[lloeki]

They are compatible but that's not the point.

If it were included it would instantly become a LGPL hard-fork because of any subsequently added line of code, if not by "virality" of the glibc license, at least because any glibc author code addition would be LGPL, per GNU project policy/ideology.

Also also this would he a hard bar to pass: https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/CopyrightFSForDisclaim

As I recall this is what prevented Apple from contributing C blocks† back to upstream GCC.

† https://github.com/lloeki/cblocks-clobj

[vkazanov]

What prevents apple from working with gpl-style licenses is strict hatred towards code that they can't use without opensourcing it. So this is what prevents them from contributing to gpl projects: the need to control access to code.

Llvm is OK for them from this point of view: upstream is open but they can maintain and distribute their proprietary fork.

[lloeki]

> What prevents apple from working with gpl-style licenses is strict hatred towards code that they can't use without opensourcing it.

Specifically regarding the C blocks feature introduced in Snow Leopard, as I recall, Apple wrote implementations for both clang and gcc, attempted to upstream the gcc patchset, said gcc patchset was obviously under a GPL license, but the GCC team threw a fit because it wanted the code copyright to be attributed to the FSF, and that ended up as a stalemate.

If there was any hatred they could literally have skipped the whole gcc implementation + patchset upstreaming attempt altogether. Also they did have patchsets of various sizes on other projects, whose code ends up obviously being GPL as well.

The "hatred" came later with the GPLv3 family and the patent clause, which is a legal landmine, the FSF stating that signing apps is incompatible with the GPLv3, and getting hung up on copyright transfer.

From https://lwn.net/Articles/405417/

> Apple's motives may not be pure, but it has published the code under the license required and it's the FSF's own copyright assignment policies that block the inclusion. The code is available and licensed appropriately for the version of GCC that Apple adopted. It might be nice if Apple took the further step of assigning copyright to the FSF, but the GPLv3 was not part of the bargain that Apple agreed to when it first started contributing to GCC.

The intent behind such copyright transfer is generally so that the recipient of the transfer can relicense without having to ask all contributors. Essentially as a contributor agreeing to a transfer means ceding up control on the license that you initially contributed under.

Read another way:

- the FSF says "this code is GPLv2"

- someone contributes under that GPLv2 promise, cedes copyright to the FSF because it's "the process"

- the FSF says "this code is now GPLv3 exclusively"

- that someone says "but that was not the deal!"

- the FSF says "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further."

[vkazanov]

Fsf is a non-profit organisation that proved numerous times that the point of its existence is making sure that I and we and you have freedom to change things we own.

I contribute and transfer copyright to them for my contributions for this sole reason.

Apple is not about freedoms at all.

That's OK. I mean, these are the meanings of what both orgs do. Understanding the system, I'd rather spend my free time on fsf cause (and make money in a commercial organisation).

[Y_Y]

Big evil FSF, always trying to extract value and increase their stock price.

[lloeki]

That was tongue-in-cheek, I thought Darth Vader's voice was enough of a cue.

License switches do happen though, and are the source of outrage. Cue redis.

The cause of transferring copyright is often practical (hard to track down + reach out to + gather answers from all authors-slash-contributors which hampers some critical decisions down the road); for the FSF it's ideological (GCC source code must remain under sole FSF control).

The consequence of the transfer though is not well understood by authors forfeiting their copyright: they essentially agree to work for free for whatever the codebase ends up being licensed to in the future, including possibly becoming entirely closed source.

Think of it next time you sign a CLA!

[Y_Y]

Apologies. I am generally against CLAs, and I think it's shitty of GNU/FSF to use them, even if they promise to only do good and free things.