In the Apple case, I think it's really the other way around. In the past, they incorporated tons of GPL2 software and released some of their own. It's the GPL3 that they're allergic to, maybe due to the patent grant but it also directly forbids having an immutable root of trust.
Conversation
It's GPL3 that bans using the software as part of firmware or an OS with signature verification based on an immutable key in hardware. Apple couldn't have used it on the iPhone unless they supported users setting the key like many other devices. Patent grant may also scare them.
2
1
If someone is using GPL3 because they believe in the ideology behind it, then I don't think they would want to sell a license for creating a locked down device. You could use GPL3 to force companies to pay for a license for this case, but it's a tiny subset of commercial use.
3
One "ideological" position is "if you're doing locked down proprietary stuff you should be heavily finding the folks who are creating free alternatives to it".
1
Do Amazon's web services not qualify as heavily locked down proprietary stuff? My understanding is that it's one of the major reasons for the recent push for alternatives to OSI / FSF approved licenses. Some of the projects involved were using AGPL3 and weren't happy with it.
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Redis abandoned Commons Clause for their proprietary extensions and moved to Redis Source Available license.
1
I'm aware, but I didn't feel the additional move was relevant to the discussion and worth adding another tweet. I also didn't mention more examples because mentioning 2 of them gets the point across.
1
... MongoDB isn't using Commons Clause either. They wrote a different license based on AGPLv3 called SSPL. MongoDB is now under SSPL version 1.
Neo4j was using AGPLv3 + Commons Clause for their enterprise edition, but now they are not going to make the source available.
2
Do you have an example where Commons Clause is still being used?
1
It's not about the Commons Clause specifically but about projects moving to non-FSF / non-OSI approved licenses with clauses aimed at forcing service companies to pay for the software. Redis using an even stricter license than the Commons Clause is the entire point.
Indeed, it is disappointing to me that AGPLv3 is being abandoned for these non-Free, non-Open-Source licenses. The confusing thing is that, as far as I know, none of the software in question was ever included in an AWS service in the first place. Literally none of it. 🤷♂️
2
I replaced my tweet about that with links to their current licenses.
1
Show replies