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."
Thread beginning with comment 254939
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: sooo
by cyclops on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:59 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: sooo
by ralph on Thu 12th Jul 2007 20:10 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 Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: sooo
by sbergman27 on Thu 12th Jul 2007 20:21 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 Parent Score: 3

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

you mean like OpenOffice?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: sooo
by thebin on Fri 13th Jul 2007 00:48 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: sooo
by lemur2 on Fri 13th Jul 2007 12:36 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 Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: sooo
by Alleister on Fri 13th Jul 2007 18:47 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 Parent Score: 2