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 255067
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[14]: Re: Say What?
by meianoite on Thu 12th Jul 2007 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE[13]: Re: Say What?"
meianoite
Member since:
2006-04-05

I was referring to Atheros from *your* list of ccompanies http://zd1211.wiki.sourceforge.net/VendorDriver.


Except that you failed to notice WHEN ZyDAS began releasing those sources: 2004/2005 timeframe
http://dsd.object4.net/zd1211-vendor/ChangeLog.txt

By then Apple had already stopped using Atheros chips.

But enough cat and mouse, ok? We already made our points.

But lets face it a competing kernel manages Open source drivers where Apple fail to deliver...and they can pick and choose their hardware.


Now you're saying Apple failed to release OPEN SOURCE drivers when they were previously closed and had their internal Apple development covered by NDA?! And you're comparing them to either reverse-engineered drivers or drivers that ended up being contributed at a much later timeframe than what was relevant to Apple?

It saddens me more that you make claims of support for open-source and yet buy hardware, from companies that don't support it. I bought my wireless cards from ZyDAS becuase of their support for open-source. Clearly you or Apple do not think that way. Oddly *intel* *contributed* the ieee80211 wireless stack.


As mentioned before, ZyDAS support for open source came at a much later date. And the 3945ABG card on my laptop is built in, not add-on. And I bought this laptop because I could afford its price; it had nothing to do with the luxury of only choosing select, FreeBSD-supported hardware.

Again: enough cat and mouse, we both made our points. There was no wrongdoing in Apple's actions in this regard.

Edit: he edited, I edited, else it would lose context and stop making sense

Edited 2007-07-12 23:42

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[15]: Re: Say What?
by cyclops on Fri 13th Jul 2007 00:06 in reply to "RE[14]: Re: Say What?"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"Again: enough cat and mouse, we both made our points. There was no wrongdoing in Apple's actions in this regard."

I don't think we are playing cat and mouse. Your claiming Apple is an Open-source company. I didn't. In fact open-source(sic) is something that although getting increasing interest from Companies. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table...kicked by Microsoft BTW. Sun over Java is fantastic example of this. None of these companies do it for love but necessity. The *only* example, but I'm sure I can think of that was done out of Love was ID. Even Linus is in it for himself.

What Apple does is wartered down post iPod as I suspect they are more interested being Content provider than a Hardware company, but they *could* have open-sourced BSD wireless drivers, they *chose* not to, they even have the power and influence to get companies to open-source their drivers. Apple put the machines together nobody else. Wireless chips are a *cheap* part of a computer, and there are many choices. The funny thing is its in *their* benefit to closed source drivers.

I personally don't think Apple is doing anything wrong, but to argue love and kisses with open source when I see little to nothing to support this argument. I actually went to http://www.macosforge.org/ thats shameful support.

BTW if you could not find a FreeBSD-supported laptop in *your* price range with a compatible wireless card. Then either the kernel, the development model, the license, or the community is simply not up to scratch. I suspect its none of these things.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[16]: Re: Say What?
by meianoite on Fri 13th Jul 2007 01:20 in reply to "RE[15]: Re: Say What?"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

I don't think we are playing cat and mouse. Your claiming Apple is an Open-source company.


W T F ? !
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18251&comment_id=255018

If anything, I explicitly stated Apple is a business and their relation to open-source projects is governed by what makes business sense to them.

The fact that they actually happen to either contribute stuff back or just go on and open significant portions code they own is a very welcome twist of their business logic, IMHO.

I didn't. In fact open-source(sic) is something that although getting increasing interest from Companies. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table...kicked by Microsoft BTW. Sun over Java is fantastic example of this. None of these companies do it for love but necessity. The *only* example, but I'm sure I can think of that was done out of Love was ID. Even Linus is in it for himself.


Great, so seemingly we're on the same page here, except that you believe I'm not.

What Apple does is wartered down post iPod as I suspect they are more interested being Content provider than a Hardware company,


Being a business as Apple is, why you wonder so? Content is where the money is; hardware is increasingly becoming commoditised. Ask IBM why they sold their home PC division to Lenovo; and while you're at it, ask HP and Dell why they ventured into the home entertainment business with their TVs.

If anything, Apple's shareholders should be glad the company they invested their money in is not a one trick pony.

but they *could* have open-sourced BSD wireless drivers,


How?

they *chose* not to, they even have the power and influence to get companies to open-source their drivers.


Oh-kay. Right. Sure. Twisting corporate allies arms is an excellent tactic when you're a fraction of the size of your direct competitors. Or used to be.

Apple put the machines together nobody else. Wireless chips are a *cheap* part of a computer, and there are many choices. The funny thing is its in *their* benefit to closed source drivers.


The wireless chip could cost a dime, this is not the issue here; it's the associated IP that happens to be an entirely different matter - mind the binary blobs used by almost every vendor. And the fact that back when Apple made the licensing agreements they had to play by the same rules everybody else was bound by and do the development under NDA.

Sometimes I feel I'm one of the few people who don't believe Apple has magical powers and the tiles that built 1 Infinite Loop are made with pixie dust. Yet people call me a zealot. Go figure.

I personally don't think Apple is doing anything wrong, but to argue love and kisses with open source when I see little to nothing to support this argument. I actually went to http://www.macosforge.org/ thats shameful support.


I only mentioned Mac OS Forge for the sake of reference; I couldn't agree more that the content of the site itself stinks. Even the OpenSolaris website is more effervescent and appropriate (and IMHO the OpenSolaris website sucks to an incredible degree).

Which brings me to another point: to build a vibrant community of open source developers, there must be interest from the community itself. OpenDarwin (the website, that happened to be supported by ISC as well) was shut down for this very reason.

You can't really expect a flourishing community to exist when the mongers spread the word that Apple is doing it just to steal somebody else's work, wrap it up and name it after a cat.

BTW if you could not find a FreeBSD-supported laptop in *your* price range with a compatible wireless card. Then either the kernel, the development model, the license, or the community is simply not up to scratch. I suspect its none of these things.


I'll pretend I missed the provocation and simply state that both OpenBSD and NetBSD have the right drivers, and the FreeBSD one is under development. I have plenty of patience to wait until this driver is ready. In the meantime, here's Ubuntu, loaded with the proprietary driver.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[15]: Re: Say What?
by cyclops on Fri 13th Jul 2007 00:53 in reply to "RE[14]: Re: Say What?"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

off-topic

@meianoite lol sorry about the editing I do that all the time. Once for spell checking, and often a second time to verify my points. I'm actually struggling as this site has been updated with about three threads I am interested in. Its the second time in two days, because I'm heading more off topic. I have wanted to send a private message. In any point scoring game about apple you will *always* make stronger comments, but having looked through the references, and comments. The thing I am most shocked by is how much Apple have taken.

The only reference to Webkit is not it being ported but re-synchronized http://dot.kde.org/1152645965/ on QT4 this work is *NOT* being done by Apple. but your initial statement was false.

I've ignored your comments about NDA's which I shouldn't have done. Apple is a hardware company and a good one, but they have shown little sign in showing *real* support to *any* open source drivers that a company interested in furthering open source; controlling their own hardware could give, other than what is necessary.

I'm actually fascinated by the acknowledgment you link to about FreeBSD simply becuase they don't offer *real* support to it, and its not a real competitor.

And finally this http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2007-January/007813.html what are you on about. this shown nothing and I mean nothing about your post , my post or the reply to it. Is this code under a BSD license as you stated or not!

The think that I'm actually fascinated with is you are making post *more* knowable than mine, but when I check they tell half a story of a half truth. You respond to my posts as though I'm accusing Apple of some wrong doing in fact everything I see points to BSD being a poor license not for political reasons but Linus' Tit for Tat, when its certainly not the case. I'm saying they are a proprietary company that takes from open source, and everything I see supports that statement.

Edited 2007-07-13 01:06

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[16]: Re: Say What?
by meianoite on Fri 13th Jul 2007 01:41 in reply to "RE[15]: Re: Say What?"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

I have wanted to send a private message.


Log into OSNews V4 and you will ;)

In any point scoring game about apple you will *always* make stronger comments, but having looked through the references, and comments. The thing I am most shocked by is how much Apple have taken.


So what? The BSD license is designed to allow this. Which is great, BTW: Sun only exists because once there was a time SunOS was 100% BSD-based. Then Sun grew bigger and became able to license SysV.

The only reference to Webkit is not it being ported but re-synchronized http://dot.kde.org/1152645965/ on QT4 this work is *NOT* being done by Apple. but your initial statement was false.


I did not say or otherwise implied it was Apple doing this work. Check my post again.

I've ignored your comments about NDA's which I shouldn't have done. Apple is a hardware company and a good one, but they have shown little sign in showing *real* support to *any* open source drivers that a company interested in furthering open source; controlling their own hardware could give, other than what is necessary.


I did not say Apple is interested in furthering Open Source. Google is, Sun is, Apple is not. Because Apple's business is to sell the software-plus-hardware package, or "the whole experience" in market speak, or "the whole widget" in Jobs' speak. Google's business is to sell advertisement space, and recently also media content. Sun's business is to sell throughput-related services.

Keep this in mind every time you read some news regarding these companies.

'm actually fascinated by the acknowledgment you link to about FreeBSD simply becuase they don't offer *real* support to it, and its not a real competitor.


You're expecting flashy announcements where they seldom exist in the BSD world, and less so when it's not indirectly related to OpenBSD, more often than not Theo being harsh.

I've already told you to grep around CVS logs for further info.

And finally this http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2007-January/007813.html what are you on about. this shown nothing and I mean nothing about your post , my post or the reply to it. Is this code under a BSD license as you stated or not!


http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Target/ARM/

The think that I'm actually fascinated with is you are making post *more* knowable than mine, but when I check they tell half a story of a half truth.


If you have any specific complaints, share, and I'll address them. I'm not trying to lecture you, only to show you that the facts are not as shallow as some people seem to imply. Google is a great tool.

You respond to my posts as though I'm accusing Apple of some wrong doing in fact everything I see points to BSD being a poor license not for political reasons but Linus' Tit for Tat,


The BSD license is designed as such. Remember how it was created: in the academic world. People choose to release code under the BSD license because they don't care about "tit for tat". They care about giving their art to the world and making quality code completely available for anyone else to use it.

when its certainly not the case. I'm saying they are a proprietary company that takes from open source, and everything I see supports that statement.


We're back on the same page!

Here, quoting myself:
"http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18251&comment_id=255018

If anything, I explicitly stated Apple is a business and their relation to open-source projects is governed by what makes business sense to them.

The fact that they actually happen to either contribute stuff back or just go on and open significant portions code they own is a very welcome twist of their business logic, IMHO."


;)

Edit: I hate OSNews' URL mangling with a passion

Edited 2007-07-13 01:42

Reply Parent Score: 3