|
|
|
|
|
by eridius
3330 days ago
|
|
Big companies don't avoid GPL because it's "untested". Big companies avoid GPL because it's actually quite dangerous for them to use. GPLv2 only so far as if they accidentally taint their proprietary code with it, then they need to open up their code (which is bad enough). But GPLv3 is really fucking scary. As it was once put to me, if a single GPLv3 binary accidentally makes it onto the OS image for iOS, Apple would then legally be required to release the master signing key to the whole world, completely destroying the whole security model of iOS and screwing everybody (not just Apple but also Apple's users who rely on that security). Plus the patent clause in GPLv3 is also nasty. |
|
Here is a great example of Google reversing course on the AGPL (when they reversed their decision to ban AGPL code from Google Code in Sep 2010):
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/31/google_on_open_sour...
Apple also _still_ ships GPL code in macOS Sierra 10.12:
http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/
People use GPL software, extensively.
Any use of GPL software is a compliment to the software authors.
Any contribution back to the software will improve it for everyone. Would it really be so hard for Apple to maintain a GPLv2 fork of bash that backported the security fixes, a la RedHat?