Jason S

@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.

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.

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

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

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

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