objectwerks inc squawked out on Wednesday 03-Oct-2012@16:10:42 > On Oct 3, 2012, at 3:53 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> And that is exactly what Apple (and Microsoft) appear to want to hold as a >> reserve option: the ability to benefit from other people's work, not >> contribute back, while simultaneously restricting user freedom previously >> granted under the GPL. The GPLv3 very clearly bitch slaps this notion. > > That is really disingenuous.
Yes, of course it is. But arguing with Chris is pointless, which is why I’m not doing it. > Apple gives back a ton to the open source community. Besides the whole > webkit thing, Which is the foundation of Google Chrome. It is also the most used web rendering engine, ahead of Mozilla’s Gecko and Microsoft’s (whatever it’s called) and is used on Macs, Windows, Linux, PS3, iOS, Android, Symbian, and a variety of other platforms. Safari, Chrome, Reconq, OmniWeb, and I think even the Kindle Fire browser. > FreeBSD has a bunch of code that Apple put back as do lots of other projects. > This is a GPL issue, not Apple's "ability to benefit from other people's > work, [and] not contribute back”. But that doesn’t jibe with the notion that Apple is an evil company that steals other people’s work and was ‘bitch slapped’ by GPLv3. The new provisions in the GPLv3, for one thing, prevent code signing by the OS vendor and makes the OS X sandbox impossible. The gplv3 FAQ says this: > I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is > it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys? > > No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you > conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the > software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function. In > that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the > device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on his > device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different > key, then you need only give each purchaser the key for his instance. Everything following “No” is saying “Yes", you would have to give up private signing keys if you are code-signing for safety. -- NO. I CANNOT BE BIDDEN. I CANNOT BE FORCED. I WILL DO ONLY THAT WHICH I KNOW TO BE RIGHT. --Mort _______________________________________________ MacOSX-admin mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin
