Apple was frustrated they couldn't get what they wanted out of GCC, and were getting patches and designs constantly rejected. This, combined with getting control over their destiny, and having serious needs for a modular compiler frontend for XCode (and their design for a compiler server/etc for GCC got shot down), plus Chris demonstrating good performance results + trajectory, led to them choosing LLVM.
But what do I know - I was there, in both communities, talking to the people who were involved in these decisions.
Realistically, if the SVP/VP in charge of Apple's developer tools had decided GCC was still the way to go, they would be working on GCC, GPLv3 policy or not.
Policies are not an end unto themselves.
All of this is completely orthogonal to the freezing of the GCC version. They could get what they wanted out of it in the pre-GPLv3 versions, given their future plans were LLVM based anyway, so they didn't make an exception for GCC when they banned GPLv3.
Of course, I'm not going to claim that apple didn't do other things more for licensing reasons, which a lot of can be explained by the desire to be able to share code between OS X and IOS in some places (and eventually, in a lot of places), and GPLv3 would have disastrous effects if they messed up. They calculated the eng cost, came up with "we have good alternatives, and can rewrite the rest", and did that, and banned GPLv3. However, they were making exceptions for years for certain pieces of software already. So if you had chosen any other example than LLVM, i'd probably agree with you. LLVM is just not a great example of "commercial pushback against GPL".
Apple's dropping of Samba would be a good example, since that is directly the reason they dropped Samba.
[1] One of my GCC friends walked out of this presentation complaining that he was selling them a bill of goods. Of course, he turned out to be wrong, but ...
The conclusion I've drawn from it is that GPLv3 was a significant driver in the decision to seek out and drive forward a non-GPL compiler project. I didn't say it was the only factor, but I stand by my conclusion that it must have been a significant one.
"The conclusion I've drawn from it is that GPLv3 was a significant driver in the decision to seek out and drive forward a non-GPL compiler project. I didn't say it was the only factor, but I stand by my conclusion that it must have been a significant one."
I believe i've completely rebutted this statement with my response. I believe I accurately explained exactly what went into the decision to fund and use LLVM, and "seeking out and driving a non-GPL compiler project" was literally not on the list of things the decision makers (Ted, in this case) cared about.[1] If you have actual historical evidence to the contrary, that contradicts my explanation of what drove the decision to use LLVM, i'd love to hear it. So far what you've put forth is a single data point which I already explained, was, AFAIK, completely unrelated to the decision to use LLVM.
Also, Apple/Chris first suggested merging LLVM and GCC (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html), which would seem an odd strategy if licensing was the huge driver you claim it was.
Historically, the timeline isn't even close to right for your conclusion to be correct. Apple started seriously investing in LLVM in 2005, and the GCC GPLv3 switch didn't happen until 2009.
So, basically, you are welcome to stand by your conclusion, but it's, well, wrong :)
[1] In fact, Ted literally did not care about the licensing at all. They were considering using ICC as well, but this mostly got dropped after the switch to x86.
