amount of open source, but their license is fairly clear and I can't say that I blame Apple for trying to keep competitors away. Further, it looks as though most implementations is closed-source-y since the source code is highly tied to CPU idiosyncracies... Links: Apple's libm license: http://opensource.apple.com/source/Libm/Libm-315/APPLE_LICENSE http://opensource.apple.com/source/Libm/Libm-315/APPLE_LICEN... Intel: https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-math-kernel-library-licensing-faq https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-math-kernel-... AMD: http://developer.amd.com/tools-and-sdks/cpu-development/libm/ http://developer.amd.com/tools-and-sdks/cpu-development/libm... Android: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/master/libm/ https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/master/li... (from FreeBSD?)