[millstone]

Apple has no grand plans to dominate open source, that's silly. All of Apple's OSS contributions can be easily understood as solving Apple's needs.

Apple's LLVM involvement is not driven by spite towards the GPL; Apple simply needed a compiler that was compatible with their business model. Likewise they started WebKit so as not to be dependent on MS for a browser, and Swift because they wanted a successor to aging ObjC.

Apple does not have a monopoly in any market.

[infinity0]

That's very innocent and naive of you to believe, though of course it's easy to write off any corporate misbehaviour as "solving business needs".

Steve Jobs originally tried to keep the ObjC compiler frontend to GCC proprietary but was forced to open source it due to GPL requirements. Needless to say he hated the GPL ever since that episode and of course jumped on the opportunity to fund a competitor with a non-copyleft license.

[vlozko]

Lots of companies hate the GPL. It’s nowhere exclusive to Apple. So what? They don’t have to align with your vision of what open source should be like. What’s wrong with the idea of playing in a different sandbox with a different set of rules if the rules in your current sandbox aren’t ideal? Are you suggesting that we should shame companies who don’t want to deal with GPL-licenses code?