HN Explorer

8 comments

[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 30.0 ms ] thread
droithomme
Is that really a violation? The made small modifications to gcc, they were asked for the source code to those modifications, they gave the source code to those who requested it. Isn't that what the GPL says? You have to make the source code available?
terrywilcox
NeXT voluntarily coming into compliance when asked is not nearly as exciting as "Apple violates GPL!".
marekmroz
...voluntarily coming into compliance AFTER being caught in the act of non-compliance which made it a GPL violator.
droithomme
Pretty sure they would have to withhold source code to be in violation.

Unless you mean that products in development have to have all the latest code available at all times, even when it's not finished yet. I suppose GPL could be interpreted that way, but it sure isn't normally.

terrywilcox
Except it wasn't Apple.

NeXT wasn't Apple. It particularly wasn't Apple in 1989.

And it came into compliance, then contributed to gcc.

That makes the headline bogus. Fishing for page views?

ars
Turn off javascript and this page linearizes very nicely and saves you from having to click hundreds of times.
xdissent
Life saver... except it's not worth reading.
tzs
What is the alleged FUD Apple spreads about GPL3?