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 255244
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[18]: Re: Say What?
by google_ninja on Fri 13th Jul 2007 14:45 UTC 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[20]: Re: Say What?
by google_ninja on Fri 13th Jul 2007 15:45 in reply to "RE[19]: Re: Say What?"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

If there was bad feelings, then it was a bad fit for them. I was talking about the purpose for the license, which was for software coming out of Berkley.

As for GPL being more permissive, you are being kind of silly. You can argue that the GPL is more fair, is better protection, etc, but it has far more restrictions on what you can do with the code then BSD.

Reply Parent Score: 2