Re: GPLv3, was: Copying off Time Machine?

objectwerks inc squawked out on Wednesday 03-Oct-2012@16:10:42
> On Oct 3, 2012, at 3:53 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> And that is exactly what Apple (and Microsoft) appear to want to hold =
as a reserve option: the ability to benefit from other people's work, =
not contribute back, while simultaneously restricting user freedom =
previously granted under the GPL. The GPLv3 very clearly bitch slaps =
this notion.
>=20
> That is really disingenuous.

Yes, of course it is. But arguing with Chris is pointless, which is why =
I=92m not doing it.

> Apple gives back a ton to the open source community.  Besides the =
whole webkit thing,

Which is the foundation of Google Chrome. It is also the most used web =
rendering engine, ahead of Mozilla=92s Gecko and Microsoft=92s (whatever =
it=92s called) and is used on Macs, Windows, Linux, PS3, iOS, Android, =
Symbian, and a variety of other platforms. Safari, Chrome, Reconq, =
OmniWeb,  and I think even the Kindle Fire browser.

> FreeBSD has a bunch of code that Apple put back as do lots of other =
projects.  This is a GPL issue, not Apple's "ability to benefit from =
other people's work, [and] not contribute back=94.

But that doesn=92t jibe with the notion that Apple is an evil company =
that steals other people=92s work and was =91bitch slapped=92 by GPLv3. =
The new provisions in the GPLv3, for one thing, prevent code signing by =
the OS vendor and makes the OS X sandbox impossible.

The gplv3 FAQ says this:
> I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its =
authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private =
signing keys?
>=20
> No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if =
you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware =
checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would =
function. In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone =
who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install =
modified software on his device so that it will run. If each instance of =
the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser =
the key for his instance.

Everything following =93No=94 is saying =93Yes", you would have to give =
up private signing keys if you are code-signing for safety.

--=20
NO. I CANNOT BE BIDDEN. I CANNOT BE FORCED. I WILL DO ONLY THAT WHICH I
KNOW TO BE RIGHT. --Mort