Apple Will No Longer Be Developing CUPS Under The GPL

[woprandi]

Maybe a birth of a fork

[wdb974]

Your attitude is exactly why Linux will never be a competition to Windows and MacOS on the desktop, willingness to tolerate bugs and continuously persuading yourself that it keeps getting better while in reality basic functionality often doesnt work, missing functionality, bugs etc. Geeks might tolerate that, but others dont have time and energy for that. I used to tolerate all that, but not any more, I am opening my own business and I am not risking things breaking in the middle of a business trip, subpar quality of some applications and crappy battery life. Any software setback would cost me time, energy and money, that is unacceptable and therefore I am buying a Macbook Pro, it has great battery life and everything just works without jumping through hoops to make some peripherals or software work as intended. Its proprietary? Yes and I dont give a fuck as long as it serves my purposes as intended and makes me money. In a better world Linux might do that job for me reliably, but it cant and I am not pretending it can because I know from experience it cant.

Surely you can provide us with factual data regarding your allegations.

[Paradox Ethereal]

Apple is catching on aswell.

If you see what gnu-idolatry does in the linux community, you wouldn´t want GNU either. It is all they say, about "linux zealots". It really is the GNU licence. To not speak of 10 ms filters in CPU measurements, and tons of pointer variables in audio plugins etc.. Because they are brainwashed in GNU.

I switched to OpenBSD and the 3-clause BSD licence.

[tebruno99]

So much doom and gloom over this, Evil Apple going to use this to close CUPS blah blah. More than likely if Apple held the rights to change the code base from GPL to Apache, they ALSO already had the rights to keep their changes closed source if they wanted to. The GPL does not force the Copyright OWNER to follow the GPL.

[pal666]

It is called a Copyright Assignment Agreement. It is also used by e.g Canonical and FSF and enables them to change the license at will.

no, it does not. fsf signs binding contract with you that it will not change license at will. it could only change gplv2 to gplv3 etc

[pal666]

All companies require contributors to sign a CLA

not all clas are the same

[edmon]

Why i am almost sure that soon Lennart will show us printerd....

[nomadewolf]

Can't they license it under both license agreements?

[discordian]

no, it does not. fsf signs binding contract with you that it will not change license at will. it could only change gplv2 to gplv3 etc

As soon as they got your copyright they can legally do anything with the code, even sue you if you keep using that code in your own closed source projects. whatever promises they make on top aren't binding in any way.

[starshipeleven]

Your attitude is exactly why Linux will never be a competition to Windows and MacOS on the desktop, whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine therefore I am buying a Macbook Pro, it has great battery life and everything just works whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine

I've never ever had a stable release distro (Debian or OpenSUSE leap) break on me in like 10 years I've been using Linux seriously.
Wtf is going on there?