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 255194
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 11:11 UTC 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

RE[18]: Re: Say What?
by google_ninja on Fri 13th Jul 2007 14:45 in reply to "RE[17]: Re: Say What?"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

The thing to keep in mind about BSD is that they really don't care about getting ripped off. They are doing it for the point of doing it, and don't really expect compensation in any form. The open source world has a much more widely collaborative mentality, where everything comes from a different source. /the BSD side of things is a lot more centralized and controlled in development style. They don't really care when business does a "code grab" as you put it.

While you are right about apple only doing the bare minimum with KHTML, I disagree about CUPS. If they wanted, they could have just done the same thing they did while making webkit, without the added pain of making their token efforts. Instead, the only change is that companies who want to write drivers for OSX won't be subjected to the "play fair" aspects of the GPL. The current users will benefit by apples contributions, apple will benefit with a kickass printer framework.

OpenDarwin failed because it wasn't that great an idea in the first place. OpenDarwin was a variant of a variant of Mach, which not many people use in the first place. The only real reason for OpenDarwin to exist would be to completely clone the closed bits of OSX, which would be a monumental task. ReactOS is a much less daunting project, and has been around since 1996, and is still nowhere NEAR done. The OpenDarwin people should have really asked "Why" before they started, they may have saved themselves alot of wasted effort.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[19]: Re: Say What?
by cyclops on Fri 13th Jul 2007 15:37 in reply to "RE[18]: Re: Say What?"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"thing to keep in mind about BSD is that they really don't care about getting ripped off"

I must have short memory. I seem to remember a project called compiz and beryl, and there being an awful lot of bad feeling regarding the relicensing of their code to GPL. A more permissive license than BSD,

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[18]: Re: Say What?
by meianoite on Fri 13th Jul 2007 19:18 in reply to "RE[17]: Re: Say What?"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

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.


You've been talking about how you dislike BSD for the whole time.

in fact we do see a few different licenses from license none of them BSD.


Name them, and care to point how they're different, in spirit and effect, from the BSD license.

Unless you're talking about LGPL stuff. And APSL stuff, which happens to be a strong copyleft license, which even the FSF seems to approve, despite not being GPL compatible.

Ignoring the Moral argument, or that BSD *relies* on sharing, and is what the license is about.


WTF?

Copyleft forces morally bankrupt companies like apple to share their code...


Cut the zealot speak, else I'm going to stop right here.

like I have seen with Apples dealing with GCC.


Apple maintains a whole GCC branch in the public.

BSD doesn't so gets little to nothing.


Show me a single FreeBSD developer of any real magnitude complaining about that nothingness. Which isn't real, BTW.

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,


Designed. As. Such.

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.


Strangely enough, guess what license OpenSSL/OpenSSH is under. Or even CVS, since we're talking about it now. Or even Xorg (yeah, go on, argue that it's MIT and it's more permissive, argue that there's a world of difference).

Damn, that's limiting.

The term BSD is "great" resource for morally bankrupt companies to scavenge from.


I'm really going the extra mile not to utter curse words here.

But *BSD as a product that stands up in its own right suddenly seems ridiculous to the extreme.


Refer to the ridiculous Yahoo! infrastructure. The appalling Netcraft infrastructure. Refer to the ridiculous software I just happened to mention.

I'm curbing my own emotive language, and losing my point.


No comments.

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.


http://dot.kde.org/1152645965/

Yeah, I'm a big fat liar. Oops.

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.


Oh, the outrage. NO, DUDE. I said that Apple reorganised the code so it made better sense. *AND* I said that plenty of Apple work related to Cocoa/ObjC underpinnings.

You're the one purposefully misquoting me.

Ignoring the simple fact that code *does not work like that* certainly not object-orientated code.


Good Lord. I'm going to rip apart my CS diploma. It's worthless.

It could have been rewritten to support two toolkits,


Yeah, Apple could even port it to Motif, just for the kicks, because then we could run Webkit on Tru64 and OpenVMS. Yet Apple didn't. Bastards!

in fact thats what KDE developers are doing, and the copyleft license means they can".


So what's your beef?????

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."


Ooooh... Feel the smell of gun grease. Because it surely has nothing to do with logistics.

Having seen the abuses of open-source from *your* references. I understand his point more.


Another convert is born!! 6 billion to go.

Come on, Cyclops: what abuse? Not holding your hand while you cross the street and not doing your homework for you?

"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.


Oh no, not the holier than thou argument, not again!!

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,


As if they haven't contributed plenty to both projects, financially and code-wise.

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.


Yeah, Apple *so* didn't pay for those rights. We all know every developer out there live out of donations, just like Stallman.

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".


Why look at the OpenDarwin experiment when the other BSDs are out there? Why not look at the immense success cases of companies that built their businesses out of BSD products?

How come those BSD hippies aren't starving to death?

Why, oh why?

And regarding your ludicrous retort: I wonder why the number of artists, of any craft, in the population at large, is not even close to 5%.

Edit: forgot to close a quotation, everything went italics.

Edited 2007-07-13 19:35

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[19]: Re: Say What?
by cyclops on Fri 13th Jul 2007 20:13 in reply to "RE[18]: Re: Say What?"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

I think we are starting to expose you true colors with the name fanboi and zealot only one sort of person resorts to such language, and your lies are getting increasingly transparent.

I'm glad you fully understood the term "morally bankrupt". I thought it was quite suite as you use "buisness" to excuse "morally bankrupt" decision making.

In fact the only thing that reams to restrain them if the FSF and GPL with GCC something they are clearly not happy about. I find in interesting you point out things that they are obliged to do under that license as something *special* other companies just do this as a matter of course.

I'm glad apple reorganized the code so it made sense. I cannot imagine why any khtml would be up in arms, about improving the code. Unless your just making this up, but closing your eyes, to the hold thing any using emotive language towards me will not change the fact.

I love this "success cases of companies that built their businesses out of BSD products" when I am Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 1