This makes me wonder: why would Apple implement its own version of grep, and not simply ship GNU's version?
Also, GNU's bulletin on Apple Boycott: https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull18.html#SEC13
And also this article which explains why apple is BSD mostly: https://scalibq.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/apples-os-x-is-not-...
raw text: http://hastebin.com/raw/zohoxaxuyi
sudo mv /bin/echo /bin/e
mv: rename echo to e: Operation not permitted
1. Hold Cmd-R as you reboot. That puts you in recovery mode.
2. Bring up a terminal.
3. Run 'csrutil disable'
4. Reboot back into regular mode
It is possible to disable it and even if you couldn't I don't think it has any impact on licensing.
It's easy enough for people who want GNU grep to install it themselves.
If they use GNU grep as part of a distribution that might be included with hardware, it means the GPLv3 anti-tivoization clauses affect any hardware that that distribution is on. Apple being first and foremost a consumer hardware manufacturer whose software exists to add value to that hardware, and wanting to maintain its ability to do what it wants with that hardware including not being constrained by the GPLv3's anti-tivoization clause (even if they aren't doing anything now that would fall afoul of it, they might want to in the future, and don't want to tie their hands in advance), has a very good reason not to touch GPLv3 at all.
(There's other GPLv3 provisions that might be problematic, too, GPLv3 involves more than just a requirement to provide source also licensed under the GPLv3.)
No, they could not. The GPLv3 requires modification information be provided to the "user" by whom a consumer product is "received", not only the "owner" by whom it is "purchased", so lease vs. sell has no effect on the obligations (at least no effect clear from the text of the license.)
For example. A car rental service buys a modern car that has software in it. Does they need additional copyright permission on top of the purchase in order to lease the car out?
A taxi driver buys a modern car with the intention to rent out his service with the car. Is additional copyright permission required?
A school provides students with access to the school computers. Is that conveying a copy of software? What if its "open door day", where the public is invited?
A public library want to have public available computers. Are they conveying copies of software through that?
If you looked at WIPO, it explicitly say no. If you looked at Information Society Directive 2001/29/EC, they explicitly say yes, under the condition that the offer is directed to the public. If you looked at the court cases that has interpreted those texts, then they are inconclusive.
If its intended as a "Consumer Product" as defined in the license, you need copyright permission to put the copy of the software in the product; at that point you either except the condition of providing the required information and functionality to the user to whom you will eventually provide the product -- whether by rental or sale -- or you violate the GPLv3 by putting the copy in the device.
Once you have accepted that condition, you are bound by it.
> For example. A car rental service buys a modern car that has software in it. Does they need additional copyright permission on top of the purchase in order to lease the car out?
They don't need "additional copyright permission", but if the initial copyright license accepted when acquiring the car has restrictions that apply to the use of the software in rentals, then they are bound by those restrictions.
FYI: OS X's grep is FreeBSD's bsdgrep. However, FreeBSD's default grep is still an ancient version of GNU grep (bsdgrep is only available as bsdgrep.).
Also, older versions of OS X used to have GNU grep [1]. So the more likely explanation is Apple's purge of GPL code from OS X. Since later grep versions use GPLv3, GNU grep was a dead end for them.
Unfortunately, FreeBSD's bsdgrep has some very annoying bugs (that are also present in OS X). No one seems to care about them, even when a patch is provided [2].
[1] http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1075/ [2] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201650
On occasion I search for bsdgrep bugs, and did not find the comment / patch in [2]. Thank you for pointing it out, I'll look at it when I can.
I FreeBSD developer requested that I added a report to that bug [1]. After adding the patch to the report, I also reported this to the list [2]. I have also tried to contact the maintainer of bsdgrep with no luck. At some point you just give up ;).
[1] https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2016-J... [2] https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2016-J...