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 254943
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Copyright assignment
by Anonumous on Thu 12th Jul 2007 19:52 UTC
Member since:

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 in reply to "Copyright assignment"
binarycrusader Member since:

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:

The Apache Project
Any Free Software Foundation Projects


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 Parent Score: 4

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

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 Parent Score: 2