Slashdot Mirror
CUPS Purchased By Apple Inc.
Rick Richardson writes to note a posting on cups.org that reveals that Apple, which in 2002 first licensed CUPS for printing in OS X, purchased the source code last February and hired its main developer, Michael R. Sweet. Sweet writes: "CUPS will still be released under the existing GPL2/LGPL2 licensing terms, and I will continue to develop and support CUPS at Apple." There are no comments on the post. What exactly did Apple purchase? It was and is an open source project. Trademarks aren't mentioned.
The GPLv2 (or LGPL) licenses do not convey copyright ownership. Even though anyone in the world is free to use/redistribute/modify/rename/etc, the source code copyright ownership is still retained by the developer that contributed the code. Some organizations require copyright assignment of code contributed into the base where the contributing developers give up their ownership of the code they created and assign their copyright to the project (or in some cases, a commercial organization). Once the developer assigns copyright over, the project/commercial organization can do whatever they want with it - including relicensing it under a completely different, closed, commercial license. I doubt however, that Apple will make any devious use of CUPS as the GPL versions are still available and could simply fork continuing with GPL. Copyright ownership does, however, make it easy for Apple to do what it wants with CUPS integration into Mac OS X without ever having to worry about the GPL license.
1) The developer and his skill. My guess is they want it worked on and expanded. Much easier to get that done when you are paying a guy to do it full time. There's only so much you can do for a hobby.
2) The ability to use the code under other licenses. If Apple now owns the source and the developer, they can use (and license) the code under a non-GPL license if they wish. Somewhat similar to QT.
It uses GCC, but they hate it, or better yet, they hate that they have to use a product under the GPL. Steve Jobs tried to get special rights from the FSF to use GCC in NextStep, and the FSF said no, never. So, NeXT used GCC - the runtime part of Objective-C was proprietary though - and had to share the Objective-C support. I have little doubts that Apple will try to use/make another compiler as soon as they can so they can avoid having to share their changes.
Apple has not put themselves into a position of power over the FLOSS community with this move, as a GPL3 fork could be started at the drop of a hat, from whatever the last compatible release was.
But apple wouldn't much care to see that happen as they would get no code contributed back to their CUPS, so the way I see it, either Apple will take their little concession and tread very carefully and CUPS will carry an as is, or Apple will start throwing their weight around a fork will be made, leaving apple to maintain their own code. A third option is that Apple will tread gently, but RMS will kick up a stink about the whole thing in principle (think java trap) and possibly a fork starts.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
So your saying that the primary developer did have that right because all the copyrights where transfered to the primary developer. A practice started and encouraged by the FSF by the way.
All in all this is probably just a GPLv2/GPLv3 worry. Apple uses CUPS for it's printing setup. As long as the project stays GPL v2 it will only benefit from having someone who can push printers to a standard printer, thus making printing even better in Linux, and the BSD's.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
This is however different for two main reasons...
1) The individual that sold the rights to the code to Apple had full rights to all of the source code even if some of it had been contributed by others (he required this).
2) If (1) wasn't true then that individual couldn't sell the rights to code he himself didn't have the rights to and given the use of the GPL then Apple would have to remove the use of all code that they didn't purchase if they desired to do any type of relicensing, etc.
In other words Apple couldn't get the whole thing by just buying out a simple majority of the stake holders. So this in reality is rather different then a hostile take over in the traditional meaning of the term.
Please explain how Apple owning CUPS is "less free" than Easy Software Products owning CUPS.
So. Apple buying the rights to CUPS and hiring its lead developer is proof that Apple uses open-sourced software for zero-cost development?
The only thing you're missing is "Soviet Russia."
You may not like Apple bought the rights or you may not like that the developer "sold out", but unless Apple applied some type of pressure that was neither written about nor implied by TFA, how was the transaction hostile?
This, as other posters have mentioned, is a way of GPL3-proofing CUPS, which is a key piece of the apple architecture and made possible because the copyrights for contributions were transfered to the developers.
Unlike Microsoft, Apple depends pretty heavily on GPL'ed code: CUPS, dev tools, and a lot of assorted *nix tools. Under GPL2 they were happy: release the source for the tools, any modifications they made, and be happy.
GPL3 is a nightmare: both the anti-Tivo clause and the anti-Patent clause represent huge and unacceptable changes to Apple. The anti-Tivo clause goes against the iPhone, iPod, MacTV, etc. And the anti-patent clause represents unilateral disarmament in the defensive-patent war, so even if you weren't going to enforce the patents, just have them for defense, GPL3 is a vulnerability.
So expect the following:
When possible, Apple will buy out any developers who own copyrights on GPL'ed code they depend on.
Otherwise, two things will happen: Apple will feature-freeze with a GPL2 version and fork, or simply replace the GPL'ed code completely.
Congratulations, RMS, I think this is what you actually intended. And it will work. Enjoy.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Wait, what? How can some fork and relicense as GPL v3? The current license is GPL/LGPL v2 only. Without the "or later" clause, wouldn't that be a license violation? Am I missing something?
Apple is very active in gcc development; just take a look in MAINTAINERS in the gcc sources. If you're right, they're putting an awful lot of work into (and contributing a lot of GPL'd code to) a project that they're about to abandon.
Also, keep in mind that Apple only has to contribute changes back if they distribute modified gcc binaries. So for gcc on x86 or PPC Darwin, they have to share their changes (since gcc is bundled with XCode), but for the iPhone (assuming it's built with gcc, with an Apple-written ARM-Darwin backend), they are not obligated to share those changes unless they choose to distribute the modified compiler binaries.
In general, Apple actually benefits by contributing their code to the gcc project. Maintaining a forked version of gcc forces Apple to deal with all bugs/regressions caused by external changes to the code, while contributing the code shifts the maintenance burden to the gcc project as whole.
Actually, it's exactly the opposite of irrelevant. When Michael Sweet owned the copyright, he could possibly have chosen to change the license (e.g. to GPLv3). Now that Apple owns the copyright, Apple gets to choose when/if to change the license (e.g. to a proprietary one). In particular, the timing of this makes one highly suspiciouts that Apple was scared of the possibility of GPLv3, and bought CUPS to prevent a switch.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
No, you're the only one who got the point and someone needs to mod you up. This is quite wrong:
Apple is in a position of power because they now own the CUPS copyright. They are only distributing it under GPL2/LGPL2, and it is not, and has never been available under that license "or any later version," so we can't make a GPL3 fork. The only entity that can get it into GPL3 (or any other license) is the copyright holder.
In the short term this is fine, as GPL2 is a good license. But Apple reserves the right to stop licensing it under the GPL. You could fork the project, but your forks would always have to be GPL2 forks (again, this is not exactly a disaster). But Apple can also make their own internal company modifications specifically for OS X, yet not release the changes to the community. They are no longer obliged to release the OS X version's changes because it will presumably be covered by the Apple EULA instead of the GPL. The only legal escape is to wait until the copyright expires in 70 years or so, then take the expired version's public domain code as your own and license it under the GPL3 or whatever. Get back to me in 70 years if you decide to try that. I'll beam over and help you update it.
I know that Apple if active in GCC development. They are putting work into it, and work which I personally take advantage of and I am particulary thankful for. That's no the question though... Apple has done one nice thing, which was working with the rest of the GCC team to integrate their changes: they are *not* required to do this by the GPL. This is great, mainly for Objective-C support, and also for Apple since they can reap the beneficts of other changes in newer GCC versions. The thing is, when all is said and done they do part of this because they are required to by the GPL. I'm not at all sure they would do the same if they weren't required to, and with LLVM they are aiming at not depending on GCC and call their own shots (undertandable from a business POV, even though they could more or less do the same with GCC given their involvement).
In the end it's a matter of control: Apple contributes to GCC but I think they feel a bit "forced" to do it, and would prefer to work on something of their own, something which they could control what parts get shared and which don't, and under which terms.
The real lesson here is that the idea that the developers should pool their copyrights into one person is flawed. That person can then cash out. The get all the profits for everyone else's work. The other developers lose out on both getting a piece of the pie if they would have wanted that, and they lose out in the moral sense in that if they didn't want their code to suddenly become part of a closed source project, they have no say in it anymore.
I think that in the future open source developers should be more cautious about giving away their copyrights. Also, I hope that open source developers will start forking projects that are being developed by companies and groups that require that the copyright be transferred.
Nothing too sinister really. Basically Apple just wants to make sure you're not calling it "CUPS" unless you're using the stable branch. If some twit forked CUPS and did some braindead things with it, understandably Apple wouldn't be less than thrilled about it sharing the same name with CUPS proper
This isn't horribly uncommon, but it is unpopular. Hell, look at the whole Firefox/Iceweasel debacle.
It works both ways.
Business can route around GPL projects. By writing in house, purchasing non-gpl software, hiring the person who holds all the cards of a GPL project and can relicense it or use BSD or public domain code.
GPL projects can write their own stuff, or fork code of projects whos license change.
I think the real question is if CUPS moves to a non-GPL license and the project forks. In a years time, which code base will be better. The code for AppleCUPS with their new features, which cant use GPL code, or CUPS with opensource developers who cant see nor use AppleCUPS code?
Right now we don't have to worry about it. CUPS is still GPL.
vi +
I don't know the actual reason behind the buyout, but my gut says that the GPLv3 had little to do with this. Until the text was final, the GPLv3 was like smoke over the horizon. You don't call the fire department until you know it isn't just someone's fireplace. Similarly, I wouldn't expect a company to engage in buyout talks over a hypothetical license, and I'd be amazed if a deal like this could happen from scratch in under a week. I could easily be wrong, but it would be pretty surprising.
I do, however, suspect that it has everything to do with the GPLv2. Printer drivers are the only part of the Mac OS X driver infrastructure that requires interaction with GPL or LGPL software. My guess is that getting permission to do "closed derivatives" on Mac OS X makes it easier to drag the printer vendors kicking and screaming over to CUPS drivers, which they might otherwise balk at. I'll explain.
If you've ever tried to write a Linux/BSD device driver for some companies' devices (as I have on occasion), you've probably experienced this yourself: some hardware manufacturers are very protective of their hardware's programming interfaces and are not inclined to help with open source drivers. Many have significant amounts of intellectual property in their drivers, too. (Graphics card vendors come to mind, and probably printers for the same reason.) Throw in the usual paranoia about mixing proprietary software and GPLed software, and I could easily see some hardware vendors being wary about writing CUPS drivers.
Just my gut reaction to the news.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
At any rate, I think you're assuming a political/copyright choice on Apple's part that's very more likely a historical engineering choice: OS X is a direct descendant of NextStep -- Apple bought Next for their operating system technology, remember? Even though much of the userland support is ported from FreeBSD, under the hood it's very much still NextStep, as anyone who's beat his head against the NetInfo Manager for a while will tell you (possibly in very colorful language). The choice of BSD userland stuff over Linux userland stuff may have been partially license-driven, but -- like FreeBSD, of course -- Apple uses GNU software when necessary or preferred (bash, zsh, groff, etc.).
At any rate, I think corporate hostility to the GPL is overstated; people tend to assume the BSD license is more "business friendly," but they're looking at it from the point of view of a business wanting to use somebody else's open source software in their proprietary product. If you're the copyright holder and want to release your work as open source, you may well prefer to use the GPL or another license that prevents someone from taking your work and stuffing it into a proprietary product.
I'm also not expecting them to share the new front end they wrote for the BSD-licensed LLVM.
The difference is, I'm not *expecting* them to open source their efforts, because I *know* they already open sourced it the day before yesterday, whereas you don't expect them to do it because you seem to have bought into the ridiculous meme that Apple is somehow against opening their source despite the massive amounts of time money and code they've donated to open source projects over the years when under no license requirement to do so.
GPL zealots are always quick to claim that anyone opposing their draconian license requirements dictating everything from hardware design to patent liability to derivative works must be selfishly hoarding their knowledge. I say it's the exact opposite, the GPL is a tool for hoarding knowledge in a community pool, where the pool's administrators at the FSF can use it for political power by interpreting and revising the GPL. Plenty of people (including corporations), are quite willing to openly share their code under truly free BSD-like terms, but consider subjecting themselves to the whims of the ideologues and lawyers of the FSF an increasingly unacceptable risk.
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge