[jraph]

> GPLv2 which doesn't require the freedom to RUN the program

It does. This is the first freedom of free software. I'm not sure the issues with distributing GPL software on the App store are specific to the GPLv3. I don't fully understand things on this, but [1] seems to be a good entry point.

> apple seems to ship software with gplv2 (old bash, etc) but no GPLv3 software.

This is an Apple policy / a choice that they make. They could decide to distribute GPLv3 software with Mac legally, but chose not to.

> by modifying and shipping bash binaries without full source - it is missing rootless.h (not the X11 file)

I would be interested in knowing more about this. I'm surprised they've not been already sued if they violate bash's license.

[1] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/9500/is-apple...

[m463]

> It does. This is the first freedom of free software.

I don't think so:

The Free Software Foundation explicitly forbade tivoization in version 3 of the GNU General Public License.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

I think this is one of the reasons GPLv3 came along.

[jraph]

Forbidding tivoization does not forbid running the program, it forbids embedding the program in some piece of hardware and then not providing a means for the end user to run their own modified version on this same hardware. If a TV is to use some GPLv3 program, then it must allow the user to replace the program with their own version.

And yes, tivoization is a major reason why GPLv3 was written indeed, it was seen as a loophole to fix by the FSF.

[m463]

But what about apple restricting you from running a binary? If you don't have an apple id, you can't run apps? And you cannot redistribute the binary to someone else, since it won't run.

[jraph]

I agree with you on this, I guess I was bothered by the phrasing.

[shmerl]

From what I remember, GPLv3 is simply a clarification of GPLv2, the intent was always the same for all the purposes. But how lawyers see it could be another matter.

[shagie]

That isn't necessarily what some contributors of software under GPL version 2 thought.

---

Linus Torvalds says GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for - https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU

The start of the video:

Q: do you agree that you undermine GPL version 3 and how can I get you to stop

Linus: what

Q: how can we get you to stop

Linus: oh I hate GPL version 3 undermined it on purpose I actually thought the GPL version 3 extensions were horrible. I understand why people would want to do them but I think it should have been a completely new license. My argument for liking version 2 - and I still think version 2 is a great license - was that I give you source code you give me your changes back we're even. Right - that's that's my take on GPL version 2 it's that simple and version 3 extended that in ways that I personally am really uncomfortable with; namely I give you source code that means that if you use that source code you can't use it on your device unless you follow my rules and to me that's that's a violation of everything version 2 stood for ...

[m463]

Funny because RMS has said you can USE the software for any purpose. It's just that when you redistribute it you have to pass on the rights you received along.

[saagarjha]

Sued by whom? The bash people seem like they have better things to do than sue Apple.

[shagie]

    shagie@Mac-Pro ~ % bash --version
    GNU bash, version 3.2.57(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin23)
    Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

I will note that is an interesting date as version 3 of the GPL was released on 29 June 2007 -- https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html

https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash/ has version 3.2.57.

Opening up the 'COPYING' file from that distribution:

          GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
             Version 2, June 1991
    
     Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
         59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA
     Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
     of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Apple is scrupulous at ensuring that they only distribute GPL Version 2 software, if at all (they've made efforts to switch to using BSD licensed software wherever possible).

There's no reason for bash people or FSF to sue Apple as they are strictly following the license.

[saagarjha]

Apple’s violation of GPL has nothing to do with which version they’re using and everything to do with failing to provide source code promptly that matches the OS they’re shipping.

[shagie]

The source for the version that Apple ships is at https://opensource.apple.com/source/bash/bash-123.40.1/

[saagarjha]

The source for something that resembles something Apple ships is at that link, sure.

[shagie]

I'm not sure how to respond to this. You're making the claim that Apple is violating the GPL by not publishing the source of the bash. When shown the open source repository that Apple provides to comply with the license you wave it off and suggest that the binary that Apple provides isn't compiled from that source.

Do you have any evidence to support the claim that bash on a Mac is not what is build with the source there? If so, I am sure that the FSF would love to have an easily winnable lawsuit against a big company that goes in favor of the GPL. That the FSF hasn't done so in a decade and a half suggests that there is no license violation.

[BSDobelix]

That one?

https://opensource.apple.com/source/bash/bash-123.40.1/versi...

[saagarjha]

Nope; see the conversation above for why not.

[jraph]

The Free Software Foundation.

Bash is part of the GNU project. As a consequence, I believe contributors assign their copyright to the FSF. I downloaded a random release of bash 3 (3.0.16) and opened a random C file from it and it is indeed "Copyright (C) 1993-2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc."

I appreciate that individual developers might not have the time & energy to engage in a lawsuit against Apple, but the FSF is bigger, and has all the incentive to be firm with the terms of the GPL licenses for the licenses to look strong. Developers can also certainly request help from the Software Freedom Conservancy [1] or the Software Freedom Law Center [2] (which has helped BusyBox win several lawsuits) for this kind of stuff. Apparently the SFLC has helped the FSF in the past, against Cisco, if I'm to believe [2].

[1] https://sfconservancy.org/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center