this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
86 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
660 readers
159 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/El Chisme
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm having trouble following the consequence cascade you're describing. The GPL license updated which tried to add in some copylefting (i.e. Apple was compelled to open source stuff to keep using it). Therefore, they simply stopped updating them so they wouldn't need the new license.
Is that it?
yeah that's the situation as i understand it. obviously im not a lawyer and whatnot but the way i understand it apple would have been required to open source the entirety of macOS if they had included GPLv3 software. GPLv2 was also considered copyleft (in fact, the FSF, who is responsible for GPL, coined the term), but GPLv3 added more stipulations in response to practices by corporations (most notably TiVO) that were not appreciated by the free software community