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 255084
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[15]: Re: Say What?
by cyclops on Fri 13th Jul 2007 00:53 UTC 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

RE[17]: Re: Say What?
by cyclops on Fri 13th Jul 2007 11:11 in reply to "RE[16]: Re: Say What?"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

OSNews V4 finally turns this site into what perhaps it always was a smackdown site. I actually can't stanf the avatar stuff. It actually makes this personal, and I don't like that. I would rather not recognize the people I post to.

The reason I wanted PM is becuase of this "So what? The BSD license is designed to allow this. Which is great" I don't want to talk about BSD here, becuase then I would truly deserve the title troll. Its not only off-topic and emotive. *You* have mentioned BSD lots of times in this thread, and I have seen nothing to show that Apple support this license in fact we do see a few different licenses from license none of them BSD.

Ignoring the Moral argument, or that BSD *relies* on sharing, and is what the license is about. *My* problem and it is *my* problem is I'm lost. Comparatively in the OS world there is precious little in the open-source world that is under BSD and I can see why. Copyleft forces morally bankrupt companies like apple to share their code...like I have seen with Apples dealing with GCC. BSD doesn't so gets little to nothing. The only positive think I have ever seen about the license is the way it can be used to get a *standard* like TCP adopted, and thats the only example I can think of as it being used this way. Although through *your* posts being used as a CV/Service over code you maintain. I now understand why *BSD has such a limited feature set.

The term BSD is "great" resource for morally bankrupt companies to scavenge from. But *BSD as a product that stands up in its own right suddenly seems ridiculous to the extreme. The difference between similar *morally bankrupt* companies contributing to the linux, and even Apple over GCC...I'm lost i'm truly lost. I'm curbing my own emotive language, and losing my point.

Dont push the point "Anyway, now that Webkit is being ported to Qt4, this discussion is kind of mute." thats what you said, you outright lied. I was not good enough to call you on it then, but I'm better now. I understand the arguments. Apple scavenged code from khtml, in a form that could not allow mutual collaboration, you actually state that that it was the incompatible toolkit that made this happen. Ignoring the simple fact that code *does not work like that* certainly not object-orientated code. It could have been rewritten to support two toolkits, in fact thats what KDE developers are doing, and the copyleft license means they can". In fact this reference says it all. "It is dependent on many factors ... our ability to come to a suitable working arrangement with the other WebKit contributors."

The bottom line for *me*. That Stallman has looked over the top "calling" proprietary code evil. Having seen the abuses of open-source from *your* references. I understand his point more. The one-way code grab says it all, regardless of how you point out token/copyleft contributions, I see all over your comments "have the right to";"business" and "IP" says it all. In the next thread I will be able to point out your subterfuge with confidence because I am more familiar with what Apple has *not done* for open source, there morally bankrupt agenda.

I actually understand now why Apple bought out cups, and its the same reasoning the use BSD and are choosing llvm over contributing to GCC, and its not about control. Its about a simple take not give back attitude that Linus chose GPL for the kernel to defend. That actually leaves the original project a poor alternative to Apples *now proprietary* product.

I'm starting to believe this is a *bad* business decision in the short term they get a quick code injection, but as we have seen with the OpenDarwin project not many developers want to "care about giving their art to the world and making quality code completely available for anyone else to use it".

Reply Parent Score: 3