Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Proposal for "FUD responses" wiki pages

[J.B. Nicholson]

Daniel Pocock wrote:
> "Isn't that only true for companies who are making and selling
> proprietary software?  Did you know that companies in many industries
> that don't produce software themselves find GPL attractive?"

Apple poses an odd but clarifying exception here: Apple makes software 
(some of which is free software) and has owned CUPS (GPL'd printer 
software) since February 2007. To date, Apple distributes CUPS under the 
GNU GPL as part of MacOS X.

But Apple is eager to get rid of GPL'd software whose copyright they don't 
own: Samba and GCC come to mind as examples. I think this confirms the 
value of the GPL and its ability (when enforced) to keep distributors on a 
share-and-share-alike basis. Naturally, sharing as equals conflicts with 
user subjugation which is at the heart of all proprietary software.

Why is Apple behaving this way? I believe Apple's anti-GPL irrationality 
started when NeXT was caught violating the Free Software Foundation's 
copyright by distributing a GCC derivative without complete corresponding 
source code or a written promise for said source code[1]. NeXT eventually 
complied with the GPL but only after being challenged by the Free Software 
Foundation (GCC's copyright holder). The case never went to court (per the 
FSF's usual policy of first seeking license compliance).

So I'd bet other proprietors are in a similar position: they don't mind the 
GPL when they're the copyright holder and they can't effectively relicense 
a GPL'd program without competing against their own code. But they complain 
when they're the licensee (such as GitHub's Tom Preston-Werner claiming the 
GPL is "too restrictive"[2] while the GPL apparently didn't stop him and 
others from building a lucrative business around git, which is licensed 
under the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1).


[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html
[2] https://tom.preston-werner.com/2011/11/22/open-source-everything.html