There's no clause in the GPLv3 that says "Apple may not use this software". Apple could use the new Samba if they wanted to, but they choose not to because they like being able to do the bad things that the GPLv3 prohibits doing.

My understanding is it is the patent licensing clause which prevents several companies (like Apple) from using GPLv3.

Companies may not distribute GPLv3 under an exclusive patent arrangement, but rather need to negotiate a patent arrangement for all derivatives of the software. This puts them in a bad situation if someone manages to get an injunction based on their inclusion of say Samba.

> Companies may not distribute GPLv3 under an exclusive patent arrangement

what is that even supposed to mean?

The goal of GPLv3 (and GPLv2 as intended by several of the authors, for that matter), is to ensure that end users have freedom to use the devices they have purchased as they see fit. Suppose a company has patented some algorithm, and has implemented that algorithm in a software project that also uses GPLv3 code. When distributing the software, they make the code available, but only license the patent on the condition that the code is run without user modifications. This infringes on user freedom, because there is no way for the end user to control the software they are running.

For GPLv3, it is important to remember that the primary goal is to protect user freedom. Everything else follows from that goal, specifically in closing several loopholes that were unintentionally present in GPLv2.

> is to ensure that end users have freedom to use the devices they have purchased as they see fit

not really. Nobody can or wish to dictate how someone sells a product.

GPL is about GPL'ed code. not products.

> Suppose a company has patented some algorithm ... that also uses GPLv3 code

you keep moving the goal post. Remove GPL from your example! If that "some algorithm" was built on top of someone else's proprietary (and patented) work, wouldn't they have to satisfy that entity desires on how it wishes to license their work?

The ONLY difference is that GPL only requires that you make your work available under GPL. Easy. Other entities might ask for money. Others, such as apple, would just tell you to F off and you'd never be able to sell the code or the product. Which one is more restrictive or worse?

compare apples to apples please.

What „bad things“?

sliping in divergencies in the protocol so that you can only connect to Apple-Active-directories or something.

Microsoft wrote the book in the 90s about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

Right. And implementing their own SMB server (smbd) allowed them to do these "bad things"? What is the evidence that they did anything like that?

Anyway, how about a much simpler explanation: Apple doesn't want to get stuck with a viral license that might open them to lawsuits and force them to open up their proprietary code they want to keep closed source? GPL doesn't work for everyone and there is nothing wrong about that. To suggest that anyone who rejects GPL plans something "bad" is naive and immature.

> What is the evidence that they did anything like that?

LOL. you are joking right? Apple uses the textbook from microsoft the second they can. When they stuck gold on IOS the first thing they did was draw up a monopoly on music and ibooks licensing scheme. And those are just the ones they were found guild on courts with public records. The last one, also on courts public records, is about how they prevent their messaging applications to work on non-apple because it would "allow families to buy android devices to their children"

Oh, you trolls. I keep falling for your low efforts...

Samba still works like a charm on my network, but only because I'm sharing between Linux/Android/Windows devices.