Not mentioned and highly significant: Apple hasn't shipped anything which is licensed under GPL v3. That cuts them off from a lot of upstream development, including particularly upstream versions of bash.
I'm not sure they've ever published a reason for this, but outside speculation centers around the v3 patent grant and anti-tivoization clauses.
> I'm not sure they've ever published a reason for this, but outside speculation centers around the v3 patent grant and anti-tivoization clauses.
I've heard this more than once but it doesn't make any sense. GPLv2 says this: "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions."
Ask your lawyer what happens if you license a piece of software to someone and then try to sue them for patent infringement for using that software.
And OS X doesn't stop you from compiling your own bash (or whatever else) and replacing the one Apple shipped, so I don't see how the anti-tivoization clause would affect them either. It just doesn't make any sense.
I half suspect that there are a few IP lawyers (and/or Microsoft) who don't like the GPL for ideological reasons and go around spreading FUD about it to discourage people from using it.
Is it significant though? I can’t really see why bash of all software should be critical. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, other operating systems do not rely on bash being installed.
I'm not sure they've ever published a reason for this, but outside speculation centers around the v3 patent grant and anti-tivoization clauses.