Apple violating the GPL with bash on "OS X"?

M

makkie_messer

Registered
How is Apple using bash on "OS X" as the default shell without providing the GPL message and the source code for bash?

Doesn't that violate the GPL?

Can't Apple be sued for this?
 
Apple does so with Darwin. Could be that this is a grey area, however: Apple _does_ release the (changed?) source code and the copyright notice is included (man bash, bash --version etc.).

I don't see Apple being punished for using and helping the open source community.

The really ugly question, however, is whether Apple - with including bash as a system function - has to release all of Mac OS X (or at least Darwin) under the GPL now. ;-)
 
fryke said:
The really ugly question, however, is whether Apple - with including bash as a system function - has to release all of Mac OS X (or at least Darwin) under the GPL now. ;-)
Click to expand...

No.
 
makkie_messer said:
How is Apple using bash on "OS X" as the default shell without providing the GPL message and the source code for bash?

Doesn't that violate the GPL?

Can't Apple be sued for this?
Click to expand...

Did Apple modify bash and not release the modifications? Did they not display the copyright?

And are you privileged to the direct licensing of this software from the Free Software Foundation to Apple Computer? They have the rights and privileges to license it as they see fit. You have read the GPL haven't you?

GPL v.2
"For software which is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally."
Click to expand...

Apple is very careful about how it licenses it software. They didn't use gnutar and instead used pax in their package design because their legal department wasn't happy with the license they could get.

I suggest that you read both the GPL and APSL.

And to answer your question: No Apple is not going to be sued for this.

Another licensing questions?
 
fryke said:
The really ugly question, however, is whether Apple - with including bash as a system function - has to release all of Mac OS X (or at least Darwin) under the GPL now. ;-)
Click to expand...

Apple included bash as an executable and not as incorporated code. Mac OS X and Darwin are both made up of many parts that run together but are not integrated. GNU-Bash is software, not unlike Word or Internet Explorer (just better ;) ).

A good place to learn and follow these types of issues is Groklaw.

You would be amazed at how many people don't understand the GPL... well, after this thread maybe not.
 
In the Software License Agreement of Panther, section 12 B it says:
Certain software libraries and other third party software included with the Apple Software are free software and licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) or the GNU Library/Lesser General Public License (LGPL), as the case may be. You may obtain a complete machine readable copy of the source code for such free software under the terms of the GPL or LGPL, as the case may be, without charge except for the cost of media, shipping, and handling, upon written request to Apple. [...] A copy of the GPL and LGPL is included with the Apple Software.
Click to expand...
(My emphasis)

So Apple does distribute the source code and does include the GPL/LGPL. Hence Apple does not violate the GPL terms and cannot be sued for this.

Why do you persist in trying to find fault with Apple and their use and contribution to Open Source / Free software? Also your other thread on whether Apple owed something to FreeBSD had the same accusatory tone ...
If something is bothering you, come out straight and say what it is instead of slinging mud at Apple. Of all the big commercial OS/software companies, Apple probably contributed most to the Open Source community.
 
I'm pretty sure bash didn't appear until 10.2 precisely because Apple were sorting out the license issues. They seem to take great care to ensure that they don't abuse the free software that has helped to make Mac OS X such a wonderful OS.
 
Other reasons, too, symphonix... tcsh was standard until 10.1 at least. It was also replaced by bash as the default shell because the people who actually _use_ it asked for it.

RacerX: I hope you _did_ see my smileys in the post.

But about bash being 'only an application' and not an integral part of the operating system: That's a thing that is quite opinion-based. For the 'usual' Mac OS X user, the shell is certainly not the primary way of interacting with the computer. However: Mac OS X is a UN*X operating system, and the shell can at least be seen as the most important interface to the computer for _some_ people. And as such, it's _quite_ an integral part of the OS.

But I'm with you: I don't see anyone trying to sue Apple over this issue.

And instead of talking about this, we should all be making pressure on SCO to finally stop their stupid task against linux etc.
 
fryke said:
But about bash being 'only an application' and not an integral part of the operating system: That's a thing that is quite opinion-based. For the 'usual' Mac OS X user, the shell is certainly not the primary way of interacting with the computer. However: Mac OS X is a UN*X operating system, and the shell can at least be seen as the most important interface to the computer for _some_ people. And as such, it's _quite_ an integral part of the OS.
Click to expand...

You could say the same thing about the Finder, but in the end it is an application running on the operating system. And like bash, the Finder can be replaced with alternatives. But in the end, the Finder is separate from Darwin and does not fall into that licensing.

Besides, has any one here tried to work on a Mac OS X installation without the BSD packages installed? It works, and some people can live happily without it.

RacerX: I hope you _did_ see my smileys in the post.
Click to expand...

Sorry if my post had a harder tone, it wasn't meant to be directed towards you.

I have been following the SCO case for quite some time and the original post sounds very much like the FUD that SCO is using to undermine Linux, the GPL and free software in general (including attacks on the BSD licenses).

I don't know what bone makkie_messer has with Apple, but everyone dependent on open source software should be working together. Fortunately he is unique in his perception of the situation.
 
symphonix said:
I'm pretty sure bash didn't appear until 10.2 precisely because Apple were sorting out the license issues. They seem to take great care to ensure that they don't abuse the free software that has helped to make Mac OS X such a wonderful OS.
Click to expand...

It wasn't default, but it was there before . My ThinkPad has it, but uses tcsh as the default. That is from 1998. And without checking, I seem to remember that NeXT included a number of shells with OPENSTEP and NEXTSTEP too.
 

Attachments

  • terminal.jpg
    terminal.jpg
    59.2 KB · Views: 26
bash was around before 10.2, it just wasn't default. The entire thing to remember with GPL software is, you can do anything in the world you want with it, without getting permission, etc. The only requirement is, if you are using GPL code in a commerical product, you must give access to the GPL code that you using and any modifications you have made to the GPL code itself. It does not have to ship with the product, you just have to have a way to give the code to people who wish to see it. TiVo for example is based on Linux, it has a GPL license in the box, and you can download the GPL code they have modified from their website.

Oh, and what does being the default shell have to do with legal licenses?

Brian
 
Hey! What they really need to include is the korn shell! (ksh)
When you install it yourself, the man pages are missing!

(would the pdksh man pages work for regular ksh?)

(does anyone even actually know of what i speak? )
 
Cat wrote:
In the Software License Agreement of Panther, section 12 B it says:
...
So Apple does distribute the source code and does include the GPL/LGPL.
...

That's the best answer yet posted but, Apple is still treading on thin ice with that kind of a vague promise. Specificly whom would someone contact to request the code? Who is responsible for that at Apple? If someone requests the code, and Apple fails to provide it, even accidentally, Apple is in violation.

Linux provides the GPL source code on the distribution CDs or DVDs. Apple does not.
 
Geez, leave them alone already. Do you have some sort of UNIX-based vengeance against Apple?

They have links to all the open source software they use right on their Open Source page. Sure, they link to external sites instead of hosting the files on their own servers, but there's nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it, feel free to take them to court; I'm sure the judge would be happy to dismiss your case. :rolleyes:
 
Linux doesn't provide anything, as linux is merely a term - not a company or even a product, makkie.
And the other answers, I think, are good as well.

Gia: That's not Classic, that's Rhapsody.
 
makkie_messer said:
Cat wrote:
In the Software License Agreement of Panther, section 12 B it says:
...
So Apple does distribute the source code and does include the GPL/LGPL.
...

That's the best answer yet posted but, Apple is still treading on thin ice with that kind of a vague promise. Specificly whom would someone contact to request the code? Who is responsible for that at Apple? If someone requests the code, and Apple fails to provide it, even accidentally, Apple is in violation.

Linux provides the GPL source code on the distribution CDs or DVDs. Apple does not.
Click to expand...

Apple's not treading on thin ice -- I would suggest you get in contact with Apple and request the source code, and I'll bet you find that you get it. Plus, that's not a "vague promise" -- in actuality, it's a pretty defined and concrete promise. You write to them, they give it to you, and I'd be willing to bet that everyone that's written to them requesting source code has gotten it.

Also, there is no regulation on how the source code must be distributed, other than it be unmodified -- as outlined in the license, you do NOT have to package the source code with the executable. You only need to make it available. Apple's completely covered their bases on this one.
 
Arden said:
Sure, they link to external sites instead of hosting the files on their own servers, but there's nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's the preferred way to do it -- it guarantees that the source code you get is unmodified. If you wish to see Apple's modifications to that code, you write to Apple.
 
makkie_messer said:
Specificly whom would someone contact to request the code? Who is responsible for that at Apple? If someone requests the code, and Apple fails to provide it, even accidentally, Apple is in violation.
Click to expand...

I guess you need some help finding the source code (sad)... here you go:

Maybe you should look harder before bringing these things up. ;)

Oh, and look, there is the source code for bash! Amazing!

I look forward to your next FUD thread... I mean FUN thread. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top