So there needs to be a shell, and that's zsh now.
Apple switched to zsh because they're allergic to later GNU licenses and the version of bash they were shipping was absurdly out of date.
Possible approaches that would be less confusing than what we have today:
1. Ship Python 3 with macOS.
2. Ship all of the command-line developer tools with macOS, including clang et al.
3. Bring back the Snow-Leopard-era /Developer folder, and put developer tools there.
4. Put developer tools in /usr/developer, or /usr/local/developer, or /usr/local/Apple, to balance both UNIXness and clarity.
5. Don't ship Python at all. The Python foundation already distributes a .pkg installer for Mac. If xCode needs Python, follow your own Human Interface Guidelines and put it in the Application bundle.
All of these approaches have downsides, but I still think they'd be clear improvements over the current situation. Which is to say, I want Apple to figure this out!
At the time the GPLv3 was written, the GPLv3 was deliberately crafted to put commercial companies into a conflict situation.
(A) Give up selling audio with DRM (DRM did go away) (A) Give up selling video with DRM (A) Give up using HDMI as an output port (A) Give up using digital signatures to secure the integrity of software
-OR-
(B) Give up using GPL v3 software, GCC, Bash
Pretty sure most customers actually want many of the things in (A) and a minority actually care about (B). The items in (B) can be post-installed by those that really want it. Sure those in (B) have a loud voice, but, HN, are they really representative (democratically a majority)?
How would you make the choice between (A) or (B)?
I would bet that if a subeoena for FSF/GNU email was issued there would be a lot of messages related to manipulation and coercion for licensing and re-licensing. The sort of stuff, when associated with companies turns into scandal, lawsuits and monopoly investigations. (GCC almost got to be what could be considered a monopoly compiler)
I do believe that open software has a place and is a really good choice. My opinion is that the GPLv3 is completely toxic, spawned from negativity and is ultimately anti-open source. I will never release any software under the GPLv3.
Does GPLv3 really prevent an OS from doing those things? I think it would just prevent it in the same executable as GPLv3 software?
I don’t actually understand Apple’s “allergy”. On the iPhone I’m sure they object to the Tivoization clause (which coincidentally is why I like to use GPLv3), but I’m pretty darn sure macOS doesn’t fall afoul of anything...