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 255197
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Say what?
by theine on Fri 13th Jul 2007 11:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Say what?"
theine
Member since:
2005-09-29

If they own the copyright, they can do whatever they want with new releases, regardless of any of the details of the current license.

To me it's not perfectly clear that as the copyright holder it's OK to essentially violent the license my code is released under by closing the source of a newer version if it is a derivative work of an older GPL-licensed version.

Could you perhaps point me to any references that explicitly state this doesn't actually violate the terms of the GPL?

Cheers

Edited 2007-07-13 11:41

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Say what?
by Anonumous on Fri 13th Jul 2007 11:42 in reply to "RE[4]: Say what?"
Anonumous Member since:
2007-06-13

The code that is released under GPL once will always be available. But the copyright owner can change the license, so that future versions don't have to be under the GPL. Derivate work or not isn't relevant. If you own all of the code (e.g. by having all external contributors assign the copyright to you which was done in this case) you can do whatever you want with it. The original authors of any contributions made have no say. That you have released one or several earlier versions under GPL doesn't matter.

(You can read up on copyright on Wikipedia.)

Reply Parent Score: 1