[ninkendo]

Apple had no problem including "copyleft" code in their OS for the longest time... but GPLv3 is a no-go due to the closed nature of their other platforms (iOS). GPLv3 adds the requirement that code for derived works not only be released, but that someone should be able to build their own modifications on that platform for free, won't work with the way the the iOS developer agreement works ($99 a year.)

And it wasn't worth the complexity of having different software for each of their OS's, so they just banned all GPLv3 software from the OS.

Apple's use of open source could have totally worked with "copyleft", but only the GPLv2 usage of the word. GPLv3, not so much.

[tzs]

> GPLv3 adds the requirement that code for derived works not only be released, but that someone should be able to build their own modifications on that platform for free, won't work with the way the the iOS developer agreement works ($99 a year.)

I don't see anything in GPLv3 about people having to be able to build derived works for no cost.

What GPLv3 adds is a requirement that your provide "Installation Information" to allow you to install and run the code once you build it. Installation information is things like keys to sign the code if the platform it is for only runs signed code.

The installation information requirement only applies when the object code was conveyed "as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized)". A "User Product" is "either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling".

GPLv3 object code that is not conveyed as part of a change of possession of a User Product is not subject to the installation information requirement. This requirement was added to GPLv3 specifically to stop what TiVo was doing--shipping GPL code on their boxes that could not be replaced by the user--and it was narrowly drafted to only cover that situation.

[ninkendo]

Hmm, I guess there's two arguments happening here...

- Apple can't include GPLv3 software in iOS because it only runs signed code, and the keys needed to sign system components are kept secret by Apple. From this perspective, the developer agreement is a red herring.

- App Store developers can't include GPLv3 code in their apps, because then Apple would be breaking the terms of GPLv3 by not providing the "Installation Information" as you put it, which would be required for users to freely modify the app. (This "Installation information" being the iOS SDK and a Developer signing key needed to run your own code on your device.) Keep in mind that when Apple distributes your app via the app store, they take on the responsibilities to adhere to the terms of its license as they pertain to "redistribution", since that's exactly what Apple is doing.

> GPLv3 object code that is not conveyed as part of a change of possession of a User Product is not subject to the installation information requirement. This requirement was added to GPLv3 specifically to stop what TiVo was doing--shipping GPL code on their boxes that could not be replaced by the user--and it was narrowly drafted to only cover that situation.

If Apple were to include GPLv3 code directly as part of iOS, they absolutely would be "shipping GPL code on their boxes that could not be replaced by the user"... something that is OK in GPLv2 (so long as you provide the source like they're doing in TFA), but not OK in GPLv3 (because of the tivoization clauses.)

To tie all this to my original point... macOS ends up having to kill all its uses of GPLv3 (even though you can replace it on device and build your own, on macs), because of the shared architecture and engineering with iOS. It's easier to just ban GPLv3 from the entire company really.