This is not FUD. This is the actual position of Apple Legal.
The author of a license is not the person with the legal authority to interpret its meaning.
That is just as absurd.
The opinion of the writer of a legal document carries only tangential weight next to the actual written words of this document.
The most plausible approach is one outlined in another comment in this thread wherein you get a new key when factory-resetting the device and if you don't write it down it's gone forever, but even that approach will likely cause problems with Activation Lock. And in general it's risky to introduce stuff like this because the potential for unforeseen security compromises is very high, and the upside is very low (the number of people who'd actually take advantage of this is extremely low relative to the number of iPhone users).
That's only because we live in a world where phones aren't treated like the general use computers they are. MS+OEMs and Apple fought hard for decades to create an appliance mindset around what used to be a user-replaceable component, the OS.
We can just as easily imagine and try to build a world where it's just as easy to mix and match phones with phone OSes as it was to choose DR-DOS instead of MS-DOS.
Not if a physical modification to the hardware, a set of button presses, a hardware token or a fuse is needed to set said keys.
> And in general it's risky to introduce stuff like this because the potential for unforeseen security compromises is very high
There is little to no risk if physical interaction with the hardware is required for setting keys. If you have physical access and enough time, all bets are off anyway.
> ...and the upside is very low (the number of people who'd actually take advantage of this is extremely low relative to the number of iPhone users).
There are many people who dream of having the freedom to roll their own firmware on a particular device and it can be done without compromising the security of said device. This was not just about iThing users (who might/not take advantage of this), this was about people spreading FUD about the tivoization part of the GPLv3. Root signing keys don't need to be shared and the only requirement is that the user can take the sources, compile them and then run the result on the target device. As long as the OEM distributing the GPLv3'ed program gives a clear path for running the compiled code on the target device, then it is not a problem.
The reason nobody mentions this is because the solution is so trivial there's really no point in repeating it each time.
So much so that in your attempt to find any toehold to criticize it, your comment had to resort to coming up with scenarios that go outside of the system and rely on human vulnerabilities.
Hog-wash. Me not allowed to be in control of my own device is the ultimate compromise of my security.
Also, there's nothing stopping an opinion from a lawyer from being FUD. Apple Legal isn't your lawyer, they don't have a responsibility to tell you the whole truth or give you information that is in your best interest.
Also, it's not like Apple Legal is telling anyone outside the company about this. Apple's not releasing any public statements asking people not to use GPLv3. So how exactly are they supposed to be discouraging its use when the people using it don't know what Apple Legal thinks about it?
Yes there is. Apple doesn't want to use GPLv3 for other reasons (they don't want users to have full control over their machines -- which they've proven time and time again with the iThings). But rather than saying "sorry, we don't want you to be able to control your machines" (which would be bad PR) they spread rumors about "GPLv3 means your software cannot be secure against certain attacks".
> Also, it's not like Apple Legal is telling anyone outside the company about this.
Hence this whole comment thread is a discussion about theoretical views of Apple Legal. My whole point is predicated on "someone actually knows for sure that this is the opinion of legal".
Oh come on. You sound like a caricature now. "Not having control over their machines" is not a goal and it makes you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist to claim it is. Security is a goal, and unfortunately security often conflicts with having complete control over the device. But that's different than saying Apple actively wants to prevent users from having control over their devices.
> they spread rumors
No they aren't. Apple doesn't make any public statements about GPLv3, period. Apple can't possibly be spreading rumors if they're not talking to people.
> My whole point is predicated on "someone actually knows for sure that this is the opinion of legal".
I do. I know for sure this is the position of Apple Legal. Which is why I said this was their position in the first place.
I agree that security is a primary goal of Apple. And many of the restrictions have a mostly valid security justification. But "ability to have full control of your machine and be able to replace components" is clearly not part of Apple's goals. So they don't spend any time thinking about solving the problem with that constraint.
What security do you get from not being able to replace the window manager? Because if you want to claim that "Apple prioritises users being able to control all parts of their machines, and security prevents this from being possible" then you have to give a security justification for every un-configurable restriction.
> Apple doesn't make any public statements about GPLv3, period. Apple can't possibly be spreading rumors if they're not talking to people.
Well, we're talking about it right now aren't we? I'm aware they didn't make any public statements, but this whole discussion is pointless if we are just going to say "I know this is their true opinion and they have no reason to lie to me because they didn't say it publicly, therefore [contentious statement about GPLv3] is effectively correct and there's no point in discussing this further".
> I know for sure this is the position of Apple Legal.
You know that this is what Apple Legal told you, or someone who knows someone at Apple Legal told you. Unless you're part of Apple Legal in which case you've now made a public statement about GPLv3.
This is the very definition of a rumor.
> What security do you get from not being able to replace the window manager?
Well, you could argue that a third-party window manager could be snooping on all of the content visible on your screen (that otherwise isn't available to third-party apps) and could be doing whatever they want with that potentially-sensitive info. But that doesn't even matter, because the real answer here is "it's a massive amount of work to support third-party window managers, since the window manager is such a crucial and low-level and highly-integrated part of the system, and there's no motivation for Apple to expend that tremendous amount of work, especially because they'd likely end up with a far-less-stable system as a result".
> Well, we're talking about it right now aren't we?
We are, yes. Apple isn't. No matter what I say on the subject, that doesn't mean Apple is spreading rumors. I don't work for Apple.
> This is the very definition of a rumor.
You're free to accuse me of spreading rumors if you want. And I can't very well deny that because I can't provide any verification, but this interpretation of GPLv3 is a fairly common interpretation so I don't see that there's any reason to doubt it.
But you can't accuse Apple of spreading rumors because people like me are making statements about this.
And Apple's APIs let you snoop on those events anyway (that's how the semi-third party window manager-managers work), this is not an argument...
> because the real answer here is "it's a massive amount of work to support third-party window managers, since the window manager is such a crucial and low-level and highly-integrated part of the system, and there's no motivation for Apple to expend that tremendous amount of work,
...so what you're saying is "they don't want to put the effort into being able to replace core components of the system"? Because that's what I'm saying. I'm just saying it in a less charitable way than that.
> but this interpretation of GPLv3 is a fairly common interpretation so I don't see that there's any reason to doubt it.
It's only a common interpretation if you believe the rumors about Apple's view (and you're not the only person spreading them). FSF does not make that claim. Effectively everyone who uses GPLv3 doesn't make that claim (as far as I know). The only people that I've seen make that claim are people who say "this is the justification that Apple told me off-the-record but since they said it off-the-record we can't discuss it's merits". Do you see why I would suspect that this rumor spreading is co-ordinated?
We went through this bullshit back with UEFI and GRUB in the Linux community. The agreement was that GPLv3 is fine so long as it is possible to replace the keys (and wiping the machine on key replacement is what you want to happen anyway, so that's fine and it solves the security issues). If you want to start claiming that it's a "common interpretation" you need to show that there is a larger community than the Linux community that uses the GPLv3. And you won't find one. Because it's not a common interpretation in the community that uses that license.
Why do you keep talking about rumors? And why do you keep talking as if this is somehow unique to Apple? I'm pretty sure Apple's not the only company that believes this. In fact, I have no idea why the FSF would even claim otherwise; Apple's interpretation seems to be perfectly in line with the entire point of the anti-TiVoization clause.
If Apple were to accidentally ship GPLv3 software on iOS 11, under whatever interpretation you subscribe to, how is Apple supposed to remain in compliance with GPLv3 without releasing their root signing keys? Remember, we're talking about shipping this on existing devices, not on some hypothetical future device where they can add extra user-swappable keys to the bootloader.
You keep insisting that Apple's interpretation is wrong, but you haven't provided any alternative interpretation.
> If you want to start claiming that it's a "common interpretation" you need to show that there is a larger community than the Linux community that uses the GPLv3
That's a catch-22. There isn't a larger community because GPLv3 is toxic to companies. Nobody else is going to create a larger ecosystem of GPLv3 code because doing so basically means turning into Linux.
Apple's interpretation of "we cannot design a system where you can have signed binaries [where you can replace the root signing keys] that complies with the GPLv3"? That's not what the GPLv3 changes meant.
Please just read the GPLv3 and make up your own mind, this is getting ridiculous. No reasonable interpretation of that section means that it is not possible to design a system that has binary signing and complies with the GPLv3. Apple's current system could not comply without releasing the root signing keys, but that's because they decided to design their system that way.
> If Apple were to accidentally ship GPLv3 software on iOS 11 ...
We're not talking about them accidentally shipping it. We're talking about them deciding to not update to GPLv3, and the justification being "security". Obviously accidentally shipping it would cause them issues, but that's
> Remember, we're talking about shipping this on existing devices, not on some hypothetical future device where they can add extra user-swappable keys to the bootloader.
You might be talking about that. That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about them designing products that explicitly don't allow user-swapping is the problem, and that there is no fundamental reason why you cannot have a secure system that allows user-swapping keys.
Of course a current device would be insecure if the root signing keys were released, because their threat model doesn't take that into account.
> There isn't a larger community because GPLv3 is toxic to companies.
I work for a company that releases GPLv3 software all the time. I've started projects that are GPLv3 as an employee. It's only toxic to companies that don't want to comply with free software licenses.
This is all just more FUD.
> This is all just more FUD.
Please stop calling things FUD just because you don't like it.
I guess you were in a different thread than me. The discussion started with saying that "they don't use GPLv3 purely because of security concerns as they cannot have a secure system". I outlined that yes you can, you said that "currently Apple's system doesn't work that way" and now you're saying that discussing whether or not it is possible to create such a system is off-topic.
Maybe I just misunderstood what you meant, but if that's the case then it still doesn't justify you broadly making incorrect claims about the GPLv3. You should say something like "Because Apple doesn't have the ability to replace the keys by the user, they cannot use GPLv3 as that would make their system insecure". You cannot omit the first part as it makes the statement incorrect.
> Please stop calling things FUD just because you don't like it.
"GPLv3 is toxic to companies" is FUD. It promotes fear through the use of the word "toxic", it promotes uncertainty by challenging a well-established license with vague concerns, and it seeds doubt in whether the license will be toxic to their company. As many companies do use and ship GPLv3 software and aren't being killed by this hypothetical toxicity, this is FUD.
It just so happens that I don't like that you said it, but that's because I don't like people spreading FUD. ;)