[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[OFFTOPIC] Apple and GPL (was: Emacs CLA requirement)

From: Christopher Dimech
Subject: [OFFTOPIC] Apple and GPL (was: Emacs CLA requirement)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 15:50:42 +0200

> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 1:25 AM
> From: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> To: "Philip Kaludercic" <philipk@posteo.net>
> Cc: tomas@tuxteam.de, "Andrei Kuznetsov" <r12451428287@163.com>, 
> emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Subject: [OFFTOPIC] Apple and GPL (was: Emacs CLA requirement)
> > Yes, that is what I mean. They just stopped updating e.g. bash, so they
> > didn't have to use the GPLv3 license. Why, I too never understood.
> IIUC it's fundamentally because poor little Steve Jobs was traumatized
> when he was forced by the GPL to release the source code modifications
> to GCC that added support for Objective C.
> Exactly how that early-life trauma with GPL<3 turned into a paranoia
> about GPL≥3 is still somewhat unclear, tho.
>         Stefan

The paranoia is there because the new licenses contains a series of clauses that
address problems that were insufficiently covered in version 2 of the GPL.  The
most important new regulations are as follows:

a) GPLv3 contains compatibility regulations to combine GPL code with code that 
published under different licenses (e.g. code under Apache license v. 2.0).

b) Regulations concerning digital restrictions management DRM were inserted to 
GPL software from being changed and restricted by technical protective measures
according to the DMCA directive.

c) The GPLv3 contains an explicit patent license, according to which people who 
a program under the GPL license both copyrights as well as patents to the 
extent that
this is necessary to use the code licensed by them.  The patent clause attempts 
to protect
users from the consequences of agreements between patent owners and licensees 
of the GPL
that only benefit some of the licensees.  

d) In contrast to the GPLv2, the GPLv3 clearly states that there is no 
requirement to
disclose the source code in an application service provider (ASP) use of GPL 
as long as a copy of the software is not sent to the client.  If the copyleft 
is to be extended to ASP use, the Affero General Public License, Version 3 
(AGPL) must
be applied that only differs from the GPLv3 in this regard.

As for armament systems and procedures, I am of the view that  the Affero 
General Public License, Version 3 (AGPL) must be applied


----- Christopher Dimech
Administrator General - Naiad Informatics - Gnu Project

Society has become too quick to pass judgement and declare someone
Persona Non-Grata, the most extreme form of censure a country can

In a new era of destructive authoritarianism, I support Richard
Stallman.  Times of great crisis are also times of great
opportunity.  I call upon you to make this struggle yours as well !

https://www.fsf.org/     https://www.gnu.org/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]