[slownews45]

Under GPLv2 I could make a device with GPLv2 software and maintain root of trust control of that device if I wanted (ie, do an anti-theft activation lock process, do a lease ownership option of $200/month vs $10K to buy etc).

Think what you will, but your lies about the GPLv3 can easily be tested. Can you point me to some GPLv3 software in the Apple tech stack?

We actually already know the answer.

Apple had to drop Samba (they were a MAJOR end user use of Samba) because of GPLv3

I think they also moved away from GCC for LLVM.

In fact - they've probably purged at least 15 packages I'm aware of and I'm aware of NO GPLv3 packages being included.

Not sure what their App Store story is - but I wouldn't be surprised if they were careful there too.

Oh - this is all lies and apple's lawyers are wrong? Come one - I'm aware of many other companies that absolutely will not ship GPLv3 software for this reason.

In fact, by 2011 even it was clear that GPLv3 is not really workable in a lot of contexts and alternatives like MIT became more popular.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%...

Apple geared up to fight DOJ over maintaining root control of devices (San Bernadino case).

Even Ubuntu has had to deal with this - SFLC made it clear that if some distributor messed things up ubuntu would have to release their keys, which is why they ended up with a MICROSOFT (!) solution.

"Ubuntu wishes to ensure that users can boot any operating system they like and run any software they want. Their concern is that the GPLv3 makes provisions by which the FSF could, in this case as the owner of GRUB2, deem that a machine that won't let them replace GRUB2 with something else is in violation of the GPLv3. At that point, they can demand that Ubuntu surrender its encryption keys used to provide secure bootloader verification--which then allows anyone to sign any bootloader they want, thus negating any security features you could leverage out of the bootloader (for example, intentionally instructing it to boot only signed code--keeping the chain trusted, rather than booting a foreign OS as is the option)." - commentator on this topic.

It's just interesting to me that rather than any substance the folks arguing for GPLv3 reach for name calling type responses.

[gspr]

You can do what you describe with the GPLv3. You'll just have to allow others to swap out the root of trust if they so please.

Everything else you write is just anecdotes about how certain companies have chosen to do things.

[slownews45]

Let me be crystal clear.

If I sell an open source radio with firmware limiting broadcast power / bands etc to regulated limits and ranges - under GPLv3 I can lock down this device to prevent the buyer from modifying it? I'm not talking about making the software available (happy to do that, GPLv2 requires that). I'm talking about the actual devices I build and sell (physical ones).

I can build a Roku or Tivo and lock it down? Have you even read the GPLv3? It has what is commonly called the ANTI-tivoisation clause PRECISELY to block developers from locking devices down for products they sell / ship.

If I rent a device and build in a monthly activation check - I can use my keys to lock device and prevent buyer from bypassing my monthly activation check or other restrictions?

The problem I have with GPLv3 folks is they basically endlessly lie about what you can do with GPLv3 - when there is plenty of VERY CLEAR evidence that everyone from Ubuntu to Apple to many others who've looked at this (yes, with attorney's) says that no - GPLv3 can blow up in your face on this.

So no, I don't believe you. These aren't "just anecdotes" These care companies incurring VERY significant costs to move away / avoid GPLv3 products. AGPLv3 is even more poisonous - I'm not aware of any major players using it (other than those doing the fake open source game).

[gspr]

No, you can't lock it down without letting its owner unlock it. That's indeed the point. But your original comment said you have to give up your encryption keys. That's the lie I was getting at.

Now we can debate whether or not it's a good thing that the user gets full control of his device if he wants it. I think it is. You?

[easton]

That's why Apple's SMB implementation stinks! Finally, there's a reason for it, I thought they had just started before Samba was mature or something.

[slownews45]

Yeah, it was a bit of a big bummer!

Apple used to also interoperate wonderfully if you were using Samba SERVER side too because - well, they were using Samba client side. Those days were fantastic frankly. You would run Samba server side (on Linux), then Mac client side - and still have your windows machines kind of on -network (for accounting etc) too.

But the Samba folks are (or were) VERY hard core GPLv3 folks - so writing was on the wall.

GPLv3 shifted things really from preserving developer freedom for OTHERs to do what they wanted with the code, to requiring YOU to do stuff in various ways which was a big shift. I'd assumed that (under GPLv2) there would be natural convergences, but GPLv3 really blew that apart and we've had a bit of a license fracturing relatively.

AGPLv3 has also been a bit weaponized to do a sort of fake open source where you can only really use the software if you pay for a commercial license.

[lukeh]

The macOS CIFS client was from BSD, not from Samba.

[slownews45]

BSD's have also taken a pretty strong stance against GPLv3 - again for violating their principles on freedom.

I can't dig it up right now but someone can probably find it.

But the BSD's used samba for a while as well.

[easton]

As of Darwin 8.0.1 (so Tiger?) smbclient(1)'s man page was saying it was a component of Samba. I think some BSDs used Samba.