Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
because they licensed it in a way that would allow them to continue using it in Xcode.
As the copyright holder, Apple isn't bound by the license agreement. They own it and can do whatever. The license is what gives others the right to use it. I'm not saying they should go one way or another, but they could certainly license it as GPL and not impact their own usage of it in any way.
I remember finally making the switch to IE from the Netscape 4.76 series that summer after my friend asked why I didn't use IE and showed me it was better. To be fair, IE had surpassed Netscape at that point. I believe that was IE 5 or 5.5. Prior to that Netscape was better hands down but it stagnated after Netscape 4.
The car manufacturers originally offered a franchise model. Only after the franchisees had successfully set up the market did the manufacturers try to come in and eat their lunch with corporate stores. The anti-competition laws were put in place to prevent the car manufacturers from undercutting those who had built their client base for them. In the case of Tesla this issue doesn't exist because Tesla has never franchised.
A more modern example is companies like RoadRunner and @Home. They built out most of the cable modem infrastructure under contract to companies like Comcast and Time Warner who thought there was too much risk involved. Once the cable companies saw how easy it was, they refused to renew the licenses to use their lines and set up their own cable modem service. The laws in the automotive space are designed to prevent this kind of scenario.
You're thinking of the GPL if you're talking about "viral licensing." And even in that case, it's a fallacy. Linking GPL code with non-GPL code is a copyright violation. That violation doesn't necessarily have to be remedied by releasing the non-GPL code as GPL. Other remedies are possible including withdrawing the combined project and potentially paying a fine. Ultimately you can't force someone to license their own work under the GPL, as much as that gets passed around as fact.
Correct - real computers are not Turing complete. The term is misused. Real computers fall into a class of devices called Linear Bounded Automations because they have finite memory.