Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Isn't Apple clang open source anyway? So what is really the point?

Even distribuiting GPL software isn't a big deal, nowadays even Microsoft does that, shipping an entire Linux distribution in Windows!

There are no technical motivations for not using GPL software, you can do that as long you respect the GPL license (i.e. release the modified source code).

I think that what Apple does is more a policy to go against the FOSS community for political reasons that anything else, and to me is bad, in a world where now even Microsoft is opening up a lot to the open source world.




[Ex FAANG here]

> I think that what Apple does is more a policy to go against the FOSS community for political reasons that anything else

This is the real reason why FAANGs push for non-GPL licenses.

GPL's end goal is to build a community where developers, testers, power users and regular users connect with each other and share knowledge, not just code.

FAANGs want to wedge themselves as the middleman between developers and end users. They view such community as a threat.


> FAANGs want to wedge themselves as the middleman between developers and end users.

well... ostensibly that is where the money can be made (at the point they meet the end-user)


> Isn't Apple clang open source anyway? So what is really the point?

The best explanation I have seen is the speculation that apples software patents are seen as a critical part of apples business model and competitive strategy, especially 10 years ago when their anti-gpl stance was formed. GPLv3 patent clause adds risk, especially the patent agreement clause, and if you intend to spend millions over software patent lawsuits then staying away from GPLv3 looks much more reasonable, especially if you ask the patent lawyers.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: