I'm not talking about restrictions placed upon the end user, but rather on the developer who is distributing an application which uses these libraries. If they're not willing to accept the license terms for those libraries, that is a license violation.
Do you know who would agree with that? The FSF. They will argue that an application built against an API licensed under the GPL is a derivative work and therefore falls under the terms of the GPL.
This was the case back when Qt was quite infamously licensed under the GPL rather than the LGPL.
Would forcing Apple to make everything required to run linux on Apple hardware available to all devs be fine then? Just to keep things fair and allow for competitors and such. Maybe force all hardware manufacturers to allow OS selection when doing a factory reset?
Libraries? I'm allowed to use them without selling/distributing as long as they are critical to run the hardware that I paid for(as long as they are only used for said device). Copyrighting/blocking people from reverse engineering any piece of code that is needed for hardware to function should be illegal in the first place.
Well we can't make laws that target Apple specifically, so let's table that for now. Requiring all computer devices sold to have a mechanism for running Linux? That sounds fine in theory, though I don't know that a law could compel a company to assist developers in understanding their hardware.
Do you know who would agree with that? The FSF. They will argue that an application built against an API licensed under the GPL is a derivative work and therefore falls under the terms of the GPL.
This was the case back when Qt was quite infamously licensed under the GPL rather than the LGPL.