Posted by: Anonymous
on April 17, 2008 09:41 PM
> Thus, you as the developer could attempt to place your code under the GPLv3, but Apple could not
> distribute it -- and since only Apple-signed programs will run, no one else could distribute it either.
There is no impediment to Apple releasing software that's distributed under GPL3. They're not party to the license agreement. Whether or not it's in the spirit of the license, how would Apple in any way bound by the distribution license under which you issue your software?
These constant attempts to somehow make GPL3 apply to parties to which it doesn't legally apply are not helping further open-source software. In fact, they are likely creating a much more legally-defensible position from which to invalidate GPL3 licensing as a constraint.
I don't dispute the fact that the Apple agreement is in conflict with GPL3, only that Apple is in any way liable should they post a GPL3-licensed piece of software. I defy you to find any legal ruling that would in any way make Apple liable in that case.