OSNews

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.

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.

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.

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.

you mean like OpenOffice?

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

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.

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.

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

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

Today? More than 5 years ago: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/05/msg00033.html and http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18251&comment_id=255038

Edited 2007-07-12 23:17

Five years ago Apple didn't own the copyright.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

@ 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

"""
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

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

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.)

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?

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.)

@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.

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)

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??

@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.

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.

"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

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

wow, that post scares me.

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

:P

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

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.

"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)

"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. :-)

"""
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

"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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

"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.

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

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.

"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

s/mute/moot/

You're welcome.

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

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.

"""
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

"""
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."

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.

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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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