Re: [LIG] [ilugd] [x-posted] potentially-damaging news: Apple 'buys' CUPS

2007-07-14 Thread Philip Tellis
Sometime on Jul 12, GM dropped bits saying:

 Bah. Repeat four words after me, boys and girls:

 F O R K

Umm, there's only one word up there.

-- 
C Code.
C Code Run.
Run, Code, RUN!
PLEASE

-
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


Re: [LIG] [ilugd] [x-posted] potentially-damaging news: Apple 'buys' CUPS

2007-07-14 Thread Kingsly John
+++ Philip Tellis [2007-07-14 18:28:32]:

 Sometime on Jul 12, GM dropped bits saying:
 
  Bah. Repeat four words after me, boys and girls:
 
  F O R K
 
 Umm, there's only one word up there.


boys and girls: F O R K :-p

Kingsly
-- 
---
 Kingsly At Users Dot SourceForge Dot Net  -- http://kingsly.org/
---

-
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


Re: [LIG] [ilugd] [x-posted] potentially-damaging news: Apple 'buys' CUPS

2007-07-13 Thread Kingsly John
+++ Raj Mathur [2007-07-13 18:18:11]:

 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.

Yeah that's I meant, but whats worse is if all future development happens on
an internal branch and the public cvs only gets a patch *after* it has been
released on OS X as one of the zillion new features. (I think that is how
all the other open source projects from Apple currently work)

Either way the development process will become less transparent than at
present knowing SJ's penchant for secrecy.

Apple has already had special exemptions/licensing from Easy Software
Products for a long time now (5+ years) 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/05/msg00033.html

So it's also possible that Apple saw the threat of some other company taking
over Easy Software Products and holding them to ransom by revoking the
Apple specific exemptions, which would affect not just their own work but
also third party drivers/filters etc. And did the best thing to safeguard
their interests.

Kingsly
-- 
---
 Kingsly At Users Dot SourceForge Dot Net  -- http://kingsly.org/
---

-
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