Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:23 UTC, submitted by wibbit
Apple Apple has bought the CUPS code base, and has hired it's lead developer. "CUPS was written by Michael R Sweet, an owner of Easy Software Products. In February of 2007 Apple Inc. hired Michael and acquired ownership the CUPS source code. While Michael is primarily working on non-CUPS projects, he will continue to develop and support CUPS, which is still being released under the existing GPL2/LGPL2 licensing terms."
Order by: Score:
sooo
by deanlinkous on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:34 UTC
deanlinkous
Member since:
2006-06-19

time for a fork?

Reply Score: 5

RE: sooo
by Kroc on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:50 UTC in reply to "sooo"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Give it a rest, how is this different from other large corporations paying for Kernel developers to work on Linux, and people to work on all manner of open source. Google hire many people who work on Firefox full time - does that make it less Free than before?

Really, open source zealots need to open some windows and breath some fresh air because as soon as they hear a corporation supporting open source software, they close their minds straight away.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: sooo
by cyclops on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE: sooo"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

First off zealots is an offensive term.

Second many prefer the term "free software zealot"

Third Companies With Linux *contribute* to a larger codebase they do not have overall control of the *copyright*. In fact it mirror the FSF work only that someone with a political agenda owning the code we have a *competing* OS owning the copyright.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: sooo
by ralph on Thu 12th Jul 2007 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE: sooo"
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

Give it a rest, how is this different from other large corporations paying for Kernel developers to work on Linux, and people to work on all manner of open source.
It's different in that Apple now owns CUPS. This is a fundamental difference from companies simply contributing to open source project they don't own.

I thought that was pretty obvious.

Anyway, I don't think there's any reason to be alarmed about this. As long as Apple continues to distribute CUPS under the GPL, as they seem to intend to do, this is even a very good development.

P.S.: There really is no need for namecalling.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: sooo
by sbergman27 on Thu 12th Jul 2007 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: sooo"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Agreed. And particularly about the name calling. I'm critical of people who are truly *reactive* to news like this. But there are legitimate reasons for concern over this unexpected (to me anyway) news.

It seems to me that sometimes we focus too much upon open source vs closed source, which is important, and too little upon the matter of centralized vs distributed copyright, which is also important.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: sooo
by kittynipples on Thu 12th Jul 2007 23:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: sooo"
kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02

you mean like OpenOffice?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: sooo
by thebin on Fri 13th Jul 2007 00:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: sooo"
thebin Member since:
2007-03-17

Actually, Apple *isn't* contributing under the GPL. See here: http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L179+I0+TFAQ+M10+P1+Q


Software that is developed by any person or entity for an Apple Operating System ("Apple OS-Developed Software"), including but not limited to Apple and third party printer drivers, filters, and backends for an Apple Operating System, that is linked to the CUPS imaging library or based on any sample filters or backends provided with CUPS shall not be considered to be a derivative work or collective work based on the CUPS program and is exempt from the mandatory source code release clauses of the GNU GPL. You may therefore distribute linked combinations of the CUPS imaging library with Apple OS-Developed Software without releasing the source code of the Apple OS-Developed Software. You may also use sample filters and backends provided with CUPS to develop Apple OS-Developed Software without releasing the source code of the Apple OS-Developed Software.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: sooo
by elsewhere on Fri 13th Jul 2007 03:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: sooo"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Software that is developed by any person or entity for an Apple Operating System ("Apple OS-Developed Software"), including but not limited to Apple and third party printer drivers, filters, and backends for an Apple Operating System, that is linked to the CUPS imaging library or based on any sample filters or backends provided with CUPS shall not be considered to be a derivative work or collective work based on the CUPS program and is exempt from the mandatory source code release clauses of the GNU GPL. You may therefore distribute linked combinations of the CUPS imaging library with Apple OS-Developed Software without releasing the source code of the Apple OS-Developed Software. You may also use sample filters and backends provided with CUPS to develop Apple OS-Developed Software without releasing the source code of the Apple OS-Developed Software.


Not that I ever wanted to be in a position to defend Apple, but that sounds in line with the LGPL, so what am I missing?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: sooo
by stestagg on Sat 14th Jul 2007 09:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: sooo"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Actually, any changes to the CUPS souces by Apple, will be covered by the GPL, unless Apple change the core copyright. The excerpt that you quoted, deals with addons and linked programs, not the core CUPS system.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: sooo
by lemur2 on Fri 13th Jul 2007 12:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: sooo"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Anyway, I don't think there's any reason to be alarmed about this. As long as Apple continues to distribute CUPS under the GPL, as they seem to intend to do, this is even a very good development.


If Apple continue to release it under the GPL, and Apple contribute something of their own expertise, kudos to Apple.

If Apple decide to make it proprietary, as they are entitled to do since they purchased the copyright, then no doubt CUPS would fork and of the current CUPS developers some would, I suppose, go to work for Apple and some would continue on with the fork.

I think Apple would perhaps best be served by keeping it GPL and keeping all of the developers onside. A fork really isn't in anyone's best interest.

This decision is purely up to Apple, however.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: sooo
by Alleister on Fri 13th Jul 2007 18:47 UTC in reply to "RE: sooo"
Alleister Member since:
2006-05-29

Google didn't buy the FireFox Source base, which is very uncommon if you just want to support a project.

I find it very uncanny to see CUPS in the hand of one of the biggest patent trolls in the industry which has a portfolio filled to the brim with patents that are trivial, based on public work or even based on other peoples work.

Really, it wouldn't be much worse if it was in the hands of Microsoft now.

Reply Score: 2

RE: sooo
by KugelKurt on Thu 12th Jul 2007 22:38 UTC in reply to "sooo"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Why? "software and license remain the same" (quote from the website).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: sooo
by Beta on Thu 12th Jul 2007 23:13 UTC in reply to "RE: sooo"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Except the license didn't remain the same*, this page was changed:
http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L179+I0+TFAQ+M10+P1+Q

I'm concerned, yet interested in what Apple is going to do with CUPS…

*A minor change, but important

Edited 2007-07-12 23:18

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: sooo
by KugelKurt on Thu 12th Jul 2007 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: sooo"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06
RE[4]: sooo
by sorpigal on Fri 13th Jul 2007 17:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: sooo"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Five years ago Apple didn't own the copyright.

Reply Score: 1

Ooookay...
by archiesteel on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:35 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

On one hand, this could accelerate development and increase the quality of CUPS.

On the other hand, this could mean that future versions might not be released under GPL/LGPL...Right now it looks as if they will, but there are no guarantees it will stay that way.

I'm a bit ambivalent about this. What does everyone else think?

Edited 2007-07-12 19:35

Reply Score: 5

RE: Ooookay...
by buff on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:39 UTC in reply to "Ooookay..."
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

I don't mind it being in Apple's hands as long as it stays in GPL. I might have some issues if they rename it iCups. Oops I hope I don't get sued for putting the letter I before a product name without Apple's permission. ;-)

Edited 2007-07-12 19:39

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Ooookay...
by elsewhere on Fri 13th Jul 2007 04:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Ooookay..."
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

I might have some issues if they rename it iCups.


It's ok, I've had iCups before, they're easy enough to get rid of. Just drink some water, or breathe into a paper bag.

;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Ooookay...
by Ringheims Auto on Thu 12th Jul 2007 21:15 UTC in reply to "Ooookay..."
Ringheims Auto Member since:
2005-07-23

But then again one could fork the current released version and keep developing that as GPL. That would be a sad scenario though, hope Apple does good to the project.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Ooookay...
by KugelKurt on Thu 12th Jul 2007 22:44 UTC in reply to "Ooookay..."
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple initiated a bunch of OSS projects (Darwin Streaming Server, WebKit, Bonjour/Rendezouz, iCal Server,...).
Why should they end GPLed CUPS?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Ooookay...
by sorpigal on Fri 13th Jul 2007 17:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Ooookay..."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

WebKit was not initiated by Apple, it was KHTML + some (admittedly major) changes. In the case of bonjour and ical... those are specifications, not products. Apple also produced the OpenStep specs, but they didn't provide any code.

As to why CUPS will be different: Apple shows all signs of wanting CUPS for itself. It will never contribute its patches back to the GPL'd version; those will remain internal. Plus, all contributers of GPL'd patches to CUPS will be requried to sign over the copyright--in effect they will be giving Apple the source code to use to its (proprietary) advantage with no guarantee that it will benefit the community.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Ooookay...
by steviant on Sat 14th Jul 2007 00:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ooookay..."
steviant Member since:
2006-01-11

For a start, you don't even know how to *spell* contributor, so I don't see why it would affect you. ;)

Secondly, you're wrong, wrong, wrong about iCal and ZeroConf. In both of those cases Apple released code.

iCal may be a specification, but Apple also released source sometime last year for "Darwin Calendar Server" which is what I believe the original poster referred to. In the case of ZeroConf, Apple released code for MDNSResponder, which is essentially all that is required to begin advertising services.

If you're wondering, both projects are now covered by the Apache 2.0 License, so unless you object to the majority of the world's websites (this one included) which are served by Apache and free OS's which include Apache, you probably have no reason to be concerned.

If any license change occurs, my guess is it will be to move it to the same license as the majority of Apple's other open source projects, namely the Apache 2.0 License.

The only reason I can imagine that Apple would want to own the copyrights to allow them to do things which the GPL would prohibit them from doing, like integrating CUPS more deeply into the OS. The real problem with that is that by enabling themselves to do so they gain a competitive advantage without having the bad PR of changing the license.

If that were to happen, and I were a contributor to CUPS, I would be watching very closely to make sure that my code is not being used as leverage against competition, and would be ready to pull the plug on their copyright to my code come release-day.

There is no need to overreact though, Apple have learned through bitter experience that geeks are less tolerant of being shafted than their traditional (fan) base.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ooookay...
by melkor on Sat 14th Jul 2007 01:59 UTC in reply to "Ooookay..."
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

Missed this story yesterday, I, of course, am worried. We all know how helpful Apple was with giving back khtml code back to KDE...

Dave

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Ooookay...
by Governa on Sat 14th Jul 2007 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Ooookay..."
Governa Member since:
2006-04-09

@ Melkor

Not helpful you say?

"Over time, Apple spend significant resources to retool their relationship with KHTML and the open-source community in general by making the Webkit project an open-source one. It was complete with an anonymous CVS repository, a full history of changes from Apple's very first involvement in the project, a comprehensive web site with Bugzilla bug tracking, blog, mailing lists, IRC channel, and information for developers if they would like to help the project in any capacity."

I would say they have been pretty helpful.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Ooookay...
by sbergman27 on Sun 15th Jul 2007 08:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ooookay..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

For anyone interested, that quote is from this Ars article:

http://tinyurl.com/2ffdqb

I find that story encouraging, as it was the webkit debacle, in part, that had me concerned about the future of CUPS.

Reply Score: 2

Say what?
by fretinator on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:36 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple has bought the CUPS code base


So what does that mean? Since it is GPL, I am free to use the code and enhance, distribute, fork, etc. I understand buying the Logo or the Trademark (i.e., we be JBoss, we be Redhat, etc), but how exactly did they "buy" the code base? Fill me in, please.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Say what?
by archiesteel on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:37 UTC in reply to "Say what?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

It means they now own the copyright to the code, and could relicense it if they wanted to.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Say what?
by fretinator on Thu 12th Jul 2007 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Say what?"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Agreed, which would affect future code. The current code _released_ under the gpl cannot be un-released. Thus, I would agree that it would be a good time for someone to step in and at least get a very good understanding of the code. In the event the code was re-licensed, it would be important for someone to be able to step-in, fork the code, and keep things running.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Say what?
by Morgan on Thu 12th Jul 2007 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Say what?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I agree. It's only in the past couple of years that I've noticed a huge forward leap in printing support with CUPS. It would be a shame for that tide to stop now. So far, Apple has been kind to the F/OSS community, but what happens if they decide they don't want GNU/Linux and non-Apple BSDs to be as competitive in the printing world? All they have to do is relicense, and unless someone is brave enough to fork the last free release, that stops any future CUPS development on open platforms.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Say what?
by theine on Thu 12th Jul 2007 21:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Say what?"
theine Member since:
2005-09-29

It means they now own the copyright to the code, and could relicense it if they wanted to.

As far as I can see, they may only do so if the new, relicensed version of CUPS would not be a derivative work of the old version, or if the old version was released under GPL + some kind of "Apple OS-Developed Software exception". Unfortunately, the latter seems to be the case...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Say what?
by sbergman27 on Thu 12th Jul 2007 21:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Say what?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
As far as I can see, they may only do so if the new, relicensed version of CUPS would not be a derivative work of the old version, or if the old version was released under GPL + some kind of "Apple OS-Developed Software exception".
"""

If they own the copyright, they can do whatever they want with new releases, regardless of any of the details of the current license.

Edited 2007-07-12 21:43

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Say what?
by theine on Fri 13th Jul 2007 11:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Say what?"
theine Member since:
2005-09-29

If they own the copyright, they can do whatever they want with new releases, regardless of any of the details of the current license.

To me it's not perfectly clear that as the copyright holder it's OK to essentially violent the license my code is released under by closing the source of a newer version if it is a derivative work of an older GPL-licensed version.

Could you perhaps point me to any references that explicitly state this doesn't actually violate the terms of the GPL?

Cheers

Edited 2007-07-13 11:41

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Say what?
by Anonumous on Fri 13th Jul 2007 11:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Say what?"
Anonumous Member since:
2007-06-13

The code that is released under GPL once will always be available. But the copyright owner can change the license, so that future versions don't have to be under the GPL. Derivate work or not isn't relevant. If you own all of the code (e.g. by having all external contributors assign the copyright to you which was done in this case) you can do whatever you want with it. The original authors of any contributions made have no say. That you have released one or several earlier versions under GPL doesn't matter.

(You can read up on copyright on Wikipedia.)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Say what?
by binarycrusader on Fri 13th Jul 2007 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Say what?"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

It means they now own the copyright to the code, and could relicense it if they wanted to.

As far as I can see, they may only do so if the new, relicensed version of CUPS would not be a derivative work of the old version, or if the old version was released under GPL + some kind of "Apple OS-Developed Software exception". Unfortunately, the latter seems to be the case...


The Apple OS exception was added *five years ago*.

They own the copyright to all the code because the original author of the code always required copyright assignment for integration of contributions.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Say what?
by Karitku on Fri 13th Jul 2007 07:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Say what?"
Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

Is that even possible, I mean CUPS must have tons of other developer code in it, you can't just ignore them? So shouldn't this mean that Apple must redo all GPL2 code?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Say what?
by Anonumous on Fri 13th Jul 2007 07:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Say what?"
Anonumous Member since:
2007-06-13

Apple can do whatever they want with the code if the other developers have given up their copyright and assigned it to them. So yes, they can just ignore them, and no, they don't have to redo any GPL2 code. (Which is why giving up your copyright stinks most of the time IMHO.)

Reply Score: 1

Stay cool
by ameasures on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:40 UTC
ameasures
Member since:
2006-01-09

Yes there will investment of time and money to advance CUPS and if a future version is not provided as a GPL/LGPL release then there will be a de facto fork.

Frankly I don't see that happening; Apple like appearing benevolent to the open source community and have little to lose in funding things that irritate Microsoft.

A

Reply Score: 5

Re: Say What?
by Bobmeister on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:42 UTC
Bobmeister
Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes...an interesting question, since open source CODE isn't really "owned" by anyone....I don't understand this either...but they did buy the "company" that was developing the code....

My feelings: No alarm...it seems as if everything will be OK, however Apple will do what it will to protect its own interests. The parts of the code that are developed specifically for OS-X are "exempt" from the GPL, according to the FAQ's..which would theoretically only affect OS-X code (which is closed now anyway)...and the rest of CUPS would be the same as before. If they hold to this, fine.

If they don't...there is no choice but to fork and break away from Apple for Linux, BSD, and the others....

It's nice that the developer has a salary though...and I'm thinking that this will be a pattern, where well established and useful open source projects will be taking "under wing" of a larger entity...it may even strengthen the movement in the long run. False turns like the Novell/MS deal could be negatives though.

I'm sitting in the bleachers watching and also wondering what all of this means....

Reply Score: 2

RE: Re: Say What?
by cyclops on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:50 UTC in reply to "Re: Say What?"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

@Bobmeister since open source CODE isn't really "owned" by anyone.

...but apparently its owned by the copyright owners of the code, and thats what Apple bought.

If what you said was true they would have just *contributed* to the project.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Re: Say What?
by Kroc on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Re: Say What?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Not neccesarily, as just a contributer, Apple do not get to decide what goes into the main trunk, no more than I can decide what gets checked into Firefox trunk. It is the main developer's choice what gets checked in. Perhaps Apple want control over what goes into trunk so that they can either accelerate development and support for OS X, or guide the project in a particular direction (Like some sensible usability wouldn't go a miss)

Reply Score: 2

v RE[3]: Re: Say What?
by cyclops on Thu 12th Jul 2007 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Re: Say What?"
RE[4]: Re: Say What?
by Kroc on Thu 12th Jul 2007 20:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Re: Say What?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Because the immediate attitude "fork it" without any deeper understanding of what Apple have specifically bought, and what they will do, is more obnoxious than even me. Apple already have and contribute to several large open source projects. Is nothing good enough for you people??

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Re: Say What?
by cyclops on Thu 12th Jul 2007 21:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Re: Say What?"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

@Kroc "you people"

I'm shocked and surprised by your language.

Which large software projects has Apple contributed to as opposed to *leeched off*. I'm sure their must be some, and even Microsoft is getting hip with its open source(sic) licenses, but I cannot think of *anything* I use, and I suspect nothing copyleft. I can remember when FSF *boycotted* apple though.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Re: Say What?
by Adam S on Thu 12th Jul 2007 21:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Re: Say What?"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Which large software projects has Apple contributed to as opposed to *leeched off*.


All of these softwares are open source and available for you to use as you please: Webkit. Bonjour/Rendevous. Darwin. OpenDirectory.

More at http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Re: Say What?
by cyclops on Thu 12th Jul 2007 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Re: Say What?"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

I'm glad you took time to respond.

webkit is a branch of KHTML, as opposed to Apple *contributing* to KHTML.

Bonjour/Open Directory is Apples own code.

Darin actually includes nothing interesting like API for Carbon and Cocoa APIs or the Quartz Compositor and Aqua user interface, its own drivers are binary, yet is from FreeBSD

Apple is leeching of open source developers again these services have equivalents in the GNU world, Apple *contributed* to none of them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Re: Say What?
by nevali on Thu 12th Jul 2007 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Re: Say What?"
nevali Member since:
2006-10-12

Which large software projects has Apple contributed to as opposed to *leeched off*


GCC.

Big enough for you?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Re: Say What?
by cyclops on Thu 12th Jul 2007 22:09 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Re: Say What?"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"GCC.

Big enough for you?"

Size doesn't matter, its contributing to *other* developers code not vice-versa.

Apple *had* to use GCC, Apple is moving towards LLVM, but you still have to use GCC as a front end...but they are solving the GCC problem http://llvm.org/devmtg/2007-05/index.html

If your trying to make out Apple is anything but self serving, your crackers.

Edited 2007-07-12 22:13

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Re: Say What?
by KugelKurt on Thu 12th Jul 2007 22:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Re: Say What?"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

You are shocked when someone writes "you people"? Wow, you skin must be very thin....

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Re: Say What?
by helf on Thu 12th Jul 2007 21:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Re: Say What?"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

wow, that post scares me.

I'm here to help you! *pats back*

:P

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Re: Say What?
by rainman on Fri 13th Jul 2007 00:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Re: Say What?"
rainman Member since:
2007-05-22

Not neccesarily, as just a contributer, Apple do not get to decide what goes into the main trunk


Apple is not "just a contributor," they own the copyright to _all_ of the code. This was only possible/feasible because Mr. Sweet insisted that all contributors give the copyright for all of their contributions to his company, Easy Software Solutions. Therefore, Apple was easily able to acquire the rights to all of the code. This would be either difficult or impossible with most FOSS projects, since individual contributors usually own the copyright to the code they contributed. If you own 100% of the code, you can relicense it any way you want. If not, you need the unanimous consent of all copyright holders.

Reply Score: 2

Great:
by Matt24 on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:46 UTC
Matt24
Member since:
2005-07-23

Apple is looking for acceleration of innovation in open standards and of course greater influence.

Edited 2007-07-12 19:49

Reply Score: 3

Apple
by rx182 on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:51 UTC
rx182
Member since:
2005-07-08

iPrint!

No seriously, why did they buy that? For their server line? In that specific case, I doubt Apple will merge changes if they intend to use it commercially. Of course, I think that CUPS itself will remain free (GPL'ed).

Reply Score: 3

RE: Apple
by tspears on Thu 12th Jul 2007 20:13 UTC in reply to "Apple"
tspears Member since:
2006-05-22

Novell already owns iPrint... In fact Novell and Motorola were using the i prefix before apple made a pig's ear out of it...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple
by KugelKurt on Thu 12th Jul 2007 22:37 UTC in reply to "Apple"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple already owned a license for CUPS to not be bound to the GPL for Mac OS X. Thus since CUPS is part of OSX, closed source CUPS drivers are allowed on Apple systems (incl. plain, OSS Darwin). The "old" dual licensing model didn't hurt Apple at all.
Maybe Apple wasn't pleased with the development speed of CUPS. So they hired that guy and while they where at it, bought all source rights. The money was peanuts for Apple anyway.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Apple
by meianoite on Thu 12th Jul 2007 22:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

Apple already owned a license for CUPS to not be bound to the GPL for Mac OS X. Thus since CUPS is part of OSX, closed source CUPS drivers are allowed on Apple systems (incl. plain, OSS Darwin). The "old" dual licensing model didn't hurt Apple at all.
Maybe Apple wasn't pleased with the development speed of CUPS. So they hired that guy and while they where at it, bought all source rights. The money was peanuts for Apple anyway.


Now that's refreshing: actual reasoning instead of flinging crap at everyone's second favourite sandbag (the undisputed first being Microsoft).

Perfect. Kudos!

Reply Score: 5

Question
by Excel Hearts Choi on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:51 UTC
Excel Hearts Choi
Member since:
2006-07-08

It seems to reason that some will worry about what Apple with do with the future of CUPS. Are there other open source alternatives to CUPS? If so, are they better or worse? What I am getting at is this, assuming there is no comparable alternative to CUPS, would people who are against the GPL see some benefit to having the current GPL'd code always available to the public? I don't mean to start another war about which license is the best.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Question
by Seth Quarrier on Thu 12th Jul 2007 20:15 UTC in reply to "Question"
Seth Quarrier Member since:
2005-11-13

"Are there other open source alternatives to CUPS?"

We wouldn't need an alternative, the current code, as it has been amply pointed out is already, GPL. Rather we would just need to fork it in order to make changes. (Although if it doesn't have the automatic license upgrade clause then this may block the ability to make it GPL3 in case someone wants it to be GPL3)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Question
by Doc Pain on Fri 13th Jul 2007 12:57 UTC in reply to "Question"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Are there other open source alternatives to CUPS?"

Just to mention two, there's apsfilter and PostScript (explaination of choice follows).

"If so, are they better or worse?"

It depends on your printer and what you're going to do with it. I have used laser printers only, all of them were supported (HP Laserjet IIP, 4, 4M, 5, 4000 duplex, Lexmark Optra S1650) by apsfilter. The LJ4000 has PS support, so it does not need any driver because all UNIX applications usually generate PS output for printing which can be "put into the printer" without any problems.

For multi function devices (that include a inkjet pee printer and a scanner) or photo printers (such as built by Canon or Kodak) apsfilter won't be suitable, I fear. Furthermore, these devices usually don't conform to existing standards which makes them requiring a special driver that is not available in UNIX land.

Apsfilter does not have an integration into KDE (because it does not need one), but it can be used with KDE, too, but without KDE as well. To have support for dotmatrix printers (except simple text output) apsfilter needs special compile options. Additionally, apsfilter can use gimp-print drivers brought along by the Gimp.

"What I am getting at is this, assuming there is no comparable alternative to CUPS, would people who are against the GPL see some benefit to having the current GPL'd code always available to the public?"

As it has been explained before, Apple just bought the right to get their own license of CUPS, so they do not need to use it under the terms of the GPL. The "GPL branch" of CUPS will continue developing anyway, and maybe because of Apple's engagement there will be better printer drivers again in the future. The CUPS code will stay available for the public, only Apple's changes surely won't. We'll see...

"I don't mean to start another war about which license is the best."

This is a good idea, because "best" always depends on the license user's intention. :-)

Reply Score: 2

GPLv3
by ubit on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:51 UTC
ubit
Member since:
2006-09-08

I wonder if they'll relicense CUPS to GPLv3? It would be better for Apple since if Sun or Microsoft or an embedded device wanted to Tivoise CUPS, they would have to pay Aooke for a proprietary license. Right now they could take CUPS and Tivoise it, since it's under only (L)GPLv2.

(Before anyone says anything about patents, only the contributor's patents are licensed for GPLv3 use and GPLv2 has an implicit patent license already)

Reply Score: 3

RE: GPLv3
by sbergman27 on Thu 12th Jul 2007 20:05 UTC in reply to "GPLv3"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
I wonder if they'll relicense CUPS to GPLv3?
"""

I wonder if we will ever see another news story on OSNews that does not have a subthread asking how it relates to GPLv3.

Edited 2007-07-12 20:06

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: GPLv3
by cyclops on Thu 12th Jul 2007 20:19 UTC in reply to "RE: GPLv3"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"I wonder if we will ever see another news story on OSNews that does not have a subthread asking how it relates to GPLv3."

Personally I find it kind of strange that the anti-fsf that Linus sparked over GPL3, and many Microsoft supporters sympathized(sic) over. Suddenly everyone is expecting GPL3 to save their four freedoms.

Whats funnier they expect the FSF to fork, and maintain the cups, after all the "they don't write code for the kernel comments", personally I'll be happy when "Gnash" is good enough, although seriously the FSF needs more than coders it needs advertisers to come up eith better names for their products, although I actually like GNU becuase it sounds like new.

Reply Score: 2

Copyright assignment
by Anonumous on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:52 UTC
Anonumous
Member since:
2007-06-13

This is a good example of why I would NEVER contribute code to a project that requires copyright assignment. It's like working for free if they decide to close it up in the future. (Yeah, yeah, Apple haven't said that they will do something like that (although the likelihood of that occurring just increased IMHO) but this allows them to do what ever they want with the code (not releasing their own changes etc.)

Granted, there are valid reasons for copyright assignment but it sort of disturbs the whole quid pro quo thing that comes with the GPL that Linus likes to talk so much about.

Edited 2007-07-12 19:56

Reply Score: 4

RE: Copyright assignment
by binarycrusader on Fri 13th Jul 2007 00:19 UTC in reply to "Copyright assignment"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

This is a good example of why I would NEVER contribute code to a project that requires copyright assignment.


So you would never contribute to:

OpenSolaris
The Apache Project
MySQL
Any Free Software Foundation Projects

etc?

I don't think you realise that in this day of lawsuits that copyright assignment is the only defense a project has against the evils of this world.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Copyright assignment
by Anonumous on Fri 13th Jul 2007 01:51 UTC in reply to "Copyright assignment"
Anonumous Member since:
2007-06-13

As I said, there are valid reasons for copyright assignment. Anyways...

OpenSolaris is under CDDL (which according to the FSF isn't a strong copyleft license, whatever that means exactly... not 100% sure) and the Apache project is under the Apache license (which isn't a copyleft license either). Nothing wrong with that, but they have already sort of missed out on the quid pro quo philosophy. I might consider contributing smaller patches to projects like these but nothing major. But in that case, it's dubious whether I have the right to assert any copyright at all anyway.

I wouldn't contribute to MySQL, no.

As for FSF projects. When it comes to not closing up the code or doing something else that goes against the spirit of GPL, I think the FSF can be trusted... don't you think? ;)

The beauty of the GPL is that there is an implicit trust which is important for companies etc. It's one of the reasons I think Linux etc have bean so successful with large corporations (and I think Linus agrees ;) .

Edited 2007-07-13 02:02

Reply Score: 2

To Cyclops
by Bobmeister on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:55 UTC
Bobmeister
Member since:
2005-07-06

Thanks...I of course, stand corrected on that nuance.

Reply Score: 1

meianoite
Member since:
2006-04-05

Apple is unleashing the Armageddon. The full assault on corporate and domestic desktops that Apple has been cooking for the last 5 years has finally reached critical mass.

Just wait until CEOs start demanding iPhone support. The MacBooks are *full* of corporate momentum.

By using CUPS Apple gained a boatload of high quality printer driver support. Now it seems that Apple is ready to take it in their own hands. The Apple mindshare is sky high nowadays, all it takes is broader hardware support to roll the big snowball down the hill. This is what owning the CUPS code bring: the driver (!) seat with regards to broader printer support.


This is just beautiful. Really. The MacBooks and the iPhone to gain corporate mindshare; the iPod halo effect all over again.

What a strategy!


Edit: broader.

Edited 2007-07-12 20:08

Reply Score: 4

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

The full assault on corporate and domestic desktops that Apple has been cooking for the last 5 years has finally reached critical mass.

Just wait until CEOs start demanding iPhone support. The MacBooks are *full* of corporate momentum.


Yeah, I'm sure that will happen Real Soon Now(tm).

Reply Score: 1

Apple bought something useful
by saterdaies on Thu 12th Jul 2007 20:12 UTC
saterdaies
Member since:
2005-07-07

For people on both sides, cool down.

1. Apple isn't going to hamper CUPS development or its GPL status. There's no reason for a fork and there's every reason to expect this to make CUPS better.

2. Apple didn't buy nothing. You CAN own open-source code. That ownership gets you something. Specifically, you can make GPL EXEMPTIONS. As they mention on the CUPS site (http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L179+I0+T+M10+P1+Q) this means that if you're developing a printer driver for an Apple OS, you're allowed to use CUPS without complying with the GPL. That's attractive to people like HP or Epson and will get Apple more printer drivers.

So, the Linux (and other free software communities) get CUPS development from Apple. Apple gets more printer drivers from companies who would love to use a non-GPL CUPS. It's really a great situation all-around.

Apple now owns the copyright to the code. The GPL is irrevocable so your rights are protected (and it's in Apple's interest to continue with the GPL to gain some free development that way) and Apple gets easier printer drivers.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apple bought something useful
by archiesteel on Thu 12th Jul 2007 20:21 UTC in reply to "Apple bought something useful"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Apple gets more printer drivers from companies who would love to use a non-GPL CUPS. It's really a great situation all-around.


Not quite, if it means that Apple will get printers which Linux *won't* get because printer manufacturers will only release it for the non-GPL version...I certainly wouldn't call that a great situation all-around!

Reply Score: 5

ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

I agree. However, the provision allowing for this seems to have been in the CUPS license for five years now:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/05/msg00033.html

Reply Score: 5

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Wow.

At least that was public and in the license.

But the purchase of the open source world's premiere print subsystem by Apple went unmentioned for 5 months.

I can't help but wonder what other surprises they might be holding back, thinking that the community might not be ready to accept them yet.

I'm a bit torn between being cautiously optimistic, and downright suspicious at this point.

Reply Score: 5

melgross Member since:
2005-08-12

What you forget here, is that Linux wouldn't be getting those drivers anyway. But if Apple can get them, as they wouldn't have before, that will inspire them to make more improvements to CUPS, which WILL be released for the use of Linux.

You don't find that to be positive?

Reply Score: 1

Anonumous Member since:
2007-06-13

If everyone was treated equal, Linux would be getting those drivers too. Now, however, the sole copyright owner gets special treatment. I don't find that to be positive. And I gather that the external contributions (i.e. not from Apple) could in theory eclipse the internal ones (if the project was managed properly). But now, all contributors aren't treated equal. If I where a large corporation that wanted to make major contributions to CUPS I would think twice because I would have to give it all up to Apple.

Reply Score: 1

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

By providing closed drivers to OSX for a piece of hardware the chances of an open driver for that hardware being developed go down. The "Surface area" of affected users (users who have the printer but no driver) is suddenly much smaller--because, obviously, OSX users are more likely to attach printers than Linux users, given the server/desktop percentages of each)--so the incentive for independant development of an open driver is greatly reduced.

This is teh "Should Linux allow binary drivers?" debate all over again. Binary drivers might get you hardware support in the short term, but in the long run it's better to go without them to encourage development of open drivers--even with poor initial quality.

Would Open Office have as large a development effort behind it if Microsoft Office were available for Linux? No, because there would be much less demand.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Not quite, if it means that Apple will get printers which Linux *won't* get because printer manufacturers will only release it for the non-GPL version...I certainly wouldn't call that a great situation all-around!


Surely if you bought a printer, and it had a closed-source driver for MacOSX, and MacOSX was using CUPs, then that same driver could be used on Linux.

It would be even more attractive for printer manufacturers if they could cover the MacOSX and the Linux market at the same time.

After all, what does it matter to a printer manufacturer what OS users are running?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Apple bought something useful
by cyclops on Thu 12th Jul 2007 20:30 UTC in reply to "Apple bought something useful"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

What two sides!? This is a happenstance.

Why is this not going to hamper CUPS development? Is there going to be a license change? Can this code compatible with GPL3. Why should they make it better for GNU...its not in their interest.

If you can have *exceptions* to GPL(you don't you can dual license the *your* code) in cups its a disadvantage to GNU not an advantage. Closed source drivers on GNU are worse than there Windows equivalent.

Are your freedoms protected with dual license code?

Edited 2007-07-12 20:32

Reply Score: 3

RE: Apple bought something useful
by alcibiades on Thu 12th Jul 2007 20:32 UTC in reply to "Apple bought something useful"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

"It's really a great situation all-around."

I'm not convinced. Mainly because of Apple's record on open systems and customer choice. Which has been a consistent theme for over 20 years, and which is now showing up in the iPhone negotiations in the UK. The basic approach is always control and restriction. What the Guardian reports on this last is:

"Apple is understood to be demanding that its European mobile phone partners hand over a significant proportion of revenues generated by the iPhone and restrict the content that users can access. The portion of network revenues demanded by Apple is believed to have been behind Vodafone's decision not to sign up as the exclusive partner for the iPhone in the UK."

You have it also in iTunes/iPod (and in the linking of the iPhone to iTunes) and in the basic attitude to the OS and to hardware. Not just the ability to run the OS on the hardware of your choice - but the ability to upgrade the hardware.

Apple's approach is always about linking sales and controlling, to compel you to buy more of the package from them as opposed to mixing and matching. Now, this may or may not have integration benefits. What I know is, I don't want them at the price asked.

So my reaction would be immediate: fork it, and fork it now. If Apple's heart were in the right place, it would have contributed and would have continued to place its contributions in the public domain. If the CUPS guys hearts had been in the right place, they would never have insisted on copyright assignment. But as it is, fork it now.

Reply Score: 5

shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

Couldn't have said it better myself.
Apple and freedom do not mix.

Reply Score: 3

nonsense
by Oliver on Thu 12th Jul 2007 20:29 UTC
Oliver
Member since:
2006-07-15

Apple is no friend of opensource, but it's a big user of free technologies. Period.

Reply Score: 0

RE: nonsense
by meianoite on Thu 12th Jul 2007 22:02 UTC in reply to "nonsense"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

DOUBLE nonsense. Go check what Apple does for LLVM, will you?

LLVM is crucial technology, Apple employed Chris Lattner, and guess what, it released the ARM LLVM backend in a BSD license. Not APSL, not CDDL, but BSD. But I'm sure some people would still insist it's not good enough and it should be released in the public domain instead.

There's been a word coined to refer to this attitude: trolling.

Same thing when people complained Apple made it impossible to merge their Webkit work into the KHTML mainline. Well, guess what, a much needed code reorganisation and plenty of work trying to untie KHTML and Qt can't be easily merged back, by definition. I saw less than a handful of actual KHTML developers complaining, but the peanut gallery was in uproar!

This holier than thou bs is really, really getting me on my nerves. 100% of businesses exist to make money, and as such they will do what makes sense to them.

And in Apple's case so far there's been absolutely no freeloading, and no hidden agenda is to be found as soon as you keep in mind they are a business; get over it.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: nonsense
by cyclops on Thu 12th Jul 2007 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE: nonsense"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"LLVM is crucial technology, Apple employed Chris Lattner, and guess what, it released the ARM LLVM backend in a BSD license. Not APSL, not CDDL, but BSD"

I can't find the reference but I'm pretty certain LLVM is under a LLVM license and this post http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html is pretty much what I would expect to be happening. It describes the license as BSD-like so I'm assuming that the license in question is LLVM license. http://llvm.org/releases/1.3/LICENSE.TXT

I personally didn't call them for branching Webkits code, although I'm happy you acknowledge khtml developers weren't happy, but to argue that its not an argument for apple *contributing* to anothers project.

Edited 2007-07-12 23:26

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: nonsense
by meianoite on Thu 12th Jul 2007 23:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: nonsense"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

I can't find the reference but I'm pretty certain LLVM is under a LLVM license and this post http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html is pretty much what I would expect to be happening. It describes the license as BSD-like so I'm assuming that the license in question is LLVM license. http://llvm.org/releases/1.3/LICENSE.TXT


http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2007-January/007813.html

I personally didn't call them for branching Webkits code, although I'm happy you acknowledge khtml developers weren't happy, but to argue that its not an argument for apple *contributing* to anthers project.


A couple devs expressed some outrage, but later it became evident that it made absolutely no sense for Apple not to reorganise the code and not to write their code targeting Cocoa/ObjC, not Qt.

Anyway, now that Webkit is being ported to Qt4, this discussion is kind of mute.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: nonsense
by sorpigal on Fri 13th Jul 2007 17:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: nonsense"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

s/mute/moot/

You're welcome.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: nonsense
by KAMiKAZOW on Fri 13th Jul 2007 22:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: nonsense"
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

The LLVM license is te 3-clause BSD license with a different copyright holder (compared to BSD Unix) as only difference.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: nonsense
by exigentsky on Thu 12th Jul 2007 22:45 UTC in reply to "nonsense"
exigentsky Member since:
2005-07-09

Don't you just love how paranoid some people in the FSF are? It seems most times, a company has to go bankrupt before these people realize that it was helping them all along. It's just ridiculous.

I still remember how Linspire was viewed as the devil because it didn't conform to every single demand of the FS movement because they had some proprietary code too. However, it contributed a lot of code, marketing and money to over two dozen FS projects. Here is a list of some of their contributions: http://info.lindows.com/opensource/ SUN also has been crucified countless times and they are probably the biggest corporate contributor to FS. They have invested billions into FS. This includes, OpenSolaris, Java, OpenOffice, GNOME and dozens of other projects I can't remember off the top of my head. Yet they probably got more bad PR overall. Apple too is definitely no foe of open source. They need open source in order to be more standardized and to cut costs. They've also contributed heavily to FreeBSD, GCC, KHTML, and even released Darwin as OSS. http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html But no, Apple is no friend of FS either. They didn't go bankrupt, so it's not clear if they aren't planning some SUPER EVIL conspiracy against FS. It seems to me that a lot of people in the FSF movement need to look before shooting because if this continues, the FSF movement really won't have any friends. A company seems to do better in terms of PR by not contributing anything to the FS movement because helping will get you shot. It's pathetic.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: nonsense
by sbergman27 on Thu 12th Jul 2007 22:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: nonsense"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Don't you just love how paranoid some people in the FSF are?
"""

Not really. The paranoia concerns me.

"""
I still remember how Linspire was viewed as the devil because it didn't conform to every single demand of the FS movement because they had some proprietary code too.
"""

I was giving them the benefit of the doubt until they began to actively collude with Microsoft to legitimize the idea of paying patent royalties to MS for using *other* operating systems.

You picked a really bad example, there. The FSF paranoics were right on that one.

Oh. And "every single demand"? Straw man technique, that. Very unbecomming.

Edited 2007-07-12 22:56

Reply Score: 3

Why fork now?
by sitharus on Thu 12th Jul 2007 21:09 UTC
sitharus
Member since:
2005-07-25

The licence for CUPS now is identical to what it's been for the past 5 years - including the exemptions for Apple software. If you're really paranoid mirror the repository and fork when the licence changes.

Here's a thread on the Debian mailing list when the Apple exemptions were put in the licence: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/05/msg00033.html

Reply Score: 5

Er
by nevali on Thu 12th Jul 2007 21:17 UTC
nevali
Member since:
2006-10-12

For those who missed it:

The copyright on CUPS was already owned by a company, and that company opted to release CUPS under the GPL.

Apple bought that company.

Apple now owns the copyrights to CUPS, and will continue to use the GPL for future releases. By nature of the GPL, even if they didn't use the GPL for future releases, existing releases (which are widely used) still will be, and Apple (or anybody else) is unable to change that.

To answer the question of the delay between February and Now: I'm speculating, but I'd imagine sorting out all of the finer legal points of the purchase had something to do with it.

There is precisely nothing to worry or complain about with this announcement: Apple is paying for the continued development of one of the better pieces of open source software. There actually isn't a better way to “give back to the community”.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Er
by sbergman27 on Thu 12th Jul 2007 21:38 UTC in reply to "Er"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
There is precisely nothing to worry or complain about with this announcement
"""

Comforting words. In an odd sort of way, they remind me of these words spoken by Patrick Allen:

"If any member of the family should die whilst in the shelter from contamination,
Put them outside, but remember to tag them first for identification purposes.
Mine is the last voice that you will ever hear, do not be alarmed."

Reply Score: 2

RE: Er
by Morgan on Thu 12th Jul 2007 23:37 UTC in reply to "Er"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

There is precisely nothing to worry or complain about with this announcement

Or, in other words, "Nothing to see here, move along!" Call me paranoid, but I'm just a bit wary of this deal. Time will tell, I guess.

Reply Score: 1

Anyone remember Postmaster?
by Vinegar Joe on Thu 12th Jul 2007 21:47 UTC
Vinegar Joe
Member since:
2006-08-16

Developer Kenny Carruthers had a wonderful time at Apple.

http://www.bebits.com/app/75
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=5154

Reply Score: 2

Oh, also…
by nevali on Thu 12th Jul 2007 21:51 UTC
nevali
Member since:
2006-10-12

Apple's had a very close relationship with Easy SW for a long time (and has been paying them to do CUPS-related work).

The ‘Apple operating system license exception’ has been part of the CUPS license since 2002, for example.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/05/msg00041.html

Reply Score: 3

I'm scared, someone hold me.
by gregf on Thu 12th Jul 2007 21:56 UTC
gregf
Member since:
2006-06-23

Spit my coffee out of my mouth after reading this title earlier today. Kind of a scary thing right now not knowing what apple will do with it. Like someone else said above though, could also be a great thing. Long as apple keeps the gpl license like mentioned and the lead developer gets paid I'm happy for him and the community.

Reply Score: 1

Hopefully
by KugelKurt on Thu 12th Jul 2007 23:13 UTC
KugelKurt
Member since:
2005-07-06

Hopefully this will result in a redisign of the CUPS website as well as http://localhost:631/
CUPS is nice software, but honestly.... both sites look like poo (literaly).
Apple has so many great designers. There has to be someone within Apple who creates a nicer website for CUPS.

Reply Score: 2

Ahhhh!
by Tuishimi on Fri 13th Jul 2007 01:22 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

Run for the hills! Apple bought CUPS! We're dooooomed, we're allllll gonna die!

Reply Score: 4

CUPS APPLE
by milles21 on Fri 13th Jul 2007 14:37 UTC
milles21
Member since:
2006-11-08

Come on, everything is not some plot. Apple already contributes to a number of opensource projects and everyone does not have to operate or do things exactly thye same meaning your interpretation of the GPL to have the same common goal. Owning something does not mean that you are out to destroy it. People do'nt buy art to destroy it, My theory is that they purchased it because they had some unique feature that they likely wanted to integrate with Leopard or the iphone and saw that it may be easire if they owned the rights and employed the lead CUPS programmer. I am sure the purchased it to have the ability to integrate certain features in their os without some huge community drawback because now the own it. People may sy well they paid for it, and lets keep in mind it was for sell obviously, Apple did not use Microsoft tactics to squeeze anyone out of anyt

Reply Score: 4

RE: CUPS APPLE
by cyclops on Fri 13th Jul 2007 15:32 UTC in reply to "CUPS APPLE"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

I'm tired of words like "plot" or "conspiracy" etc etc. I Admit it does make the whole thing more exciting. Apple having examined there contributions, only contribute forced by a copyleft license, or work around the license by making it incompatible, or focus on alternative solutions, or buy out the copyright.

It is *not* an open source company, they are simply incapable of filling large gaps in a complete OS, without mining open-source, but they do not work collaboratively with those projects to a common end.

The fact that you talk about "Unique" feature says it all. The simple fact is if its Unique its not shared its propriatery.

They bought out the software company, to obtain copyright to the code, thats standard practice for almost *everything* that we see in Vista today.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: CUPS APPLE
by milles21 on Fri 13th Jul 2007 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE: CUPS APPLE"
milles21 Member since:
2006-11-08

I agree with you the bought it meaning it had to be for sale. Microsoft could have bouhgt it, hell Pepsi could have the fact remains that Apple is not an open source company and the do contribute regardless of whether you may feel their contributions are in good faith. The fact is that they meet the requirements and that is all that is asked by the license. Maybe the FSF should have purchased it and there would be no discussion untill then there really should be no issue apple has not said we are changing anything.

Everyone is so conspiracy sensitive

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: CUPS APPLE
by cyclops on Fri 13th Jul 2007 18:02 UTC in reply to "RE: CUPS APPLE"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"Apple is not an open source company and the do contribute regardless of whether you may feel their contributions are in good faith."

Apple do not make *any* contributions in good faith. In fact as we delve deeper. We are yet to see anything that does not point to *using* but not contributing to. The Exception if GCC owned in the same way by the FSF, and they have to be we see that they are trying to move to a more BSD licensed product so they can code mine again, and they do that because their simply is not an alternative on the scale or quality of GCC. They have no choice.

"FSF should have purchased it" do you even know who the FSF foundation is? I won't warrant that with a reply.

The conspiracy argument does not work here. Conspiracies imply more than one group is involved...they conspire. This is Apple a single company they act like they have always acted. In what they believe to be their own best interest. They are not even doing it in secret they *publicly* bought out an open source software product. They use masses of Open source code, and contribute little back. They don't do anything secretly.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: CUPS APPLE
by milles21 on Fri 13th Jul 2007 20:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: CUPS APPLE"
milles21 Member since:
2006-11-08

Now that I have a chance to respond. Yes I know who the FSF is and while you felt compelled to reply to my comments you have not addressed that the rights were "FOR SALE".

The big issue here is again if it is that big of a deal and if so many people feel that strongly about it then someone should have forked up the cash to purchase before Apple and ensure that the GPL license remained uncompromised.

The fact is this is not the first project to have this happen and it by far will not be the last that is the nature of this licensing structure. Apple capitalized on what was obviously for sale.

I know the licenses that I contribute code to and I am aware that this may potentially happen. You may never expect it to happen but you should be aware that it can happen. Again let's not talk about what they don't contribute address the fact that they were able to buy what many feel should not have been for sale even though the license it is under explicitly allows this type of thing to occur.

I will take the conspiracy clarification and say thanks I know the definition however I used it out of context so I stand corrected, (Nice Catch)

I can disagree amicably and take some of your comments into consideration however "Apple do not make *any* contributions in good faith" comment that is an opinion not a fact and also *using* but not contributing is allowed by the license. I think that the backlash here of Apple's purchase is really an disappointment and acknowledgment of a flawed license.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: CUPS APPLE
by cyclops on Fri 13th Jul 2007 21:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: CUPS APPLE"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

And thats the trend we see here. I find very little posts that are a backlash against apples decision. I simply calling you a liar. I think some people are overprotective. I see concern, and speculation and little else.

The FSF is not a mega-corperation with deep pockets, you were actually being facetious. I do in part agree with you, but seeing the same people looking for help from the same people who you see time and time being abused, and it being condoned on here, to protect their freedoms.

There is a flaw in the license we can all see unusual apple clause. The reality is if there is an issue its whether you can trust the people you hand you *copyright* over to, but to be fair I see no reports of anyone condemning this sale that contributed, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was some.

I find it unsurprising that the only project I see being actively contributed to by Apple to any degree is that owned by the FSF...which is of no surprise, they cannot easily be bought. Even with a little consultancy from the maintainers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: CUPS APPLE
by KugelKurt on Fri 13th Jul 2007 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: CUPS APPLE"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Stop trolling.

"I find it unsurprising that the only project I see being actively contributed to by Apple to any degree is that owned by the FSF"

If that's the only project you see, you need to wear glasses.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: CUPS APPLE
by cyclops on Fri 13th Jul 2007 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: CUPS APPLE"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"If that's the only project you see, you need to wear glasses."

Then simply point them out. I'm perfectly willing to be corrected.

Reply Score: 2

RE[8]: CUPS APPLE
by KugelKurt on Fri 13th Jul 2007 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: CUPS APPLE"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

No, you are not willing to be corrected.
People already posted that Apple contributes to LLVM (not a FSF project).

Reply Score: 1

RE[9]: CUPS APPLE
by cyclops on Fri 13th Jul 2007 22:19 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: CUPS APPLE"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

And the reply has been the same, LLVM is a replacement for GCC which allows Apple to inject proprietary code into or replace GCC completely, as the license is more in line with what Apple want which is take and not give back.

...but then I've to the very tiny list that has been posted.

Edited 2007-07-13 22:20

Reply Score: 2