On Oct 3, 2012, at 4:35 PM, LuKreme wrote: > Yes, of course it is. But arguing with Chris is pointless, which is why I’m > not doing it.
You started it. Twice. But you're not doing it. However, you're right, it's pointless to argue with me when your arguments are specious. >> 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. Well, like any jerk, you manage to put words in my mouth that I didn't say. The *concept* of taking code, and then trying to restrict its usage is what the GPLv3 is bitch slapping. If you'd bothered to read the various sub-licenses, including Apple's own EULA's you can easily recognize that their sublicense is more restrictive of user rights granted under the GPL and that GPLv3 in particular makes such sublicenses invalid. Not any one license is better overall than another in my view. They all do different things that should meet the goals of the developers/copyright holders and the users. The GPL tends to be much more user centric. I am not suggesting Apple should only use the GPL, that everything they have should be GPLv3. I'm suggesting that there is no good reason at all that *anyone* including Apple has ever explained for why they find GPLv3 incompatible with their business model when it comes to specific tools found on Mac OS X. I think they either are reserving restrictive intent for the future of Mac OS X, *OR* they are simply being lazy and lack the granularity to apply the GPLv3 in specific areas where it could work so that we could have current toosl, and not use it where it's not in their interest. > The new provisions in the GPLv3, for one thing, prevent code signing by the > OS vendor and makes the OS X sandbox impossible. This is wrong. I will allow you an opportunity to adjust your statement before I eviscerate this conclusion. > > 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. Another possibility is that you're confused. Or maybe you're too young to play with matches without adult supervision. Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ MacOSX-admin mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin
