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 255324
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[18]: Re: Say What?
by meianoite on Fri 13th Jul 2007 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE[17]: Re: Say What?"
Member since:

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.


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.

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:

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

RE[20]: Re: Say What?
by meianoite on Fri 13th Jul 2007 20:23 in reply to "RE[19]: Re: Say What?"
meianoite Member since:

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.

Well, what can I do. Now I must go against myself and reply to this, after saying I would stop. Come on, use this against me.

Look, I write code for a living. I'm 3 months away from holding a degree in Computer Science. I should be able to feel the developer's pain, first hand, when there's pain to be felt.

But consider this: I'm contributing key code to a very nice project that's BSD licensed (and yes, it has been criticised for not picking the GPL. Over and over.).

I can only hope my work will be taken and spread as far as humanly possible.

Get it?

Now I'm really done with you. Bye.

Edit: missed "taken".

Edited 2007-07-13 20:37

Reply Parent Score: 5