Well, if the FOSS license used was e.g. MIT he wouldn't have to buy a commercial license, that's the parent's point. With GPL, he does, because else his clients have to make their own code/project conformant...
Yes, that's correct. I write open source software as well and I don't begrudge anyone for licensing under GPL. And, I'm perfectly willing to obtain a commercial license, but I'm going to pass that cost on to my customers. In this particular case, though, the question for them is whether they want Apple silicon bad enough to pay an additional $50-100k in software licensing costs to keep their code private or to just buy an Intel or AMD chip. I know where I'd spend my money.
How do these types of licenses deal with software updates in general? Presumably, at some point they'll need to buy a new license anyway, and the issue will be moot, right?
And Rosetta will probably be around for a while...
> How do these types of licenses deal with software updates in general? Presumably, at some point they'll need to buy a new license anyway, and the issue will be moot, right?
It sounds like Intel produces an implementation of this thing that works on Intel and makes it available for free, whereas ARM don't (although another comment suggests Apple actually do), so you have to buy an expensive third-party implementation instead. That's not a difference that'll go away in the short term, and you can see why a processor company might legitimately choose one or the other approach.
Apple released the first Intel Macs to consumers in 2006, and in 2011 removed Rosetta from Mac OS X, so I guess it depends on what you mean by a while.
You were pretty specific that it was entirely the fault of the GPL:
> I'd have to explain to my commercial clients that there's another $50-100k upcharge due to the architecture change and licensing costs due to GPL restrictions.
What point are you trying to make here? The poster has been very clear on the mechanics, which are quite understandable, but I don't understand what you are trying to say. Is it just that you think it does not put the GPL in a positive enough light? I don't mean to put words in your mouth but that's my current best guess
Apple forced them into a situation that gives them fewer options. That isn't a statement about how good or bad each option is. It's a statement about the consequences that Apple's choices have for developers.
If I'm a travel agent and an affordable hotel near a travel destination closes down, I might have to book my clients in a nicer but more expensive hotel. Their trip will be a bit more expensive. Or maybe they'll travel to a different city. It doesn't mean I dislike the nicer hotel.
It seems clear enough from context that the "GPL restrictions" are that if they used the GPL-licensed compiler, the commercial clients might run into legal issues with their use of it, necessitating that they purchase the commercial license. It's not uncommon for businesses to have a prohibition against using GPL software in not only their shipping products but anywhere in their toolchain. (You can argue that's a counterproductive prohibition, but "your legal department just needs to change their mind on this" may not be an argument a vendor can effectively make.)
I would not make an argument even if I thought a client would accept it. If they are incompetent they will decide to use the GPL code with sloppy oversight, violate the terms of the GPL, then they will hold a little grudge against you for the advice that got them in trouble. Sloppy companies have no internal accountability, so it's your fault.
I use GPL code all the time at home and I would license many things GPL, but there's no reason to push GPL software at corporations. They should have limited options and spend money, possibly expanding MIT code, possibly just raising the price of engineers by keeping engineers occupied.
No, he was pretty clear that it was due to needing to use that solver due to it being the only one that works on ARM right now. The dual licensing was only relevant in that the client would have to pay for the commercial license (due to the GPL restrictions).
> MKL has faster routines and is completely free, but it won't work on ARM
We all pay for software, but it's the amount that really shapes decisions. Most organizations have a dollar limit where we can just charge a purchase card and when they have to seek approval. In this particular case, the software costs are higher than what can likely go onto a p-card, so now it becomes a real pain to acquire. In fact, the software is so expensive that it's cost would like eclipse the cost of the computer itself. So basically, we're looking at a decision where the client can use a more performant library and save $100k as long as they stay off of Apple silicon.
That's really the point I'm trying to make and not to criticize anyone for using a GPL license. Moving to these new chips, in many cases, will be a much larger cost to an organization than just the cost of the computer.
