OS X (at least the version on the Macbook I got from IT) also ships with a horribly outdated Bash, so I don’t think it healthy to put it up as a standard for anything…
Is there a particular reason for that? I can understand not wanting to ship GPLv3 code if it is embedded sufficiently deeply into the hardware, but it shouldn’t be a problem to ship GPLv3 Bash, as the user can change the binary delivered on the harddrive at any time?
If Apple ships any OS X devices with DRM, they would have to have a separate build without the gplv3 bash in it. It would double support costs, maintenance and so on.
And patents. Any patents covering bash would loose value from using a GPLv3 bash. This also include any patent agreement Apple has, which include additional legal overhead.
GPLv2 vs GPLv3 is and always will be Patents and DRM.
> Likewise Torvalds refuses to let GPLv3 touch the kernel.
Please don't misrepresent other peoples view points out of context.
If you want to read Linux Torvalds opinion, I suggest that you start with either one of the many articles about it (like http://news.cnet.com/Torvalds-No-GPL-3-for-Linux/2100-7344_3...), or any of the many mails on the mailing list. You will notices that Torvalds criticism is mostly directed at the DRM provisions, since he don't think a copyright license should be able to dictate a political matter such as DRM restrictions on devices.
To quote:
"I also don't necessarily like DRM myself," Torvalds wrote.
"But...I'm an 'Oppenheimer,' and I refuse to play politics with Linux,
and I think you can use Linux for whatever you want to--which very much
includes things I don't necessarily personally approve of."
Torvalds didn't put the "or any later version" clause in the Kernel's GPL license. And he hasn't required copyright assignments. Because of this, the kernel simply can't be converted to GPLv3. You would never be able to contact all the individual copyright holders and have them agree with complete consensus to re-licensing.
"I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example. I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my
code."
He's spoken out against it personally - he cleary _doesn't like it_.
That quote referred to an interpretation of the initial public draft of GPLv3, which was radically different from the final version published in June 2007, including with respect to the so-called anti-Tivoization provisions. Of an interim draft of GPLv3 in March 2007, fairly close to what ended up being final, Linus said "Unlike earlier drafts, at least it does not sully the good name of the GPL".
However, you're correct that Linus clearly does not like even the released version of GPLv3.
I'm curious what specific issue Apple has with GPLv3 for something like bash? It seems to me that if they're providing the source, and not modifying the copyright/license, there would be no issue. The patent language only applies to the program itself. I guess one could view it as simple paranoia on the part of their lawyers...they took years to start shipping any GPL (v2) code on the Mac. It's actually news to me that it has bash out of the box, now; last time I used Mac OS X, it still had tcsh and an abominable development environment and I hated it.
