What are the specific reasons Apple cannot, or will not, use GPL v3 licensed software? Can you provide any references?

@JasonS yes, the GPL itself. Give it a read, it isn’t terribly long

The GPL itself doesn't explain why Apple won't use it. I meant references for why Apple won't use it.

@JasonS I’ll just tell you then, if you don’t want to read it: The GPL mandates that anything that links to software distributed under it, must also have its source available. This would mean that most of macOS would need to be open-sourced for Apple to make use of any GPL code. This wasn’t an issue with GPLv2.

I don't agree with your assumptions on your reading of GPL v3 about why Apple will not use software licensed under it. This is precisely why I asked in the first place, not because I don't want to read it, as you suggest. That's also why I asked for references. The topic is too large for comments (in spite of the teeny weeny GPL v3). A better answer would state your reasons. I would think this is more the problem "“Installation Information” for a User Product" (too long for comment), but I surmise. GPL v2 also has source code provision. Apple have lots of open source code, incl bash 3.2

Re: my earlier comment, "Apple have" in the case of bash 3.2, should have been "Apple distribute"

@JasonS Then do your own research. I assume you’re capable of using your brain, so please attempt to do so, then perhaps enlighten us.

Hi @William T Froggard, no need for disparaging remarks. I think you missed every point in my comments. I think it will be the same for any future comments. Over and out.

@JasonS I think you sound like an elitist, pretentious college professor. Confident in his own knowledge, but incapable of learning from others. There was no chance of you doing any work on your own, so I saw no reason to be polite. Thank you for moving on.

Hi folks. Please consider that all criticism be about the post, not the person. No need to get overly personal.

@JasonS keep in mind, why Apple does anything is generally off topic on main site. It’s ok to have opinion and William could probably do a better job documenting his reasoning - if Apple is anti GPL, a convincing case could be made analyzing licensing on Apple open source. I think this is a given though that we can assume Apple isn’t going to contaminate it’s commercial software with copyleft licenses.

But I could be wrong.

@WilliamTFroggard your answers on the main site would be better if it had references like an pretentious college professor would likely do - it’s not all bad being rigorous in backing up opinion and if that’s “elitist”, sign me up.

@bmike College professors almost never use references, they are merely good at convincing people that they know what they're talking about.

Regardless, I can throw in some evidence. I'm fine with it.

@WilliamTFroggard Only if you feel it is. I had a jaded view of professors since the ones I interacted were world class.

I don’t doubt there are ones phoning it in or entire departments in some cases.

I threw a +1 on your post even without references. I think it’s hardly a stretch to consider Apple very hostile to the notion of GPL v3 intermingling with their OS

@bmike I didn't think it was "off topic", to ask in the comments to an answer, the basis of an opinion, or if there were any references for the basis of that opinion. All I received in response were unpleasant, snide comments and a public character portrayal / assassination. That is not what I come here for, and I don't believe it is within the "be nice" policy. I have not responded in kind and I don't care to.