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 254941
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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 Parent Score: 2

RE: Question
by Doc Pain on Fri 13th Jul 2007 12:57 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 Parent Score: 2