[sounds]

Can you point to actual statements by any company on "why we avoid the GPL?"

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?

[eridius]

I'm not aware of public statements, I don't know why any big company would actually go on record as saying that. But what I described above is paraphrasing what I personally was told by a lawyer who worked for a big company.

Also, your own link shows that over time Apple has been shipping fewer and fewer GPL-licensed packages, and explicitly makes the case that Apple is trying to get rid of GPL-licensed software.

> People use GPL software, extensively.

People use all sorts of software. I have no idea why this statement is relevant to big companies shipping GPL software.

> Any use of GPL software is a compliment to the software authors.

I'm even more confused by the inclusion of this statement.