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 255262
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by cyclops on Fri 13th Jul 2007 15:32 UTC in reply to "CUPS APPLE"
Member since:

I'm tired of words like "plot" or "conspiracy" etc etc. I Admit it does make the whole thing more exciting. Apple having examined there contributions, only contribute forced by a copyleft license, or work around the license by making it incompatible, or focus on alternative solutions, or buy out the copyright.

It is *not* an open source company, they are simply incapable of filling large gaps in a complete OS, without mining open-source, but they do not work collaboratively with those projects to a common end.

The fact that you talk about "Unique" feature says it all. The simple fact is if its Unique its not shared its propriatery.

They bought out the software company, to obtain copyright to the code, thats standard practice for almost *everything* that we see in Vista today.

Reply Parent Score: 1

by milles21 on Fri 13th Jul 2007 17:26 in reply to "RE: CUPS APPLE"
milles21 Member since:

I agree with you the bought it meaning it had to be for sale. Microsoft could have bouhgt it, hell Pepsi could have the fact remains that Apple is not an open source company and the do contribute regardless of whether you may feel their contributions are in good faith. The fact is that they meet the requirements and that is all that is asked by the license. Maybe the FSF should have purchased it and there would be no discussion untill then there really should be no issue apple has not said we are changing anything.

Everyone is so conspiracy sensitive

Reply Parent Score: 3

by cyclops on Fri 13th Jul 2007 18:02 in reply to "RE: CUPS APPLE"
cyclops Member since:

"Apple is not an open source company and the do contribute regardless of whether you may feel their contributions are in good faith."

Apple do not make *any* contributions in good faith. In fact as we delve deeper. We are yet to see anything that does not point to *using* but not contributing to. The Exception if GCC owned in the same way by the FSF, and they have to be we see that they are trying to move to a more BSD licensed product so they can code mine again, and they do that because their simply is not an alternative on the scale or quality of GCC. They have no choice.

"FSF should have purchased it" do you even know who the FSF foundation is? I won't warrant that with a reply.

The conspiracy argument does not work here. Conspiracies imply more than one group is involved...they conspire. This is Apple a single company they act like they have always acted. In what they believe to be their own best interest. They are not even doing it in secret they *publicly* bought out an open source software product. They use masses of Open source code, and contribute little back. They don't do anything secretly.

Reply Parent Score: 1

by milles21 on Fri 13th Jul 2007 20:59 in reply to "RE[3]: CUPS APPLE"
milles21 Member since:

Now that I have a chance to respond. Yes I know who the FSF is and while you felt compelled to reply to my comments you have not addressed that the rights were "FOR SALE".

The big issue here is again if it is that big of a deal and if so many people feel that strongly about it then someone should have forked up the cash to purchase before Apple and ensure that the GPL license remained uncompromised.

The fact is this is not the first project to have this happen and it by far will not be the last that is the nature of this licensing structure. Apple capitalized on what was obviously for sale.

I know the licenses that I contribute code to and I am aware that this may potentially happen. You may never expect it to happen but you should be aware that it can happen. Again let's not talk about what they don't contribute address the fact that they were able to buy what many feel should not have been for sale even though the license it is under explicitly allows this type of thing to occur.

I will take the conspiracy clarification and say thanks I know the definition however I used it out of context so I stand corrected, (Nice Catch)

I can disagree amicably and take some of your comments into consideration however "Apple do not make *any* contributions in good faith" comment that is an opinion not a fact and also *using* but not contributing is allowed by the license. I think that the backlash here of Apple's purchase is really an disappointment and acknowledgment of a flawed license.

Reply Parent Score: 1