Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kwpolska | Hacker News Reader

That's a brand new excuse, Apple refused to distribute GPLv3 when GPLv3 was first published, 20ish years ago. How is GPLv3 incompatible with their system volume, yet GPLv2 is still fine?

View on HN

GPLv3 added language which specifically requires that GPLv3 software embedded in products be distributed with "Installation Information" explaining how modified versions of that software can be installed. It is not at all clear how this would apply to software in an immutable, signed system volume. This language was not present in GPLv2.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html#section6

(There are other issues with GPLv3 which make it a dubious choice for companies like Apple, but this one is particularly problematic.)

These are issues with companies like Apple, not GPLv3. The only problem with GPLv3 is it’s not restrictive enough.

You're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that the situation is "Apple can't distribute them", not "Apple doesn't want to distribute them".

Continuing to "correct" "want" to "can't" doesn't make sense, even under your interpretation of the situation. Even assuming the GPLv3 requires all software on the machine to ship under a compatible license (it doesn't), they can do that. They don't want to.

Spare me

This isn't new, GPLv2 is somehow compatible. This is the entire reason Mac OS ships an old version of bash but recent git.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com