On Friday 13 July 2007 14:07, Kingsly John wrote: > [snip] > Apple bought over the company that held all the copyrights to the > CUPS code. Individual contributors to the CUPS project had to > handover copyrights to that company for their patches to be > accepted.(Similar to what FSF recommends for their projects.)
That totally sucks. Fortunately FSF only recommends handing over the copyright to them, making it mandatory (didn't MySQL do that too?) is dangerous in the extreme, as this case emphasises. > Apple has already had a special clauses put into the license for CUPS > on OS X.(contributors didn't have to GPL their OS X specific > drivers). > > Now they can legally have an internal non-GPL fork/dual-licensed > branch and not share code with the community. If it's internal it doesn't matter what license it's under -- even with GPL, if you distribute the binaries internally you don't need to provide sources. Or do you mean an OS/X-specific branch which Apple can distribute binary-only to their clients? Not splitting hairs, just curious. Regards, -- Raju -- Raj Mathur [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F It is the mind that moves ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Linux-india-general mailing list Linux-india-general@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-india-general
