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 255185
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[17]: Re: Say What?
by cyclops on Fri 13th Jul 2007 09:43 UTC in reply to "RE[16]: Re: Say What?"
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

@meianoite Come on your killing me.

You comment was a response about GCC being an open-source project. My point is they would replace it in a heartbeat...as would BSD, for the more attractive *lisence*, your arguing they are doing it because its *good technology*. I simply *cannot* argue with that. Oddly the reference I pulled out about licenses shows the possibility of some merging between GCC.

My comments are strictly about Apple not being an open-source partner, and yes I made up the term. The fact that you refer to business decisions not moral, or doing was right. I'm increasingly seen as business being used as excuse for *immorality*

Your arguing that in a market that has competing products, with companies that have *willingly* open-sourced *their* IP apple could not have chosen a wireless product they could show the source to. That is just nonsense. Your in the land of pixie dust. If you *had* have argued that Apple chose the best technology to go in their product, and respect the wireless companies IP, but I can't believe the differences are that great. The bottom line is Apple is *not* contributing back those drivers, on the large list of things it doesn't and there is no excuse for them not to.

The site actually shows that Apple give lipsync to open source as opposed to real support, as for Opensolaris. Suns interest is Solaris not open source. I suspect if Solaris make the decision to go GPL3. I suspect things will change rapidly. Oddly the site I would pick as a good reference to open-source would be Novell/Mono which is lovely.

About OpenDarwin "On July 25, 2006, the OpenDarwin team announced that the project was shutting down, as they felt OpenDarwin had "become a mere hosting facility for Mac OS X related projects," the actual shutdown notice has been taken down, but it pretty much says it all really.

There is no provocation, if you find it so its becuase its simple true. I find it funny that Vista users with their "Its the drivers" excuses and Linux users with their "the companies won't share their specifications" admittedly an open-source driver will always trump that of a proprietary one for support. BSD actually looks like a none starter. I use an open source wireless stick that I chose from a company that supported open-source, Apple could have done the same, as could you.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[18]: Re: Say What?
by meianoite on Fri 13th Jul 2007 18:43 in reply to "RE[17]: Re: Say What?"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

@meianoite Come on your killing me.

You comment was a response about GCC being an open-source project. My point is they would replace it in a heartbeat...as would BSD, for the more attractive *lisence*, your arguing they are doing it because its *good technology*.


Are you doing this on purpose? You're completely mixing things up. Apple employs Chris Lattner, but doesn't own LLVM. Apple single-handedly built the ARM backend, released it under a BSD license (if you want to nitpick that it's not verbatim BSD, be my guest; but you're going to look like the fool here). Now, of all companies, Nokia has started taking this code to use it as they see fit, and it's even contributing some stuff back, too!! Just check the CVS logs of LLVM.

(And notice, if you read my comment history, you'll see that I began advocating LLVM a long time before Apple entered the game. If anything, I'm on LLVM's side, not Apple's)

I simply *cannot* argue with that. Oddly the reference I pulled out about licenses shows the possibility of some merging between GCC.


I fail to see any oddity here. This is by design.

My comments are strictly about Apple not being an open-source partner, and yes I made up the term.


Ahem. Okay. So Apple patches to the myriads of projects they incorporate in Mac OS X are fictitious. And the software Apple itself created and gave away with a permissive license, ANY permissive license, should not be taken into consideration, ever, ever. Because Apple has become a powerful vendor by leveraging open source technology, so it must be evil.

Now that's something I can't argue with, but in this case it's because there's ZERO reason within such utterings.

The fact that you refer to business decisions not moral, or doing was right. I'm increasingly seen as business being used as excuse for *immorality*


I'm trying to make sense out of this. I guess you're saying that because Apple is making business decisions, they are immoral. And because BSD-like licenses (MIT, BSD proper, or some minor derivative, or any non-copyleft OSI-approved license) are designed to allow for this, there's filthy immorality going on, because even when Apple contributes things back, somehow Apple isn't contributing anything back; they're like a blackhole emitting useless X-rays, but you have no idea what crossed the horizon of events. Uh-huh. And because you've never seen a single FreeBSD developer complaining about Apple -- quite the opposite, actually --, somehow Apple managed to gag them.

Your arguing that in a market that has competing products, with companies that have *willingly* open-sourced *their* IP


I already told you about the time frame when ZyDAS open-sourced their drivers and how that could not affect the agreements Apple had with Atheros before. Even after Atheros began changing their attitude. And by then Apple had halted producing Airport products that had Atheros/ZyDAS chips, and went someone else.

apple could not have chosen a wireless product they could show the source to. That is just nonsense.


Why? The only obligation Apple ever had here is to support their own products, which they do via binary blobs and whatnot, not to play good-boy PR games and force some vendor to open up anything.

Interestingly, Apple's binary blobs work just as well on non-Apple branded systems running OpenDarwin. How is that different than Ubuntu providing proprietary binary blobs? You're not calling Ubuntu evil, are you?

No, you're calling Apple evil, because somehow it's a publicly traded business, not some open source paladin with perfect teeth and a shining smile, riding a pure-breed white horse while holding the magical Justice sword.

Your in the land of pixie dust.


LOL!! ;D

If you *had* have argued that Apple chose the best technology to go in their product, and respect the wireless companies IP,


Which I did.

This is the second instance where I leave you to read between the lines and you accuse me of telling half truths.

Take the trouble to do some research yourself, please? I'm not writing an encyclopaedia here, this is just OSNews.

but I can't believe the differences are that great. The bottom line is Apple is *not* contributing back those drivers, on the large list of things it doesn't and there is no excuse for them not to.


I still fail to see their obligation to.

The site actually shows that Apple give lipsync


You meant lip service, I believe.

to open source as opposed to real support, as for Opensolaris. Suns interest is Solaris not open source.


I myself already said so. You're not going to use my own words against me, sorry.

By the way, have you ever checked http://www.hackint0sh.org/ and http://www.insanelymac.com/ ? Guess how the people that hang in there managed to build XNU kernels that enable running Mac OS X on non Apple-branded PCs.

If anything, releasing those sources hurt Apple. Yet they kept releasing...

I suspect if Solaris make the decision to go GPL3. I suspect things will change rapidly. Oddly the site I would pick as a good reference to open-source would be Novell/Mono which is lovely.


It sure is. And you just can't have missed the part where I said Mac OS Forge stinks as a community site.

About OpenDarwin [snip] the actual shutdown notice has been taken down, but it pretty much says it all really.


Uh... Yes? It's become a miscellaneous OS X project repository - which is a task for some BerliOS/sf/nongnu/Tigris kind of website - instead of helping foster an OpenDarwin community. So it failed to foster OpenDarwin development. Where's the contradiction?

There is no provocation, if you find it so its becuase its simple true.


You wish.

I find it funny that Vista users with their "Its the drivers" excuses


ZERO need to bring up Vista here.

and Linux users with their "the companies won't share their specifications" admittedly an open-source driver will always trump that of a proprietary one for support.


Nonsense.

I've lost count of how many stuff gone unmaintained on the Linux kernel itself, no less!

There's no magic in opening stuff up, there must be continued support! And it's not Apple's job as a hardware integrator (VAR) to do this, has never been, never will be: this is the OEM's job!

BSD actually looks like a none starter.


Do I sense a GPL fanboi here? I hope you're not. Else I'm just wasting my time.

I use an open source wireless stick that I chose from a company that supported open-source, Apple could have done the same, as could you.


Just like they could simply give up this stupid computers gig and become a pharmaceutical company. Or open apple pie restaurants.

Why do you refuse to understand Apple is doing what makes business sense to them? Why are you not complaining about Toshiba, Gateway, Dell/Alienware, Sony, Acer, Lenovo? They're not exclusively integrating Linux-supported hardware on their complete product lines. What they do, when they do, however, is to offer a few Linux-compatible products, more often than not by the means of proprietary binary blobs, and charge a premium for such Linux-compatible offerings.

Yet, you seem to think only Apple is evil.

And FWIW: I live in a country where the minimum wage is equivalent to US$170, monthly, NOT US$6 hourly. You have absolutely no clue how much I worked and how much money I had to save and for how long to buy this laptop.

As I already said, it was not a matter of having the luxury of choice of supported hardware. I never talked about aftermarket, add-on cards, yet you keep bringing this up. Mind donating some to a 3rd world citizen like me?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[19]: Re: Say What?
by cyclops on Fri 13th Jul 2007 19:51 in reply to "RE[18]: Re: Say What?"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

I wasn't all that familer with what Apple had taken from open-source or what it it given back, becuase I see precious little, after closer examination. Its actually worse than I thought.

Lets nitpick...because. Its easier to nitpick. Its not a BSD license and thats the end-of it. The creators of the project thought that the BSD license did not fulfill their needs. Does it interest Apple...absolutely because they are not interested in sharing, that does not mean some current maintainers do not get money for services out of the deal. In fact thats part of the pattern, of which CUPS is one project in.

There open source strategy is simple two-tier. Proprietary closed versions by Apple of Open-source source projects being better, Simply by taking and not giving back. Thats not exactly sharing your IP. FreeBSD is an excellent example of this.

What open-source work they do is pitiful, with only on a select few projects, which you exaggerate out of all proportion...and then go on to contradict yourself that they are a proprietary company so don't have to share, or the license allows it etc etc. Pick a door

The funny thing about your post is you quote other closed source companies. The major difference is *you* are not claiming they are Open-source advocates, and does not excuse Apples behavior.

Code may be unmaintained in the kernel, although nothing I use, so I suspect your exaggerating a touch. The difference is it is available. You can even *pay* for the driver to be maintained fixed. You can't with a binary blobs that Apple loves.

Seriously I love the fact that Linux code for wireless drivers from companies and Apple don't.

Again I love the fact that you cannot use hardware thats available to apple, but not to the project that it liberally gets code from. This is just what I expect. It highlights a flaw in BSD, which relies on people *contributing* code.

I find it especially fun that *you* bought incompatible hardware for an OS *you* promote, and ask for a handout to correct your problems.

Edited 2007-07-13 19:54

Reply Parent Score: 2