[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.

[saagarjha]

It’s literally at the top of this thread! Apple for years provided source code that didn’t compile because they considered some of their proprietary additions as “secret” and failed to include those headers. If you want more evidence of this being a regular occurrence, I have plenty of examples where Apple leaves security features out of the sources intentionally. Or you can look at WebKit, which is LGPL for many components but whose public source code has an explicit gap (search for “WebKitAdditions”) where Apple violates the license by shipping code in their OS that is not included.