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.
Apple did a hostile takeover of CUPS. In general apple paid for the primary developer to give up his rights to the code and sell it to Apple Computer. As he was the primary developer he had rights to license his code it in multiple ways as he saw fit. So with Apple buying it allows them to RMS Proof the GPL Code to insure that CUPS can have a license that works with Apple. So right now apple decided to keep it GPL2/LGPL2 but if they like they could take out the bits from the other programmers if they don't agree and make their own version under a different license if it Apple likes to. Where without the purchase the Application may have been swapped to GPL3 which may not be compatible with Apples Business. So apple bought the rights from the Primary Developers so they own rights to the large parts of the code. It too companies a long time to even consider GPL code with the threat of GPL3 companies are back tracking and going more priority. So Pay the GPL developers for their rights to their code and IP is like buying stock in a company. The more Programmers Share you have in the code then the more control you have over it. I bet we can see more of this in the future as the GPL3 starts showing its ugly teeth.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L180+I0+TFAQ+M10+ P1+Q
Apple Inc. has trademarked the Common UNIX Printing System, CUPS, and CUPS logo. These names and logos may be used freely in any direct port or binary distribution of CUPS. To use them in derivative products, please contract Apple Inc. for written permission. Our intention is to protect the value of these trademarks and ensure that any derivative product meets the same high-quality standards as the original.
It says right there in the post. "Apple Inc. acquired ownership the CUPS source code." So they are now the copyright holder rather than Michael Sweet. This allows them to provide the code under other licenses, and does not bind Apple's use of the code. To prevent issues with contributions interfering with this, they hired Mr. Sweet to maintain the source code, thus making it a work-for-hire arrangement.
Open Source projects are usually encumbered from this sort of aquisition because of the large number of contributors. In the case of CUPS, it was originally developed by Sweet's company: Easy Software Products. Since he had a company set up around it, it's likely that he ensured that any accepted contributions were provided with special rights to his company.
According to the USPTO, the trademark registration for "Common UNIX Printing System" has expired. I was unable to find a registration for "CUPS". Thus my guess is that the unregistered trademark will follow the code as that is simply its name. It *is* Common Unix Printing System. So unless they change the name now (which it doesn't sound like they will) Apple will probably own the mark as well.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Clearly, Apple didn't like CUPS' poop-brown web interface. Their only option was to buy it and make it white/blue/brushed aluminum.
sup
"What exactly did Apple purchase? It was and is an open source project. Trademarks aren't mentioned. "
Perhaps, oh, the source code? Just like it says?
Under the GPL, the author does NOT give up his rights to do whatever the hell he wants with the code, including sell it. The GPL simply grants others the right to copy and distribute the code, subject to certain limitations.
Now Apple owns the copyright to the code. They can take it closed, relicense it, dual license it, or use it for ass paper. But the stuff already release under the GPL remains there. Why is any of this so hard to understand?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Just because it's licensed under GPL, doesn't mean that there is no copyrights that can't be sold.
What probably happened is that mr. Sweet (the main developer) sold his copyrighted code to Apple. Any bits of code in the open source project which wasn't build by the main developer is still the sole property of those individuals.
What this means is that Apple can use mr. Sweet's code any way it pleases, without having to adhere to the GPL (just as mr. Sweet could do; it was his copyright). What Apple CANNOT do is use any CUPS source which was NOT created by mr. Sweet and use it outside the restrictions of GPL.
In theory; if nobody but mr. Sweet contributed any code to CUPS, Apple could effectively fork the code and start a non GPL branch.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Apple now controls this project, its direction, and what it will support. They don't "own" it in the conventional (pre-GPLv3) sense, but they own control of what it will do and from that, what will work with it and what it will not support. A very smart move on their part, because as long as we're a capitalist system, we need to have some control over IP that makes it exclusive enough that we can sell it.
technical writing / development
What exactly did Apple purchase? It was and is an open source project.
Yes, but the GPL is still based on copyright law, the code is still covered by copyright, and the copyright is still assigned to someone.
It sounds like Apple bought the copyright for all lines of text written by Michael Sweet, so they can no relicense those lines in any way they choose (provided, of course, that other lines owned by other people are rewritten by Apple). They could decide to close the source, for example, preventing the release of future versions outside of their OS. This doesn't sound likely, though, and regardless the older GPL versions would still be around and could be forked.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Full text here.
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
The CUPS implementation in OS X server was such a total piece of shit, prone to lockups and meltdowns, that we have all of the Macs on our campus printing through a Debian box instead. Hopefully this will allow Apple to handle the sort of printer sharing that _every other NOS on earth_ has done for the last three decades.
It's pretty bad when you're fucking something that simple up to a degree even Netware can't manage.
--saint
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.
Let's face it ... CUPS is a bit cumbersome and counterintuitive.
The Raven
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.
Basically, they're just paying the developer to work on it full time. Whereas before the dev. had to rely on licensing CUPS to other companies and sub-contracting for work, now he is paid by apple.
As long as the project stays GPL this really isn't any different than how RedHat / IBM / Oracle etc. pay some kernel developers full time.
The only thing is Apple can also now make changes to cups that only they can use.
Wait that could work! While the Zune of course was an utter flop, I actually like brown mugs.
--
Non-profit and Business Grant Writing Professionals.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
I find it funny that RMS is mentioned in TFA.
Isn't this (assigning copyright to somebody else) exactly what contributions to GNU projects are required to do?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
that this all comes down to RMS and some printer drivers... again? :)
I realize that CUPS is useful for large networks, but does it have to be installed by default on every Linux distro. Then there are the FreeBSD ports that insist on bringing it in as a dependancy. I use APSFILTER and delete CUPS asap.
Well, hopefully they can make printing via a network Just Work now. The hours I spent getting my MBP to print via my fathers XP machine on his Canon IP4000...
-- Cheers!
Well, I'm not sure if CUPS has large ammounts of third-party code, but in general each contributor reatings copyright of his contributions (non-negligible contributions, this is a grey area but two lines of code aren't considered enough, while something more complex is). This is the reason for the copyright assignements in behalf of the FSF in GNU projects. I'm not sure if CUPS required the same. If it didn't a change in licence will have to have the consent of the contributors or have their contributions removed. This is my understanding of it anyway.
is troublesome.
Apple has never been portrayed as a good corporate citizen when it comes to GPL projects. The GPL code will become the red-headed step child of whatever Apple wants to do with it. For example, integrating colorsync or letting the gui die from benign neglect as Apple adds code that breaks the gui.
I'd like to hear from some people who work on Konqueror how much Apple is contributing. Based on my limited experience with Apple, I'd estimate they throw useless code over the wall surrounding Cupertino HQ every once in a while. I seem to recall they changed the license on some of their previously Free code a while ago too.
They are Free to do both, but I think their actions in these situations show they are just as hostile to Free/Open computer systems as Microsoft.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
Maybe there is hope for someday getting my printer to work in OSX!
Well, sure. The difference being that apple has a *NIX OS, and are using the software. Their intent seems to be to continue to use the software. Also, they haven't been actively trying to kill open source competition through FUD, lobbying (ODF!), and other means.
Microsoft, on the other hand, HAS been doing these things.
Now, I'm sure Apple won't release substantial improvements under the GPL - they'll probably close it up. This isn't a good thing for open source. But the deal seems straightforward. Whenever Microsoft gets involved in anything "open", you have to look very carefully for hidden agendas, because of a long history of shenanigans. That's what gets people upset.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
So will they call it iCUPS? :)
No, you're fundamentally misunderstanding both the GPL and how copyright law works. The copyright holder cannot stop anyone who already received a GPL copy from exercising the freedoms granted by the GPL, but the copyright holder is not in any way obligated to continue offering the software to new licensees. The copyright holder is also perfectly free to begin offering a dual-licensing scheme at any point, or to begin offering the software only under a completely different license: offering something once under the GPL, when you are the copyright holder, does not abdicate your right to later change your mind and offer it under a different license instead, or to stop offering it at all. Others who've received GPL copies can continue to modify and distribute per the GPL, but again there is nothing in the GPL which requires the copyright holder to continue offering new licensees the option of the GPL.
No, they don't have to rewrite anything. From what I gather, CUPS has always required assignment of copyright from contributors (much like software maintained by the FSF), which means Apple holds the copyright to all of the CUPS code free and clear. And the GPL does not place any restrictions on the copyright holder which would forbid Apple from switching the licensing scheme.
Licensing of patches depends on the project. Normally copyright of code always remains with the author so copyright on the contributed code would lie with the contributor, not the CUPS author. Some projects, though, require assignment of copyright to the project before they'll accept submissions (the FSF's GNU toolset is the most well-known example) specifically to insure that the project retains complete control over licensing. I'm not sure which route CUPS took, but if they didn't require copyright assignment then they wouldn't have the right to change the license terms for any contributed code and would have to go to the actual authors to get permission for any changes.
CUPS's could do with the investment and work, it's in Apple's interest this is done. As long as it's all done in a generic unix way, everyone wins. Apple probably bought it mostly to stop someone else buying it. Just protecting themselves.
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
The code is still available under the GPL. All that has to happen is for someone to fork it and come up with a new name. CUPS will then become irrelevant.
If memory serves me right, that's only partly true. As I recall, a lot of CUPS is built around Postscript (Yech) handling software. Postscript is a proprietary protocol/format owned lock stock and barrel by Adobe. There was some sort of odd arrangement that allowed CUPS users to get around having to pay royalties on Postscript as used in Linux. Am I imaging all this?
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
For example, donate some GPLv3 code. :-)
Could somebody buy out valgrind, firefox, apache, etc.?
How is our situation with OpenOffice?
What about the FSF itself? Could RMS get voted out? What if he dies?
Any other projects using copyright assignment?
No, once a software is released under GPL, it cannot be "delicensed". By using the GPL, the copyright holders grant you a perpetual authorisation to distribute that software version under the terms of the GPL.
The GPL is a license. It does absolutely nothing to the copyright. The copyright still exists, and someone still owns it. The GPL makes this clear. People who don't know this or don't understand this have not read the license.
What this means is that no matter the situation, licensing code under the GPL does not change who holds the copyright. When people have modified CUPS, and distributed changes and thus were forced to relicense under GPL, or licensed their changes under the GPL just because they wanted to, they retained the copyright.
The story indicates (vaguely, but my and others' interpretation is the most plausible) that Apple bought all copyright to CUPS that was owned by Mr Sweet and/or Mr Sweet's company. It appears as though all of upstream CUPS is owned by Mr Sweet and/or his company, perhaps by requiring assignment of copyright as a condition of inclusion of modifications in the upstream code. If that's the case, then Apple now owns the copyright to the entirety of the upstream CUPS source code.
Please note that licensing CUPS modifications under the GPL and assigning the copyright to Easy Software Products are two different things. A third party distributor of CUPS, such as a hypothetical ScarletHeadwear, Inc. (based in the town of Ames, North Carolina), may modify CUPS and distribute that modified CUPS under the GPL; doing so does not mean that those changes will be accepted into the CUPS source tree maintained by Mr Sweet at ESP, and does not mean that the rights to those changes will be assigned to Easy Software products (though, under the GPL, Easy Software Products would have a right to use/modify/distribute/etc. those modifications). As such, it's entirely possible, even with the copyright-assignment requirement, that there are parts of, e.g., ScarletHeadware Entrepreneur Linux's CUPS system which are NOT at this time owned by Apple.
The following things are licensed under the GPL, then:
The following things are NOT licensed under the GPL:
Hope this clears some issues up.
Apple has bought CUPS to forestall any problems coming from using the GPL (like those M$ is PRETENDING they don 't have.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I doubt it. The owners are probably laughing all the way to the bank!
Below is a post about the GPL, from a retired attorney. The post is on a scox message board, but if you read it, you will see that it also applies to the apple case:
_ _m n=35321&pt=msg&mid=2524974
>>
The GPL2 purports to be a contract in perpetuity. Lay your hands on code distributed under the GPL2, and you may use it anyway you want to, consistent with the GPL2. Relatively little new code will be distributed under the GPL3, most of it being old code. For the time being, the vast majority of code included in new releases will be covered by the GPL2.
Now the whining and complaining starts. Either the GPL3 is different from the GPL2, more restrictive, or it is not. If they are the same from a legal point of view, then all the discussion about the GPL3 is a waste of good nap time.
I don't care how many times you repeat it. It didn't work for SCOX or their lawyers and it won't work for the proponents of GPL3. Saying it louder and more often does not make it so.
Release anything with GPL2'd code in it, without an assignment of rights from the original author, and it is covered by the GPL2. Completely. The whole doggone distribution. GPL3 embossed on the cover or not.
Hint to the Open Source fanatics out there: this thing runs both ways. The lovely part of GPL2 is that it goes out and just keeps on giving. At least for RMS, the awful part of the GPL2, is that it goes out and just keeps on giving, even when you don't want it to.
An after-the-fact GPL3 winds up being completely neutralized by inclusion of a single line of code released by its author under the GPL2. With it in the distribution, by the terms of the GPL2, the whole distribution is covered by it.
Lawyers have to be particularly careful about wishful thinking, because it is easy to get caught up in a client's expectations, and lose sight of the fact that there is no merit at all to his claims. Laymen do it all the time. Part of the purpose in having a lawyer there is to bring the client back to a realistic assessment, instead of wasting all his money, and the court's time, on unwinnable cases.
RMS is brilliant, no doubt about it.
At the end of the day, he is still not a lawyer.
_________________________________________________
AllParadox - Retired Attorney, no legal opinons, just my opinions.
http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&
"I assume that Apple is doing this to be able to add their own closed code" --
Yes, and "closed" is the operative word here. CUPS already has a friendly interface on OSX, and now they're no longer under the obligation to share back stuff to the rest of the Unix world.
"Third, we will almost certainly see true EASY set-up." --
Will Apple help Linux become a better contender or will it keep its advancements/printer drivers for itself? Yeah right. Even if they're saying they'll keep developing CUPS as open source doesn't mean they'll use the same branch for their own OS (remember the Darwin situation).
The filesystem is the package manager
It's awesome! Some Friends of mine taught me to play!
Hopefully this part was clearly spelled out in the acquisition contract, and not just as a gentlemen accord.
The filesystem is the package manager
Since Michael Sweet owned the copyright, Apple gets exactly the same rights to the code. It is totally irrelevant whether the code had been previously released under the GPL, the GPL3, or not at all, or BSD, or as closed-source, or anything.
Therefore, whether you like or hate the GPL3, it has NOTHING to do with this decision.
Wrong. Through the GPL, the copyright holder imposes obligations on other creators of derivative works. But, if you acquire the copyright to all of the code (as Apple did in this case), you are the copyright holder, and can do whatever you want with it and release it and derivative works under any terms you wish. If Apple wanted to release future updates (including all of the existing code plus any of their changes and additions) of CUPS as purely proprietary software, or under the BSD license, or into the public domain, they could.
Anyone who has already received the code under the GPL retains all the rights in the GPL to the existing code, including the right to create derivative works and distribute them under the GPL. But you, as the copyright holder, are not bound to use the GPL in any future works you make incorporating the code you own.
brilliant!
No, it doesn't. Again, it appears that CUPS, like the FSF, maintained a policy of requiring copyright assignment from contributors. Which means Apple would be the free and clear holder of copyright to every single line of code. Not a licensee of that code, not just another distributor or developer of that code, the copyright holder in that code. Which means they can do absolutely anything with it that they like now; they are not in any way obligated to keep the code free into the future, because they are not distributing it under license -- they are distributing it as the copyright holder, and that makes all the difference in the world.
True, they will not be under obligation to share. The question is, will they? Right now, OSS is not the enemy to apple. MS is. And when it comes to printing, MS controls. What is needed is to add Bonjour. Almost certainly that will become a priority. In addition, I suspect that they will make available ALL of the drivers that they can (rather than charge for them). Why? Because, they need new drivers available from print manufactuers. They want to encourage ALL printers to work with Apple. By keeping this Open, it will encourage all printer companies to write 2 drivers; 1 for MS, 1 for cups. And that will be from day 1.
Now, as to the easy set-up on Unix, that is up to us to make it easier. Having bonjour in there will ease systems using it. But KDE and GNOME will have to do their own interfaces.
As to branches, well, I would not expect that surface for quite some time. Once all the manufactuers are writting drivers for CUPS, that may be an issue. If that happens, then there may need to be a fork. Hopefully, that will not happen.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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
Embrace... Extend... Destroy.
Apple is still a very traditional business in most ways. They are uncomfortable basing there multi million dollar empire on open source. And Apple has always been nervous about depending on outside groups, be it other companies or be it open source, for delivering their products.
They likely want CUPS under their management umbrella. And it's always nice when an open source guy gets a full time job.
GPL3 on CUPS would not be a terrible problem for Apple, you can already replace CUPS on existing systems with an upgraded version if you so desire (which is really what GPL3 is about). There is nothing special about Apple's CUPS distribution. They just have some management interfaces layered on top but not linked to it. That's something not even the GPL3 tried to extend itself to controlling. And it seems like people have successfully gotten the proprietary management bits to talk to upgraded versions of CUPS, which means it even fits in the spirit of GPL3.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
So forking code has become ethically and morally wrong? Since when? What is this fuss about Open Source anyways, if we consider it wrong from the moment someone does something in a way we happen to not like or approve anymore? Of course the copyright owner will retain the right to release the code under GPLv2, but I I fork CUPS right now and I want to release all modifications under GPLv3, there is nothing wrong with it. It may be hard to work with a codebase that has dual licensing, but there is nothing either unlawful or unethical about it.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
I'd sa¥ th¥ app£id onsidrabl pr$$ur.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
What is released under the GPL stay under the GPL, as long as someone has copies under the GPL. However, Apple could stop to release as GPL and start to only release under new terms if they wanted to. Note that Apple have said they will continue to release CUPS under the gpl.
Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
They bought the right to create a closed source branch as they bought the copyright. They can't withdraw our rights to license/relicense what is already gpl'd as gpl.
Oh, I'm not moaning - it could turn out well, and sponsorship of a company like Apple can be a great thing. But the timing of the buyout, right when the GPL3 is possibly looming for many OSS projects, is interesting. It certainly hints that the GPL3 may be the reason for the purchase. If Apple were to put a GPL3 CUPS on the AppleTV or osme similar product they'd probably waive some patent rights by selling the product.
You are still completely misunderstanding the license. The lawyer mentions the DISTRIBUTION. Anything you distribute with the GPLV2 license retains that license forever.
However, since you own the code, you can also release it ("distribute" it) under any other license you so wish. The license does not retroactively impose rights onto the owner of the code, it is a license to USE the code, by others who are not the copyright holder.
Hence the term LICENSE. You do not LICENSE code to yourself.
Apple can do whatever the hell they want with the code, they own it in its entirety and can stop releasing it for free anytime they want. You can still use any version of CUPS released under GPLV2 in any way you see fit as long as YOU comply with the license.
Many many open source companies do this with the code THEY own. They release older version under GPLV2 but the latest and greatest is a commercial product released under a proprietary license. Eventually, the new product becomes the old product and gets released under the GPL. Note however that the new proprietary products contain tons of code released to the public via the GPL. It doesn't matter, if you own the code, you own the code. The only way to limit the rights of the owner would be to assign the rights of the code to some entity in the copyright which is not the owner. In this case you'd simply be transferring ownership. As long as people wish to protect code via copyright, someone has to OWN that copyright, and hence own all rights to the IP.
'' Now, I'm sure Apple won't release substantial improvements under the GPL - they'll probably close it up. This isn't a good thing for open source. But the deal seems straightforward. Whenever Microsoft gets involved in anything "open", you have to look very carefully for hidden agendas, because of a long history of shenanigans. That's what gets people upset. ''
I don't think Apple will close this at all. What Apple is really after is allowing people to write closed-source printer drivers for MacOS X.
Lets say company X makes a printer and has written a proprietary driver for Windows; but there is no Mac driver. With GPL'd CUPS, they could create a printer driver that runs on MacOS X or Linux, but they had to license it under the GPL, which some companies really really hate to do. Apple allows them now to use CUPS to create a printer driver for any Apple operating system (that is for MacOS X mostly), and keep it proprietary. That's what Apple wants: More companies making printer drivers for Apple.
There may be an additional effect that it is easier now for Apple to integrate CUPS into MacOS X; with CUPS being under GPL, they had to keep it separate to avoid making MacOS X a "derived work". Now they can make everything link against CUPS.
I can't see Apple closing down CUPS, because they still can have all the benefits of open source. The only thing that will change is that Apple will not accept any submissions unless they transfer copyright to Apple. And once a company has created a (proprietary) MacOS X driver using CUPS, it would then be more tempting to release the driver under GPL so it can be used under Linux, increasing sales of their printers again.
I have a feeling I'll get modded down for saying it, but a lot of the posts I'm seeing here are pro-FLOSS in an anti-FLOSS way.
I'm not a lawyer, and don't pretend to have a complete understanding of GPLv2 and GPLv3. However, I do think it is generally A Good Thing when companies like Apple (despite their less-than-stellar FLOSS history) buy out projects like CUPS.
Sure, there is a lot of really great FLOSS software out there that comes completely free to use. A lot of people donate their time to projects. However, with the growing popularity of desktop *NIX, especially desktop Linux, the pseudo-commercialization of the software is bound to happen.
So long as people get to modify the original code, it only encourages developers if companies like Apple (or Microsoft, or Novell, or whoever) take the original code and make it their own proprietary code. It gives otherwise volunteer developers a way of being financially rewarded for their work.
The argument about all this comes from something much bigger: the patent/copyright situation. People don't want to see a portion of really useful code locked up for a really long time. But that's kind of the nature of the beast, hunh? You're going to go to whoever has the best product. Companies will seek market advantage by trying to build the best product.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
I think that with Apple's proven commitment to Unix, them owning the copyrights is better.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Here's the thing. You can't prevent the distribution of source. You can choose not to release future versions of the software to the public. You can choose to release future versions under a different license (though not GPL3, because it makes dual-licensing almost impossible--if you thought the GPL was too viral before, good luck to you!), and you can of course sell your code to whomever wants to pay for it. However, any code you released under GPL2 you must continue to provide for three years, per the license agreement.
The GPL is a bit tricky because RMS tried to create "copyleft" for the users--so it's sort of a guarantee of rights to end users, which is a legally stupid way to write a contract. By attaching the GPL to your work, you're agreeing to be bound to it as well, including providing the source for 3 years for anyone who asks for it. So Apple will have to provide source for the last GPL2 version of CUPS for 3 years, but then you're correct; they can stop dealing with GPL altogether.
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 +
Beavis: Spell iCUP!
Butthead: Duh, I - C - U - P
Beavis: heh heh heh heh!
Butthead: Asshole!
Good thing, too, cause their nuts would be sore from all the kicking the OSS community is going to be doing once they hear about this.
A number of posters have commented that Apple probably did this to insure their ability to relicense the CUPS code, or at least keep it under GPL2 rather than GPL3. That's probably true enough. But there's no particular harm in it either.
If Apple creates a branch of CUPS under some restrictive, proprietary license, so what? All the other developers in the world can take the last GPL(2) version, and enhance it however they like. They might not have access to Apple's enhancements, but there's no requirement for Apple to create them in the first place. For that matter, there's nothing that requires its primary developer to ever write another line of CUPS code either, so that's not something to count on either. Well, the contract with Apple might require such lines be written, but that's neither here nor there.
Buy Text Processing in Python
I may be naive but I am having a hard time seeing Apple closing this up. If they did then some one in the free software world would be tempted to write some thing new. Apple would then be in the position where all of *nix could be moving in a different direction and they could be left on their own with CUPS. That would make it harder to get printer support from vendors not easier. They could hurt others for a while but not forever. Steve Jobs is a fan of all things propriatary at heart but he has to know this would be suicide. It would be nice to see them get on the record about what their intentions are though.
Apple already has released the source for it, under the standard LLVM BSD license:u ly/009817.html
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2007-J
Mod parent up! As soon as I read the extra Apple provisions in the CUPS license, this is the first thing I thought of. I think many third party printer manufacturers have been reluctant to fully develop drivers on Mac OS X using the CUPS printing system due to its open-source nature. This would have been thwarted even further if CUPS went GPL version 3.
Although you don't see it as much with network printer drivers, the local printer drivers for things such as inkjet printers are horrid, and lack full functionality. Perhaps this will encourage printer manufacturers to develop more, full featured, drivers that are more on par with their Windows counterparts in the future on the Mac OS X platform.
> And if open source devs could never do that
perhaps you've never used KDE or never noticed the Printing configuration dialog, but KDE users configure CUPS all the time without ever seeing a web page or setting anything up. it's just as easy, and in some cases even easier, than the process on other operating systems.
"I must however add that CUPS has always been a torture to get working. (How do YOU add a local printer to the local setup using only the Web intardface ? Answer : either you use that http service to hack into your own machine, or you start a terminal and type sudo vim /etc/cups/cups.conf. Then you pray, read the Bible (man cups.conf) and get to work. Maybe someday your prints will come..."
I don't know what you have been using, but I use CUPS under Ubuntu and it has proven over and over again to be remarkably simple to set-up.
Last time I had to do it, it even located my networked HP printer all by itself and set it up for me. It can't be much more painless than that.
As if the CUPS stuff changes license to, say, something GPL-hostile, we can always fork it and keep it GPL2. Forever.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
No Apple is a tough company it is either there way or the highway. If apple is up aganst the wall they will fight back. If something is to risky for them they will switch. GPL 3 is not in line with apples plans so they will make sure they can control major sections of their OS which are GPL. The same with going with BSD. The BSD Licenese vs. GNU more attractive for Apple because they can control the OS Kernel themselfs and not worry about their Pripority stuff breaking the license. I am sure if the GPL was worded in a couple ways OS X would be Linux Based not Unix Based.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You may have missed this line from my original post:
Also, regarding this:
If I am the copyright holder, I am not required to accept the GPL in order to distribute the software. Licensees who received the software from me must accept the GPL in order to distribute the software, but I -- as the copyright holder -- have a right to distribute separate from that granted by the GPL, which means I am not obligated in any way to continue providing the software if I decide to stop distributing it myself; that clause applies only to someone who must accept the GPL in order to distribute the software.
If Apple were to put a GPL3 CUPS on the AppleTV or osme similar product they'd probably waive some patent rights by selling the product.
The GPLv3 applies only to the software that is licensed under it, so Apple doesn't lose patent rights to anything other than CUPS-related patents.
Note that the Apache 2 license also has patent clauses; I don't see Apple being terribly concerned about that.
Only essential software patent rights from a *contributor* are given for GPL use in the GPLv3. So if Apple was just distributing the GPLv3 code, nothing bad would happen to them.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
Easy. The BSD license is blessed when someone other than $company owns the copyright, because it allows greater freedom to $company. The fact that with the BSD license the copyright owner retains, accordingly, less control of the software is not a concern since it's not $company that is owning the copyright anyway.
If $company owns the copyright, those benefits and disadvantages no longer apply, and there isn't necessarily a reason to favour the BSD license anymore -- although there may not be much reason to prefer the GPL either.
If you want to apply that to this particular case, $company = Apple
I think this is great news. By employing the CUPS developer to work on CUPS, it's ensuring that development doesn't stagnate. There's always the potential problem with any OSS project that the primary developer would get side-tracked by The Real World. This is a step towards making sure that that doesn't happen.
Plus, Apple's design sense can't hurt in this case. The CUPS web interface has got to be one of the worst I've ever seen.
You guys are insane.
IBM offers a whole category of their IP freely and perpetually, and you ungrateful morons demand more and question IBM's commitment to open source.
Now Apple hires the CUPS developer and buys his code. They're keeping it under the GPL, yet this is part of some grand scheme to close source the technologies they use?
Do you really want to know what Apple did here? They rely heavily on CUPS, so they want to hire the guy who writes it because:
A. Paying him will help motivate him to make CUPS much better much more quickly.
B. Instead of contributing code themselves, it's more efficient to have the main developer do it directly.
C. They now have the world's best CUPS programmer.
They bought rights to the code because that's standard. They're still releasing it under the GPL. They *could* have just closed it, leaving the rest of us to fork the existing GPL'd project.
As for fear of the GPLv3, what, exactly, do you think Apple has to fear from it? Do you think Apple is planning to DRM CUPS? Or patent it all to hell (yet still release it under the GPLv2)? Would a GPLv3 CUPS require Apple to license the whole of OS X under the GPL? Seriously, what do you have in mind?
Apple hired one of the head BSD developers. They hired a well-known Mozilla contributer to work on their own derivative of an Open Sourced web browser back-end, which is now used by Apple's competitors, and yet Apple is showing no interest in closing the project. This is just the same sort of thing. Apple has voluntarily open sourced their own products. They participate in *many* open standards organizations, and they overwhelmingly rely on open and free standards for virtually every aspect of OS X. iCal, WebDAV, IMAP/POP3, CUPS, SQLite, CalDAV, XML, ugh, I could go on. All these technologies, and more, are open and freely usable. They also use some that are open but require a license (H.264). They're not all open source, but it's not like they're actually averse to it, now, are they?
Put the tinfoil hat down. This is not a conspiracy. Apple is not going to close CUPS. They're not afraid of Stallman. This has all come about because CUPS provides a critical function to OS X, and this is the best way to ensure CUPS advances at the pace they want, and evolves in the direction they want.
If Apple is so afraid of GPLv3, what are they going to do about SAMBA?
Slashdot logic is impeccable as always.
/A
I don't know Apple's motivation, but you know, there are compilers that can generate better X86 code than GCC.
GCC is quite portable and generates very good code on many architectures, especially X86, but often chip vendors ship highly optimised compilers for their own processors, even when they fund GCC as well.
Also, Microsoft has some special internal compilers that they don't ship (sometimes they take a very long time to compile, but generate very tight code. I don't know if they use any of them for shipping products but I wouldn't be surprised. These wouldn't really be productisable, but are appropriate for this sort of in-house use.
I only use GCC myself, because it's really good, but I don't kid myself that it's the best in every situation.
That said, my prior post here was one of fact, not opinion. It was meant to support fsmunoz's refutation of Constantine XVI's post. Constantine XVI pointed to Apple's use of GCC as evidence that Apple wouldn't aim to add proprietary changes to CUPS. As fsmunoz pointed out, this is bad evidence, as Apple is actively working on a non-copyleft GCC alternative.
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.
Don't be silly. The real reason Apple bought CUPS is so that everyone would have something to drink the kool-aid out of.
It's a forum post, which means just some random person stating it.
That, and I don't think Microsoft really even bother moderating their forums. Bit like SourceForge/Slashdot, really.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
In this case, Debian would likely have to obtain permission from Apple if they wanted to keep calling it CUPS. If those are the only changes they make to it, I would assume Apple would gladly grant them the right to use the trademark.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
Hello LPRng. Is anyone still developing it?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
The owner of the code is not required to do anything. The owner can distribute as much or as little he wants under any terms because he's distributing under the terms of copyright law, not the terms of the GPL. It is only recipients of the code who subsequently redistribute code _they don't own_ that have any obligations under the GPL. There is no "contract" between the owner of GPL code and anyone they provide it to.
The only legal obligations assumed under the GPL are when someone OTHER THAN the owner distributes, since they don't have the legal ability under copyright law to do so, so they MUST use the rights granted to them under the GPL to do so, and in return they accept the obligations of the GPL as well. The owner does not need the GPL to have the right to distribute, so he has no obligations under the GPL.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
apple paid for the primary developer to give up his rights to the code and sell it to Apple Computer.
How can you say it was a hostile takeover when the primary developer willingly sold it? It's only hostile when the "owner" DOES NOT want to sell.
FalconShould there be a Law?
No, you are not obligated to do so when you are the copyright holder to the entirety of the software. Remember that the GPL is a license from the copyright holder, not a contract between the copyright holder and the licensee. The GPL's terms only come into play when:
When these conditions are met, you may distribute only if you accept and adhere to the terms of the GPL. But if you are the copyright holder these conditions are not met (because you did not receive the software under the GPL and because, as the copyright holder, you have an inherent right, separate from the GPL, to distribute), and so you may distribute without being forced to accept the terms of the GPL. And if you do not ever accept the terms of the GPL, and are never in a situation where you are forced to accept the terms of the GPL, then the terms of the GPL cannot be enforced against you.
In other words, if you are the copyright holder you may distribute the software any way you wish, and you may allow licensees to receive it from you under the terms of the GPL, but you do not ever have to to its terms to do so. This means you may cease distributing it at any time; any licenses you granted up to that point will remain valid, but you are under no obligation from the GPL to continue offering the software to anyone, including your current licensees, because you were never required to accept its terms as a condition of distribution.
Same here. But then the second thing I thought of was to check out cups.org at the internet archive, where I found out that those provisions have been there since sometime before October, 2002, so it seems unlikely this purchase is about that. :-)
That's right =).
What's the purpose of Free Software? To have Software that keeps both Developers and Users Free to Use, Copy, Modify and Study it, and to have such software for every need and for everyone.
So, if a software is put under the GPL, and also under other licenses, why should that bother me?. The software is under GPL and if they change the license, someone will fork it and continue developing. That's the beauty of the GPL.
So:
- A Free Software Developer made some money and got himself a good job doing what he likes.
- A major player in the Software market is going to use and contribute to the current standard in Unix printing, probably pushing printer manufacturers to release drivers that will work for CUPS on Unix, and we will be able to use those drivers under Unix (Because either the printer manufacturer will realize just how easy it's to have a GNU/Linux once they made a Darwin version, or because the community will take the binary drivers from OS X and get them to work on GNU/Linux somehow)
- In the best case we will see improvements on CUPS, and in the worst case we will just fork it.
I Don't see a real problem in this. Once upon a time The Free Software community and it's codebase were much smaller, and so companies doing this kind of stuff was a problem. Now that problem is gone, and the GPL protects us.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Good point. I didn't realize it had been there for so long. But maybe third party manufacturers didn't feel confident until Apple's purchase of CUPS. With your information, maybe it won't make much of a difference. But here's to hoping it will...
No, because everyone with a copy of CUPS licensed under the GPL has code that comes with a license that guarantees their freedom to redistribute it regardless of what the copyright owner thinks/does.
This reflects a misunderstanding of mechanics. If you release software with the GPL attached, that software is GPL'd for life. You, as the rightsholder, may distribute software via another license or grant exceptions to the GPL, but you continue to be obligated to honor the GPL on the software with which it was provided. If you choose to release anything under the GPL, you are bound by it. If you release software and declare it GPL but never provide any source, even if you are the original creator, you are violating the GPL.
You might think you can ignore it, but once you announce your intentions and place an agreement in effect, you become a party to that agreement. As long as you supply GPL software, you must comply with those terms as well.
Consider it not being the GPL for a moment. If you release a product that proclaims that it is free and modifiable, and as a result you attract people to create accessories and modifications for it, growing it into a commercially valuable endeavour based on the contributions of others, you can decide to make your new edition not free. You can't say, "I'm no longer allowing people to access the free version." You gave up that power when you made it free and distributable in the first place.
You can't wash your hands of it until your obligations are fulfilled. You've made a commitment to provide a product under the GPL. You must follow through on that. If you truly believe a license is not enforceable on the creator's side, then I hope you realize what that means for "fair use," personal use exceptions, and anti-DRM: they're all baseless. If you accept that creators of software aren't bound by the terms of its release, then creators of content aren't bound, either, and they have the legal and moral right to do whatever they want, including killing personal copying/backup copying/what Slashdotters call "fair use."
It seems that Apple is working with the LLVM group to replace the main parts of the GCC C, C++, Objective-C tool chain with a much more flexible system that supports static compilation as well as JIT and programs that can adjust their own code base at runtime. Objective-C is based on some notions of Smalltalk which has such a dynamic JIT environment. Apple seems to be moving towards a more runtime interactive tool chain with it's C language program base. One of the Apple people at the LLVM conference even mentioned some work with Smalltalk and LLVM. Objective-C as used in WebObjects has a much more dynamic feel to it.
It's interesting that the LLVM project's technological choices and their BSD-style license are both highly compatible with Apple's technological and business strategies.
As for CUPS it may make sense for Apple to keep it GPL'd for now. As others have undoubtedly noted it's now Apple's choice of whether or not to share their code changes with the community since they now own a large amount of the code base of CUPS. This approach to taking over GPL'd projects may well see a surge. This is a good opportunity for the primary developers of some GPL'd software projects if they desire to keep working on their projects full time.
The low adoption threshold of BSD enables choices that are prevented by the GPL. It is very interesting that Apple found a way to control a GPL'd project that seems important to them. Of course Apple may approach the CUPS and LLVM projects completely differently since they have different strategic and technological values. The LLVM project enables Apple to advance their C-base code library forward with linguistic enhancements that advanced languages like LISP, Smalltalk, Self, IO, and others have while keeping backwards compatibility and low-level static performance capabilities.
The fusion of dynamic and static languages continues with an interesting future at Apple.
This reflects such a deep misunderstanding of licensing that I'm not even sure where to begin. But I'll try anyway; let's start with the text of GPLv2, because it's by far the most prevalent version in use. That license defines, up front, the word "you" which is used repeatedly within the text:
Now, right off the bat we know who this is directed at: licensees. And we know who it's not directed at: people who are not licensees. The copyright holder, by definition, is never a licensee; instead, the copyright holder is the licensor, the person who grants the license. There is no text anywhere within the terms of the GPL which addresses the licensor or lays any obligation on the licensor in any way, shape or form. So already we have a legally and logically ironclad explanation of the fact that the GPL does not obligate the copyright holder to continue providing source or to obey any of the other terms of the GPL. But let's dig deeper, because you've missed several very important points.
The GPL is a license; it is a grant of privileges from one person to another. It is most emphatically not a contract. A contract is an agreement with consideration and obligations for both sides, while a license is entirely one-sided: licensor grants a privilege, with certain conditions, to licensee. The licensor is not bound by the terms imposed on the licensee and, in fact, if this were the case licenses would be worthless. You've suggested that we consider what would happen if we weren't talking about the GPL, so let's do so: let's assume that instead we're talking about the EULA for Microsoft Windows, which expressly forbids copying, distribution and/or modification of the software. By your argument, Microsoft would be "obligated" by its license terms not to copy, distribute or modify Windows, which is -- however you may feel about proprietary licenses and/or Microsoft -- a patently ludicrous idea. So we have a second strong explanation of the fact that the GPL places no obligations on the copyright holder to abide by its terms. But let's continue.
The GPL is very clear about the situations in which it comes into play, and it works like this:
This entire scheme is predicated on the assumption that, as the GPL states, "nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works" which, assuming that you are a licensee and that the GPL is the only licensing option available, is generally true. However, that clause of the license begins with a very important sentence: "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it."
What this means is that if the key assumption -- that nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the program or its derivative works -- d
I am interested in other people's thoughts about this...
"Sweeeeeeeeeet". Har har.
Claiming to be pedantic on Slashdot is asking for trouble
How so?
No. We do not have any reason to assume that Apple will close CUPS.
"Apple did this with KHTML!!!"
Where have you been for the last two years? Do you want to go list all the stuff Apple has been feeding back to the community and explain why none of it matters?
"Apple did this with Darwin!!!!!"
Yeah, they did keep Darwin under wraps for a certain amount of time. They had their reasons. We may not agree with their reasons and analyses, but they afterward opened their code base back up. They didn't have to, since the BSD allows people to be stupid, but they did.
Apple recognizes that contributing back to the community allows the community to continue to contribute as well.
CUPS, in particular, is one that Apple needs the community to help them with. They are not going to close it up.
(I'm wondering if I can recall any one thing Apple has actually closed up and kept closed.)
So there has been a lot of anti-Apple fud here.
What about GPL3? I see a lot of assertions that GPL3 is poison to Apple, but I don't see any reasons why. My understanding of GPL3 is that it would be _more_ to Apple's advantage to go GPL3 if they want to retain the right to create exceptions than the untested GPL2+quasi-exception it currently has. I need to examine the license and the exception, but the "They couldn't use GPL3 comments show an utter lack of familiarity with the concepts.
An awful lot of anti-FSF fud here.
Well, right now printing has always worked for me on the Mac, and I've never managed to get it working on Linux (to the same ipp: printer URL). So I know which one I'd put my money on.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Frankly, the collaboration between Safari and that open browser thingie hasn't worked all that badly. Isn't Apple still contributing improvements to the open browser? No, they're not sin-free. But a new fork wouldn't be the worst thing to happen either.
At least they didn't tell CUPS, "You have 224 copyright violations in your code. No, we won't name them. But in order for any company to use this code, they're going to have to pay Apple protection money." You know, like a certain other software company I could name.
It creates an interesting alliance, I think, though a proprietary software/hardware company with $100 billion in sales is kind of an elephant, yes.
GNU is run by the FSF... One of these organizations is a non-profit dedicated to freedom ...
... The FSF is benevolent and kind to those who accept its obligations and limitations, but they are not about freedom except in a self serving redefinition of the word. I'm not saying that the FSF of GPL are bad, just that "freedom" is an inappropriate word to use. They are engaging in redefinition and doublespeak on par with politicians and advertising agencies in order to sell their ideology.
The FSF is not about freedom, it is about ideology.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom
freedom
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.
7. the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.
17. Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.
The GPL exercises control, restrains some actions, creates some obligations, limits some choices,
> I am sure if the GPL was worded in a couple ways OS X would be Linux Based not Unix Based.
OS X's BSD-heritage goes back to 1988 which predates Linux.
I had a good clue about why Apple wants CUPS and its author in OPEN WAY.
/ 32100 )
:)
This just appeared at Versiontracker.com ( http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx
"What's new in this version:
CUPS 1.3 adds Kerberos and mDNS (Bonjour) support along with over 30 new features. Full release notes can be found at http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L479 "
I think their "evil plan" started to work! How an evil thing to add Zeroconf (yes, it is open) and Kerberos to poor CUPS
I wanted to add this reply before story gets archived.
The rest of your verbose post is countering some outside interpretation of some other argument, so it bears no addressing. No one is stating that the copyright holder is a licensee under the GPL. You consistently fail to recognize the basic requirement that a license is an agreement. It is a one-way grant but it most certainly imposes limitations on the licensor and both components are integral to the law of obligations. A license is at its most basic an AGREEMENT (requires more than one party) not to sue (limiting the power of the copyright holder in that s/he is bound to honor the terms of that license in re what permissions and obligations have been granted).
You're still missing the part where the licensor is not the licensee. When a project requires assignment of copyright from contributors, they are not receiving that code under the GPL -- they are not receiving it under any license at all, and are instead receiving the copyright itself. Hence, again, licensor is licensor and is never in a situation where he/she/it must accept the terms of the GPL.
Assignment of rights does not universally mean that the contributors have surrendered ALL of them, particularly if the code is merged before the copyright is assigned, at which time the GPL is in effect. This entire time I have been saying nothing except that there *may* still be unmet requirements by the CUPS people and that the GPL for all its attempted simplicity is not simple at all once multiple developers' work gets merged into a single product. And once again, no one is claiming that the licensor must accept the terms of the GPL as a licensee when s/he holds the copyright. But assuming copyright does not invalidate prior obligations, particularly on a license in perpetuity as the GPL touts itself to be in the legal community--there is in fact a discussion on this in the comments to this very story.
Consider if a developer worked on GPL software and then decided to buy out all the other developers. For as long as that product was collaborative, he has purchased software which already HAD an interminable GPL license attached. That means that other developers can still request of him the source code, since they've licensed the product prior to its becoming closed (those other developers can sign away their individual rights to sue anyone for GPL violation by transferring copyright to someone else). That developer, copyright holder or not, is still obligated to fulfill his requirement to his licensees to provide the source. Assignment of copyright does not break legal obligations automatically and blindly. He is not required to GPL future works and he is not required to continue hosting the current GPL version (but he cannot interfere with the free distribution of that software and/or source), and he must fulfill all source requests made under the GPL prior to his announcement to terminate GPL support in lieu of an alternate license. The CUPS people, as I've said continually, may have met these obligations already and thus are done with the GPL years of the project.
The only point is that it's not so simple, and assigning all copyrights to a single developer makes things easier, but still not EASY, on a project of this size.
Ah, but now you're just playing semantic tricks. If the licensor was once a licensee then all bets are off but, as Yiddish speakers would say, if my grandmother had balls she'd be my grandfather.