The problem is that they aren't using Samba, they are using their own SMB implementation. They had to move after Samba went GPL3, and it hasn't been as performant or stable since (although recently it's a little better).
Well they didn't have to move, just to be captain pedantic :-). They chose to do so, as they made a policy decision not to use any GPLv3 code. Which is their right to do so, of course.
Apple have been moving to only permissively licenced code for a while now.
Sorry, a genuine question: it seems that they have to move as GPLv3 is anti-tivolization and Apple is TiVo-like (namely macOS are only licensed on Apple hardware.)
So in this case apple’s action is a direct response to FSF’s decision to be anti-tivolization? Ie they are forced to either change their model to comply, or not use GPLv3 licensed softwares?
Well for Apples motives you would have to ask Apple.
But from an external view of Apple, yes - this does seem to be a direct response to the GPLv3 anti-tivoization clause. Again, this is perfectly within their rights so I don't want anyone to think I'm complaining about this (anymore:-).
I'm more annoyed with the FSF over GPLv3 than Apple. At least Apple have the courage of their convictions, which cannot be said anymore of the FSF.
https://www.osnews.com/story/24572/apple-ditches-samba-in-fa...