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

I can see it makes sense for Apple (anti-tivoization is something they do not want).

> I can't say for certain why they can't use GPLv3 - just that no company I've ever worked for (n=4 since GPLv3 came out) - will allow it on premise

So they do not allow the use of things like Bash or GNU coreutils? That seems quite restrictive and difficult.




They often use older version of things like Bash and Coreutils, or equivalents from other ecosystems (i.e. Apple ships the BSD versions thereof)


So, for example, if they use RHEL version 6 or later they will install it without the default shell?

Apple is different as they produce their own OS. I am asking about non-software companies avoiding GPL3 which would be necessary for (as the comment I responded to earlier in the tread claims) the use of GPL3 providing a motive to pay for licenses for dual licensed software in a way GPL2 does not.




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

Search: