CUPS now owned by Apple Inc.

[noneofthem]

Read the news: http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L475 none of them

[OffHand]

CUPS is GPLv2 isn't it? So it shouldn't really matter. Actually I think it might be good for development speed.

[samjh]

As long as it stays GPLed, it sounds like good news.

[ssam]

should be good. could mean many more printers work in CUPS. (though does CUPS do printer drivers or just manage the whole thing?)

if for some strange reason apple close sourced it, or stopped supporting non apple systems, then somebody would fork from the last good version.

[igknighted]

should be good. could mean many more printers work in CUPS. (though does CUPS do printer drivers or just manage the whole thing?)

if for some strange reason apple close sourced it, or stopped supporting non apple systems, then somebody would fork from the last good version.

If apple closed-sourced it then the GPL would get a solid test in court, because that would be a clear breach of the license... you can't take GPLed code and edit it and re-release it closed source. And even if they made it "apple only" it wouldn't be hard to bring back, the underneath of OSX is fairly similar.

I wouldn't worry... Apple has been decent about sending changes back upstream(example: WebKit), mainly for the underneath, more unix-based parts of the system. They wont share Aqua or their fancy GUI, but thats no big deal... we've already got nice GUIs.

[needtolookatascreenshot]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=519877

[prizrak]

How the hell do you BUY GPL'ed source code?

[needtolookatascreenshot]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=519877

[maniacmusician]

How the hell do you BUY GPL'ed source code?
yeah, why wouldn't you be able to? Even if it's free and open source, it still has an owner. Also, they didn't just buy CUPS, they also hired it's programmer. Although I detest Apple as a company, this could turn out to be a good thing.

btw, Apple was very slow and hesitant with giving Webkit back. they're a proprietary company and only look favorably on open source when they can use it in some way. Their business is built on being closed-source. For example, they took a lot from BSD, and they didn't give back nearly as much as they should have. Which is a shame, considering that they're in a great position to do so.

[prizrak]

Just like you buy other source code?

Well the source code is 100% open to anyone so it's not like they could actually pay for the code itself. Well they could but it wouldn't be very smart. If he means that they bought the rights to it then it's also a bit sketchy, I mean I doubt it was only one person working on the whole thing (if it were that would explain why CUPS is one of the least advanced parts of Linux) so they would have to contact every single contributor and obtain their rights to those pieces of code as well.

[needtolookatascreenshot]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=519877

[argie]

So, assuming that they did buy the rights to the code, they can now make changes and release only binaries if they so wish, can't they?

[OffHand]

So, assuming that they did buy the rights to the code, they can now make changes and release only binaries if they so wish, can't they?

nope - gpl does not allow that.

[needtolookatascreenshot]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=519877

[prizrak]

nope - gpl does not allow that.

Tell that to XFree86....

[lamalex]

the article says it will continue to be released under GPL2, did people even read the article? No cause for alarm, move along people..

[stepan2]

even if apple says nothing will changed it just doesnt seem right to me. Someone better start a copycat company of cups so if anyhitng happens , we can fall back to something

[Extreme Coder]

even if apple says nothing will changed it just doesnt seem right to me. Someone better start a copycat company of cups so if anyhitng happens , we can fall back to something
We don't need to panic ;)
Apple can't do anything, it's GPLed, and the author himself intends to keep it GPLed.

[igknighted]

Yes. But then again, the code that is already released under the GPL is still out there, so it would be easy and very likely that there would be a fork.

Not really, no. They cannot change GPL software and re-release it as closed source. It would require an entire re-write keeping none of the code. See from the GPL:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.So basically, no matter what you cannot infringe upon the license given out with the current work. You cannot modify the code and re-release it without at least stating exactly what original code is still there.

Besides, think about it... who would benefit from CUPS? Linux and the other *nix OS's? Microsoft isn't helped at all by CUPS improving. Apple has a far bigger fish to fry, I doubt they care about keeping linux down. They would only buy CUPS to make their printer support better. In that case, why would they close off a group of developers who know CUPS better than apples devs? Sure they got the creator of CUPS now, but OSS isn't about one developer. I bet there is tons about the system he doesn't know.

Basically, that was a really long way of saying it's (a) very difficult for apple to close source it and (b) even if they could, it wouldn't make any sense.

[needtolookatascreenshot]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=519877

[Hex_Mandos]

Tell that to XFree86....

XFree86 was never GPLed, AFAIK. It used the MIT license, and moved over to something more like the old BSD license.

[jrusso2]

Looks like Apple already made some changes

http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L179+I0+T+M10+P1+Q

Article #179: License Exceptions

Created at 10:58 Jul 23, 2004 by mike

Last modified at 14:59 Jul 11, 2007

In addition, as the copyright holder of CUPS, Apple Inc. grants the following special exceptions:

1. Apple Operating System Development License Exception;
1. Software that is developed by any person or entity for an Apple Operating System ("Apple OS-Developed Software"), including but not limited to Apple and third party printer drivers, filters, and backends for an Apple Operating System, that is linked to the CUPS imaging library or based on any sample filters or backends provided with CUPS shall not be considered to be a derivative work or collective work based on the CUPS program and is exempt from the mandatory source code release clauses of the GNU GPL. You may therefore distribute linked combinations of the CUPS imaging library with Apple OS-Developed Software without releasing the source code of the Apple OS-Developed Software. You may also use sample filters and backends provided with CUPS to develop Apple OS-Developed Software without releasing the source code of the Apple OS-Developed Software.
2. An Apple Operating System means any operating system software developed and/or marketed by Apple Computer, Inc., including but not limited to all existing releases and versions of Apple's Darwin, Mac OS X, and Mac OS X Server products and all follow-on releases and future versions thereof.
3. This exception is only available for Apple OS-Developed Software and does not apply to software that is distributed for use on other operating systems.
4. All CUPS software that falls under this license exception have the following text at the top of each source file:

This file is subject to the Apple OS-Developed Software exception.

[Extreme Coder]

Looks like Apple already made some changes

http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L179+I0+T+M10+P1+Q

Article #179: License Exceptions

Created at 10:58 Jul 23, 2004 by mike

Last modified at 14:59 Jul 11, 2007

In addition, as the copyright holder of CUPS, Apple Inc. grants the following special exceptions:

1. Apple Operating System Development License Exception;
1. Software that is developed by any person or entity for an Apple Operating System ("Apple OS-Developed Software"), including but not limited to Apple and third party printer drivers, filters, and backends for an Apple Operating System, that is linked to the CUPS imaging library or based on any sample filters or backends provided with CUPS shall not be considered to be a derivative work or collective work based on the CUPS program and is exempt from the mandatory source code release clauses of the GNU GPL. You may therefore distribute linked combinations of the CUPS imaging library with Apple OS-Developed Software without releasing the source code of the Apple OS-Developed Software. You may also use sample filters and backends provided with CUPS to develop Apple OS-Developed Software without releasing the source code of the Apple OS-Developed Software.
2. An Apple Operating System means any operating system software developed and/or marketed by Apple Computer, Inc., including but not limited to all existing releases and versions of Apple's Darwin, Mac OS X, and Mac OS X Server products and all follow-on releases and future versions thereof.
3. This exception is only available for Apple OS-Developed Software and does not apply to software that is distributed for use on other operating systems.
4. All CUPS software that falls under this license exception have the following text at the top of each source file:

This file is subject to the Apple OS-Developed Software exception.
What does this mean? (Too dizzy to understand what that means :P )

[igknighted]

What does this mean? (Too dizzy to understand what that means :P )

In short, it means that apple can develop extensions to CUPS that apply only to OSX and they do not need to release the source for them. I assume the point is that other vendors "don't need to see how OSX deals with printing", but it could mean that they get CUPS lexmark drivers that are OSX only and wont release them... that would be bad.

[prizrak]

What does this mean? (Too dizzy to understand what that means :P )

That means that we are screwed. Anyone can write for CUPS and not release the source if they are writing the software for Apple OS. Meaning that there is no reason whatsoever for printer manufacturers to release the source code for their CUPS enabled printers anymore unless they want to make it work on Linux.

[mangar]

As prizrak said: cups is Open Source, except when used by Apple.
Since Apple now owns cups, cups is essentially propriety software from now on, unless Apples decides to release back some of the code (which they have no motivation to do, as it will only serve its competitors).

It can end the same way as x.org - with a fork from a version before the apple exceptions took place.

[Extreme Coder]

In short, it means that apple can develop extensions to CUPS that apply only to OSX and they do not need to release the source for them. I assume the point is that other vendors "don't need to see how OSX deals with printing", but it could mean that they get CUPS lexmark drivers that are OSX only and wont release them... that would be bad.

That means that we are screwed. Anyone can write for CUPS and not release the source if they are writing the software for Apple OS. Meaning that there is no reason whatsoever for printer manufacturers to release the source code for their CUPS enabled printers anymore unless they want to make it work on Linux.
But is this something the CUPS main developer and contributors will agree/be happy about?

[prizrak]

But is this something the CUPS main developer and contributors will agree/be happy about?

He has no say whatsoever on the subject, Apple bought all the rights.

You also need to consider that GPL only applies to distribution. Since Apple now owns, installing it on their OS wouldn't be considered distribution since it is not being used by a third party.*

*OK, in fact it would be a very grey area that would need to be tested in court.

[vexorian]

Apple attempts to screw up Linux, news at seven.

I wonder why they are afraid of us, either way, these are bad news, they are probably going to do much more moves to fork out everything and prevent it moves to GPL3

[Polygon]

so linux development for CUPS is now going to be stopped? or will it continue?

[BoyOfDestiny]

He has no say whatsoever on the subject, Apple bought all the rights.

You also need to consider that GPL only applies to distribution. Since Apple now owns, installing it on their OS wouldn't be considered distribution since it is not being used by a third party.*

*OK, in fact it would be a very grey area that would need to be tested in court.

This is confusing to me... Can any lawyers clarify if what Apple is doing is legit. Did they get permission from all copyright holders to add this exception?

Honestly, this is why i don't want Apple to take the place of MS, I rather have Free Software and many vendors... They want to take and not give back, GPL is supposed to prevent that so everyone gets the same rights to view, modify, build upon, etc.

I can see why of 140,000 open source projects, 72% use the GPLv2.
source: http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2193729/gplv3-draws-116-projects-first

Anyway, I say they should fork it and go from there. Anyone have accurate figures of Linux print servers vs Apple's?

[DoctorMO]

hmm, this news is not good, not least because one company owns all the rights to cups code and can reliciese it. while they can't revoke the GPL from the current release they are perhaps making sure that they won't be hurt by CUPs going GPLv3. on the other hand most of our open source drivers come from GuttenPrint not CUPS, CUPS is only the printer services....

It's sad when companies trash the community and pillage. But being Apple Inc doesn't surprise me; I've been against their business practices for a while now.

[hanzomon4]

Looks like Apple already made some changes

http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L179+I0+T+M10+P1+Q

Article #179: License Exceptions

Created at 10:58 Jul 23, 2004 by mike

Last modified at 14:59 Jul 11, 2007

In addition, as the copyright holder of CUPS, Apple Inc. grants the following special exceptions:

1. Apple Operating System Development License Exception;
1. Software that is developed by any person or entity for an Apple Operating System ("Apple OS-Developed Software"), including but not limited to Apple and third party printer drivers, filters, and backends for an Apple Operating System, that is linked to the CUPS imaging library or based on any sample filters or backends provided with CUPS shall not be considered to be a derivative work or collective work based on the CUPS program and is exempt from the mandatory source code release clauses of the GNU GPL. You may therefore distribute linked combinations of the CUPS imaging library with Apple OS-Developed Software without releasing the source code of the Apple OS-Developed Software. You may also use sample filters and backends provided with CUPS to develop Apple OS-Developed Software without releasing the source code of the Apple OS-Developed Software.
2. An Apple Operating System means any operating system software developed and/or marketed by Apple Computer, Inc., including but not limited to all existing releases and versions of Apple's Darwin, Mac OS X, and Mac OS X Server products and all follow-on releases and future versions thereof.
3. This exception is only available for Apple OS-Developed Software and does not apply to software that is distributed for use on other operating systems.
4. All CUPS software that falls under this license exception have the following text at the top of each source file:

This file is subject to the Apple OS-Developed Software exception.

Well that about screws the community out of any benefit......

[runningwithscissors]

The f*cking fanboys will still claim that Apple is a great friend of the free software community and that the shiny plastic on their stuff is enough to silence all dissenting opinion.

[needtolookatascreenshot]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=519877

[SunnyRabbiera]

I dont see this as any major concern as its apple not microsoft, and Apple has yet to try anything nasty at open source like patent crap

[prizrak]

I dont see this as any major concern as its apple not microsoft, and Apple has yet to try anything nasty at open source like patent crap

Yeah they only use FLOSS to further their agenda and achieve greater market share. Yes I know it's legal for them to do what they did with BSD but still doesn't make them seem very friendly. And I will take MS any day over Apple, at the very least MS is only screwing everyone on the software side.

[Hex_Mandos]

I dont see this as any major concern as its apple not microsoft, and Apple has yet to try anything nasty at open source like patent crap

The only reason they haven't is because they command a minuscule share of the desktop market and are almost nonexistent in the server world. If Apple were as big as MS, they'd probably be worse. Their approach is far more restrictive than MS (At least MS lets you choose your hardware).

[areteichi]

Looks like Apple already made some changes

http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L179+I0+T+M10+P1+Q

Article #179: License Exceptions

Created at 10:58 Jul 23, 2004 by mike

Last modified at 14:59 Jul 11, 2007

In addition, as the copyright holder of CUPS, Apple Inc. grants the following special exceptions:

1. Apple Operating System Development License Exception;
1. Software that is developed by any person or entity for an Apple Operating System ("Apple OS-Developed Software"), including but not limited to Apple and third party printer drivers, filters, and backends for an Apple Operating System, that is linked to the CUPS imaging library or based on any sample filters or backends provided with CUPS shall not be considered to be a derivative work or collective work based on the CUPS program and is exempt from the mandatory source code release clauses of the GNU GPL. You may therefore distribute linked combinations of the CUPS imaging library with Apple OS-Developed Software without releasing the source code of the Apple OS-Developed Software. You may also use sample filters and backends provided with CUPS to develop Apple OS-Developed Software without releasing the source code of the Apple OS-Developed Software.
2. An Apple Operating System means any operating system software developed and/or marketed by Apple Computer, Inc., including but not limited to all existing releases and versions of Apple's Darwin, Mac OS X, and Mac OS X Server products and all follow-on releases and future versions thereof.
3. This exception is only available for Apple OS-Developed Software and does not apply to software that is distributed for use on other operating systems.
4. All CUPS software that falls under this license exception have the following text at the top of each source file:

This file is subject to the Apple OS-Developed Software exception.

Are you guys really understanding these conditions properly? This does not say that CUPS will not reveal its source code but simply that Apple is not obligated to release the source code of their products to which CUPS is a part of. This statement is necessary because GPL mandates that any product that is released with a GPL'd program, the GPL obliges the whole product to be a free software, namely to release the source code to the whole product (which the original GPL'd program was only a part of). I would assume these "exemptions" as Apple likes to call them, are only possible because author himself is making this exemption, but the the issue as a whole nevertheless is a controversial one.

To share my opinion, my worry would be not so much that CUPS will turn out to be a proprietary software but rather the focus for its development may sway towards Apple OS and ther hardware support rather than free software and various other hardware.

[vexorian]

It seems that this exception has been in the license for five years already. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/05/msg00033.html

So calm down people.
Can't calm down, it is a riduculous exception even if it was there 5 years ago, I would like to know who is behind this crap? Seriously it is terrible...

[DoctorMO]

Interestingness... but apple have gotten around the spirit of the GPL by buying out the author and the code; dangerous undermining effort. if they wanted CUPs why did they have to rubbish the license, why not just duel license it. besides apple are allowed to use it for what ever they like, I suspect they want to take advantage of CUPs based printer drivers while not getting in the way of existing proprietory drivers.

[BoyOfDestiny]

Interestingness... but apple have gotten around the spirit of the GPL by buying out the author and the code; dangerous undermining effort. if they wanted CUPs why did they have to rubbish the license, why not just duel license it. besides apple are allowed to use it for what ever they like, I suspect they want to take advantage of CUPs based printer drivers while not getting in the way of existing proprietory drivers.

I found the comment of Pamela Jones of Groklaw in regard to this exception quite illuminating:



Apple OS development License Exception 2002 (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/05/msg00033.html)
[PJ: I'm getting a lot of email about cups. Let me point out a couple of things. First, the link, above, takes you to the same exception wording dating back to 2002. So that is nothing new. Please also read the FAQ's (http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L+TFAQ) subhead "Who Owns Cups? (http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L476+I0+TFAQ+M10+P1+Q) which says this: "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." So, it's just a way to keep things as they were, as I see it, and copyright owners can always dual license and make exceptions if they feel like it. GPLd code, however, stays that way forever, and folks can build on it forever. They are not obliged to go proprietary. That is the advantage of the GPL. No one can force your code into secrecy. If you recall, I suggested that as one solution regarding the Tivo question, that the kernel go v3 to get the added patent protection and then write an exception for Tivo and any other companies that the kernel folks wanted. As you can see, it's a workable strategy, if not ideal, and people do it. Customers, of course, are also free to choose products that don't have exceptions to the license, then, if they wish. That's a lot easier than having to obtain new hardware.


Under July 12 in older news picks section of Groklaw.
http://www.groklaw.net/newsitems.php

[prizrak]

I found the comment of Pamela Jones of Groklaw in regard to this exception quite illuminating:



Under July 12 in older news picks section of Groklaw.
http://www.groklaw.net/newsitems.php

The thing is that while normally a driver written for CUPS to any printer would be part of derivative work and would have to be GPL'ed. With this provision, which was actually updated recently even if it has been around for a while, printer manufacturers that wish to support Apple don't have to release their drivers basically keeping Linux distros from being able to distribute them. In fact they may not even have the ability to put them in the repos for installation.

Apple having full rights to CUPS doesn't help as they can close source the next release if they feel like it and Mike Sweet won't be able to do a damn thing about it. It can still be forked and he can still work on it and keep the fork GPLv2 but that will introduce incompatibilities between the CUPS versions essentially destroying the Linux printing support. Right now we can use just about any Mac compatible printer.

[tbroderick]

With this provision, which was actually updated recently even if it has been around for a while, printer manufacturers that wish to support Apple don't have to release their drivers basically keeping Linux distros from being able to distribute them. In fact they may not even have the ability to put them in the repos for installation.

Why should a company be forced to release a driver as GPL if they're developing it for Apple? The exception hurts Apple users way more then it does Linux users. If the exception wasn't there, I doubt that company would GPL their driver anyways.

[Altarbo]

Not really, no. They cannot change GPL software and re-release it as closed source. It would require an entire re-write keeping none of the code. [ . . . ].Apple also hired the original author. The og of course, could not relicense anyone else's code that was given to him under the GPL, but he could relicense his own work. I think the poster was asking how much work was done by the people Apple hired, and if Apple wanted to relicense any of their work. However, it doesn't seems like they want a new license, so it's no big deal.

[BoyOfDestiny]

The thing is that while normally a driver written for CUPS to any printer would be part of derivative work and would have to be GPL'ed. With this provision, which was actually updated recently even if it has been around for a while, printer manufacturers that wish to support Apple don't have to release their drivers basically keeping Linux distros from being able to distribute them. In fact they may not even have the ability to put them in the repos for installation.

Apple having full rights to CUPS doesn't help as they can close source the next release if they feel like it and Mike Sweet won't be able to do a damn thing about it. It can still be forked and he can still work on it and keep the fork GPLv2 but that will introduce incompatibilities between the CUPS versions essentially destroying the Linux printing support. Right now we can use just about any Mac compatible printer.

Aren't these printers compatible since they use postscript? I don't think forking would be a disaster.

http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/OpenPrinting

This looks promising too, the "For Developers" section.

Anyway, I honestly don't know much about the printer situation. I have hp with the ppd driver...

What I'd really like to know is if Apple is in a position to really mess up printing for other *nix systems...?

[hanzomon4]

To share my opinion, my worry would be not so much that CUPS will turn out to be a proprietary software but rather the focus for its development may sway towards Apple OS and their hardware support rather than free software and various other hardware.

Yeah I doubt that we will lose cups but with this exemption Apple can essentially ignore the OSS community in regards to additions made like drivers, which seems like a big deal especially with the growing popularity of Macs these days. It seems to be an exploitation of free software.

[EdThaSlayer]

Since the guy is getting paid to program something he likes to do and also as a bonus gets to keep the software gpled he must be really happy. :)

[ablaze]

To answer the question if Apple can only relicense the code of the maintainer and not of all the other contributors. The answer is on cups.org:

"To contribute code to the base CUPS distribution, please contact us via email at cups-info at cups dot org. Because we also provide CUPS under a binary distribution license, we will require that all ownership of the code be transferred to Easy Software Products, or that Easy Software Products be granted unlimited distribution rights to the code, possibly via payment of a fee to the contributor."

( http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L186+I0+T+M10+P1+Qcontribute )

The maintainer has transferrred all the ownership of the code to his software company "Easy Software Products" prior to release. Therefore he, and now Apple, owns all of cups, and can do with it whatever they like.

[SunnyRabbiera]

still I think if we dance around and take the source code for CUPS and fork it under another name I think we can still use it... just dont call it cups, modify it and we should not get into any patent hassle...
Or if apple makes the source code available we can still fork it, look at web toolkit

[smoker]

still I think if we dance around and take the source code for CUPS and fork it under another name I think we can still use it... just dont call it cups, modify it and we should not get into any patent hassle...
Or if apple makes the source code available we can still fork it, look at web toolkit

don't see any problem with this, call it 'lincups' or 'cupsmarkll' or whatever...

[WebDrake]

If apple closed-sourced it then the GPL would get a solid test in court, because that would be a clear breach of the license... you can't take GPLed code and edit it and re-release it closed source. And even if they made it "apple only" it wouldn't be hard to bring back, the underneath of OSX is fairly similar.

I wouldn't worry... Apple has been decent about sending changes back upstream(example: WebKit), mainly for the underneath, more unix-based parts of the system. They wont share Aqua or their fancy GUI, but thats no big deal... we've already got nice GUIs.


How the hell do you BUY GPL'ed source code?


Well the source code is 100% open to anyone so it's not like they could actually pay for the code itself. Well they could but it wouldn't be very smart. If he means that they bought the rights to it then it's also a bit sketchy, I mean I doubt it was only one person working on the whole thing (if it were that would explain why CUPS is one of the least advanced parts of Linux) so they would have to contact every single contributor and obtain their rights to those pieces of code as well.




So, assuming that they did buy the rights to the code, they can now make changes and release only binaries if they so wish, can't they?
nope - gpl does not allow that.

It's amazing how little people really understand about how GPL works.

GPL'd code is still subject to copyright. The copyright holder licenses their work to others to use under certain terms, and the reason why they have to obey those terms is that not to do so is a copyright violation.

But the copyright holder themselves can't violate copyright because they hold it and can therefore do anything they like with the code. This is why Trolltech can simultaneously release Qt under GPL and under proprietary licenses for proprietary developers.

And if code is under copyright, you can buy that copyright and use it to do whatever you like. The code that is already released under GPL will stay free and can't be locked away but you can quite legally make all future releases and development proprietary.

[tbroderick]

still I think if we dance around and take the source code for CUPS and fork it under another name I think we can still use it... just dont call it cups, modify it and we should not get into any patent hassle...
Or if apple makes the source code available we can still fork it, look at web toolkit

Let's hold off talk about forks until Apple actually changes the license. Right now, it's a lot of paranoid speculation. Id prefer a new project rather then a fork. CUPS sucks anyways and should be replaced.

[argie]

I have a question. Suppose I were to contribute to this new CUPS project. Would that code also be subject to the Apple Exception Clause? And wouldn't adding code from another hypothetical GPL printer project automatically destroy that Apple Exception Clause, because the GPL itself doesn't allow such exceptions?

Just speculating, of course.

[WebDrake]

I have a question. Suppose I were to contribute to this new CUPS project. Would that code also be subject to the Apple Exception Clause? And wouldn't adding code from another hypothetical GPL printer project automatically destroy that Apple Exception Clause, because the GPL itself doesn't allow such exceptions?

Just speculating, of course.

It's a somewhat subtle issue, I think.

If you create some GPL-licensed code and refuse to allow the exceptions, I doubt very much it could be linked with code that does allow them. If Apple request contributions from the community then they will probably have a contributors' agreement that at least demands you grant these exceptions---but more likely they will demand full copyright sharing.

On the other hand if someone forked CUPS, which is permitted under the GPL, I think they could do away with the exceptions and you could contribute to this forked version just fine.

[runningwithscissors]

I have a question. Suppose I were to contribute to this new CUPS project. Would that code also be subject to the Apple Exception Clause? And wouldn't adding code from another hypothetical GPL printer project automatically destroy that Apple Exception Clause, because the GPL itself doesn't allow such exceptions?

Just speculating, of course.Well, you'd have to transfer copyright to any contribution you make, which effectively means that Apple can do as it pleases with your patch.

[stepan2]

i dont trust apple. Also , there were reply's stating that CUPS suck , why? In my opinion we should jsut make a fork

[Extreme Coder]

Is it me or is everyone wearing a tin foil hat and asking for a fork?
It's not like everyone has time out there to make a fork of a GPLed application and mantain, so that, in the very slight chance Apple decides to change anything with the license or close it, we have something to back up on. We can always get the latest source available and fork from that, only when Apple does something!

Apple wasn't co-operating at first with WebKit, their HTML engine fork from KHTML, but after lots of complaints, they improved the situation a lot. Now, KDE and Apple have merged WebKit and KHTML, and both will be sharing the same web engine.