> Apple still could have used it. It is open source, that is the point of open source.
Yes, but Apple chose not to. It had nothing to do with legal reasons.
> Not true. There is libapt, synaptic depends on it, for example.
Sorry, you're correct. There was a nascent libapt, but at the time, we just wanted dpkg, and as rbanffy noted, we could always run apt as a separate binary.
It really wasn't a "fear the GPL" response.
> I understand it is not an Apple PR story in this case. It just seemed that the story wasn't true and it seems to me often enough the untrue stories always favor those who have most fanboys or largest PR pockets.
OK. But it's why I was told we couldn't use dpkg. I don't know if you recall what Apple and Mac OS X was like before the 10.0 release, but both were very different beasts than they are today, and Apple had some very different priorities in respect to UNIX, the existing UNIX community, et al.
Yes, but Apple chose not to. It had nothing to do with legal reasons.
> Not true. There is libapt, synaptic depends on it, for example.
Sorry, you're correct. There was a nascent libapt, but at the time, we just wanted dpkg, and as rbanffy noted, we could always run apt as a separate binary.
It really wasn't a "fear the GPL" response.
> I understand it is not an Apple PR story in this case. It just seemed that the story wasn't true and it seems to me often enough the untrue stories always favor those who have most fanboys or largest PR pockets.
OK. But it's why I was told we couldn't use dpkg. I don't know if you recall what Apple and Mac OS X was like before the 10.0 release, but both were very different beasts than they are today, and Apple had some very different priorities in respect to UNIX, the existing UNIX community, et al.