Apple buys CUPS
Jeanette
http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L475
and seems they already made a change.
http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L179+I0+T+M10+P1+Q
Article #179: License Exceptions
Created at 10:58 Jul 23, 2004 by mike
Last modified at 14:59 Jul 11, 2007
In addition, as the copyright holder of CUPS, Apple Inc. grants the
following special exceptions:
1. Apple Operating System Development License Exception;
1. Software that is developed by any person or entity for an Apple
Operating System ("Apple OS-Developed Software"), including but not
limited to Apple and third party printer drivers, filters, and backends
for an Apple Operating System, that is linked to the CUPS imaging
library or based on any sample filters or backends provided with CUPS
shall not be considered to be a derivative work or collective work based
on the CUPS program and is exempt from the mandatory source code release
clauses of the GNU GPL. You may therefore distribute linked combinations
of the CUPS imaging library with Apple OS-Developed Software without
releasing the source code of the Apple OS-Developed Software. You may
also use sample filters and backends provided with CUPS to develop Apple
OS-Developed Software without releasing the source code of the Apple
OS-Developed Software.
2. An Apple Operating System means any operating system software
developed and/or marketed by Apple Computer, Inc., including but not
limited to all existing releases and versions of Apple's Darwin, Mac OS
X, and Mac OS X Server products and all follow-on releases and future
versions thereof.
3. This exception is only available for Apple OS-Developed Software and
does not apply to software that is distributed for use on other
operating systems.
4. All CUPS software that falls under this license exception have the
following text at the top of each source file:
This file is subject to the Apple OS-Developed Software exception.
Linonut
> Looks like our "friends" at Apple bought CUPS
>
> http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L475
>
> and seems they already made a change.
>
> http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L179+I0+T+M10+P1+Q
>
> This file is subject to the Apple OS-Developed Software exception.
That ain't going to fly with the FSF. Apple must release their modified
source code to their Apple users.
GPL 2:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights,
from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated
so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify
or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions
are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.
Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work
based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this
License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying,
distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
--
CUPS got Jobbed!
Peter Köhlmann
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Jeanette belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Looks like our "friends" at Apple bought CUPS
>>
>> http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L475
>>
>> and seems they already made a change.
>>
>> http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L179+I0+T+M10+P1+Q
>>
>> This file is subject to the Apple OS-Developed Software exception.
>
> That ain't going to fly with the FSF. Apple must release their modified
> source code to their Apple users.
>
Except that apple now are the copyright owners.
They *can* allow additional rights.
And this is an additional right, somewhat like the LGPL
CUPS itself is not changed by this, it still is under GPL
What they are talking about is additional stuff build around CUPS
--
Who the fuck is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
Jeanette
I would interpret this to mean any CUPS software done for OS X does not
have to release the source
Roy Schestowitz
Let's just hope they don't subvert and divert attention in the project. It has
a FOSS focus. When Microsoft buys software that's Apple oriented, it's a death
knell.
Parallels/Wine comes to mind here, but it's a different type of situation.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | #ff0000 Hot Chilli Peppers
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 515500k total, 447480k used, 68020k free, 3672k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
The Ghost In The Machine
<jru...@hotmail.com>
wrote
on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:20:34 -0700
<Cptli.72586$tL1....@newsfe22.lga>:
Ditto here, though it could get interesting since Apple was
(is?) also in the printer business (though I'll admit to
wondering if the LaserWriter was an OEM-type deal or what).
In short, Apple bought CUPS, brings out brand new printers,
CUPS only works with those printers if it's running on MacOSX.
Who does what?
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #10239993:
char * f(char *p) {char *q = malloc(strlen(p)); strcpy(q,p); return q; }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Rick
Someone else writes a CUPS driver for it if there is a demand to use it
on non-Macs.
--
Rick
Rex Ballard
wrote:
> Linonut wrote:
> > After takin' a swig o' grog, Jeanette belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
Interesting point here is that there are lots of contributors to CUPS,
and several thousand staff-years of support. Apple does not own that,
and has not properly compensated those contributors.
If Apple wants to behave and be a good corporate citizen, they can
continue to support CUPS as a non-profit organization, but attempting
to take "ownership" exposes them to legal liabilities, tax
consequences, and SEC issues, that I'm not sure they really want to
deal with.
> They *can* allow additional rights.
> And this is an additional right, somewhat like the LGPL
But this is revoking some of the terms under which original support
was provided. There were other alternatives to CUPS, and CUPS won out
because lots of contributors contributed $millions, possibly hundreds
of $millions worth of time, effort, resources, and intellectual
property - to the effort.
Now Apple is saying that if you make changes to CUPS for OS/X, THEY
don't have to publish those source code changes. So if Cannon creates
a CUPS plug-in, it might ONLY work for OS/X - and the Linux/BSD
community gets screwed.
This is NOT what those contibutors, distributors, advocates,
supporters, testers, and developers agreed to. If Apple wants to
alter that agreement, they have to get unanimous agreement from ALL of
those contributors.
![[H]omer's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWMQWyYwHeIwxhG3nGUeGWmLQD0R8TeZrvdWDiv5-2S_z3rHg=s40-c)
[H]omer
The key phrase here being "derivative works".
An important question that needs answering, is how does Apple propose
releasing proprietary blobs to CUPS in such a way that does not violate
the GPL? AFAICT if it links GPL code, it must conform to the GPL license.
I'd also be interested to know how much of CUPS, including drivers, was
*not* contributed by Michael R Sweet? IOW - Was permission sought from
*all* parties to change the license, if that is indeed what has happened?
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Computer games don’t affect kids, I mean if Pac man affected us as
| kids, we’d all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills
| and listening to repetitive music." - Kristian Wilson, Nintendo
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.21-1.3194.fc7
19:43:46 up 11 days, 18:38, 2 users, load average: 0.28, 0.41, 0.43
Steven Spicolli
"Rex Ballard" <rex.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184265091.5...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
I'm quite certain that the armies of lawyers employed by Apple understand
the situation far better than you do.
* Steven
Peter Köhlmann
Well, certainly also a lot better than you do
--
Windows is just the instable version of Linux for users who are too
dumb to handle the real thing
Nedd Ludd
news:1184265091.5...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
: Interesting point here is that there are lots of contributors to CUPS,
: and several thousand staff-years of support. Apple does not own that,
: and has not properly compensated those contributors.
What compensation would the contributors expect beyand what they've already
recieved?
Nedd Ludd
:
: An important question that needs answering, is how does Apple propose
: releasing proprietary blobs to CUPS in such a way that does not violate
: the GPL? AFAICT if it links GPL code, it must conform to the GPL license.
Apple owns the program. They can license it as they see fit. If CUPS was
GPL'ed then Apple can slap a Berkley license on it and not have to worry
about the GLP 3 lunacy.
If it is acceptible for a software license to change from GPL 2 to GPL 3
then it is acceptible for the license to change from GLP to BSD. The terms
of the license change in both cases.
Nedd Ludd
news:46966de0$0$16393$8826...@free.teranews.com...
:
: Now Apple is saying that if you make changes to CUPS for OS/X, THEY
: don't have to publish those source code changes. So if Cannon creates
: a CUPS plug-in, it might ONLY work for OS/X - and the Linux/BSD
: community gets screwed.
:
: This is NOT what those contibutors, distributors, advocates,
: supporters, testers, and developers agreed to. If Apple wants to
: alter that agreement, they have to get unanimous agreement from ALL of
: those contributors.
To win in court the contibutors, distributors, advocates, supporters,
testers, and developers will need to proove they have 'standing'. Without
standing, you're not in a postition to complain. I question whether anyone
in the groups you listed have standing.
:
: I'm quite certain that the armies of lawyers employed by Apple understand
: the situation far better than you do.
:
I am sure Apple has some fine lawyers.
Nedd Ludd
news:1276854.S...@schestowitz.com...
:
: Let's just hope they don't subvert and divert attention in the project. It
has
: a FOSS focus. When Microsoft buys software that's Apple oriented, it's a
death
: knell.
If you don't like the direction CUPS takes then you can write your own.
The Ghost In The Machine
<no...@nomail.com>
wrote
on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:21:50 -0000
<139cs9u...@news.supernews.com>:
That is indeed a possibility, if Apple publishes specs
for this hypothetical new printer. (Since the printer
market isn't all that new, one could probably use an
older converter/filter [*] for awhile, or tweak said older
converter/filter if the resolution is different.)
[*] Not sure exactly what to call it; the actual driver in
Linux space is the parallel or serial port, both of which
are very simple beasts, or the driver is the network stack.
Presumably, CUPS uses utility programs/scripts to convert
Postscript or text or images to a format the printer likes.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
"Woman? What woman?"
dapunka
> "Rex Ballard" <rex.ball...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I guess they expected that their work would remain under GPL in
perpetuity.
Tim Smith
> An important question that needs answering, is how does Apple propose
> releasing proprietary blobs to CUPS in such a way that does not violate
> the GPL? AFAICT if it links GPL code, it must conform to the GPL license.
The answer is fairly straightforward, but easy to miss, because of a
common shortcut in thinking that you are making (as do most people). We
think of code as "GPL code", as if the license is some kind of
attribute of the code.
That's handy, but not really accurate. The license is between the owner
of the code, and the user of the code (by "user" in this discussion, I
include programmers who want to link to the code--basically anyone doing
anything that requires permission).
When you have some "GPL code", what you really have is some code whose
owner has given blanket permission to everyone to do anything they want
that conforms to GPL.
Thus, if I own some code, and release it under GPL, you can do anything
with it that is allowed under GPL. But I can also release it under
other licenses, at the same time, to the general public or to specific
people or companies. This is actually fairly common. For example, Perl
is available under GPL and also under the Artistic License. If you
wanted to do something with the Perl source, you could pick which of
those licenses you want to accept, and they you would have follow its
terms. Someone else might pick the other license. And quite a few
projects that release code under GPL or other open source licenses have
notes on their sites indicating that they will also license the code for
proprietary use (note that to do this, they have to be careful to keep
outside contributions separate--if developer A make their code available
under GPL, and developer B contributes back some code licensed under
GPL, then A does *not* have the right to include B's contribution in any
releases A licenses under non-GPL licenses).
Anyway, Apple is now the owner of CUPS. They don't need anyone's
permission to do things with the code, such as link in proprietary
blobs. GPL is only relevant here to non-Apple people and companies that
want to do things with the code.
Dean G.
> "Steven Spicolli" <Spico...@comcast.com> wrote in message
>
> news:46966de0$0$16393$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> :
> : Now Apple is saying that if you make changes to CUPS for OS/X, THEY
> : don't have to publish those source code changes. So if Cannon creates
> : a CUPS plug-in, it might ONLY work for OS/X - and the Linux/BSD
> : community gets screwed.
> :
> : This is NOT what those contibutors, distributors, advocates,
> : supporters, testers, and developers agreed to. If Apple wants to
> : alter that agreement, they have to get unanimous agreement from ALL of
> : those contributors.
> :
>
> To win in court the contibutors, distributors, advocates, supporters,
> testers, and developers will need to proove they have 'standing'. Without
> standing, you're not in a postition to complain. I question whether anyone
> in the groups you listed have standing.
It seems to me that every single constributor who did not waive or
assign their (copy) rights to Easy Software Products would have
standing.
More info :
www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing
If you disagree, please present a cogent case why this would not be
so.
Dean G.
>
> :
> : I'm quite certain that the armies of lawyers employed by Apple understand
> : the situation far better than you do.
> :
>
> I am sure Apple has some fine lawyers.
SCO has some fine lawyers, they just don't have any facts on their
side. The copyright owners could simply sue Apple for software piracy
(copyright infringement). Barring a license to distribute the code,
Apple would have no defense. If the owner has only released the code
under GPL, then Apple would only have a license to distribute along
the terms of the GPL.
The copyright laws give broad (perhaps even over-broad) powers to
copyright owners, including, but not limited to, the ability to have
shut down copyright infringers without court action, as well as
rquiring online services to block access to sights that contain the
infringing material. Either one of these would be extremely damaging
to Apple, and it could take months or years of court action to
resolve, and Apple may still lose in the end.
Personally, I believe that Apple will be a good citizen and release a
few Apple specific things in compliance with the GPL/LGPL/CUPS
License, but I doubt they will go out of their way to prevent the *NIX
people from keeping things compatible, particularly because the
compatibility is in their advantage. In a pissing war, they would just
get a branched product that slowly but surely becomes less and less
compatible with the rest of the world.
Dean G.
Dean G.
> "[H]omer" <s...@uce.gov> wrote in messagenews:cf9im4-...@sky.matrix...
>
> :
> : An important question that needs answering, is how does Apple propose
> : releasing proprietary blobs to CUPS in such a way that does not violate
> : the GPL? AFAICT if it links GPL code, it must conform to the GPL license.
>
> Apple owns the program. They can license it as they see fit. If CUPS was
> GPL'ed then Apple can slap a Berkley license on it and not have to worry
> about the GLP 3 lunacy.
Apple only owns the parts of the programs they bought. If Mr. Sweet
did not own all of the rights, and it seems that he did not, then
Apple can only purchase from Mr. Sweet what Mr. Sweet owned. You can
buy my car if you like, but you have to buy it from me. Mr. Sweet may
take your money, but you do not aquire legal ownership of my car
despite what you, Mr. Sweet, or any lawyer says.
>
> If it is acceptible for a software license to change from GPL 2 to GPL 3
> then it is acceptible for the license to change from GLP to BSD. The terms
> of the license change in both cases.
The GPLv2 specificly states that you could use a later version of the
GPL. It does not say you can use other licenses. This is in section
9 :
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new
versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions
will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail
to
address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and
"any later version", you have the option of following the terms and
conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a
version number of this License, you may choose any version ever
published by the Free Software Foundation.
Dean G.
Jerry McBride
> Looks like our "friends" at Apple bought CUPS
>
> http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L475
>
> and seems they already made a change.
>
> http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L179+I0+T+M10+P1+Q
>
No worries... fork it... :')
--
Jerry McBride
Rex Ballard
> "Steven Spicolli" <Spico...@comcast.com> wrote in message
>
> news:46966de0$0$16393$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> :
> : Now Apple is saying that if you make changes to CUPS for OS/X, THEY
> : don't have to publish those source code changes. So if Cannon creates
> : a CUPS plug-in, it might ONLY work for OS/X - and the Linux/BSD
> : community gets screwed.
> :
> : This is NOT what those contibutors, distributors, advocates,
> : supporters, testers, and developers agreed to. If Apple wants to
> : alter that agreement, they have to get unanimous agreement from ALL of
> : those contributors.
> :
>
> To win in court the contibutors, distributors, advocates, supporters,
> testers, and developers will need to proove they have 'standing'. Without
> standing, you're not in a postition to complain. I question whether anyone
> in the groups you listed have standing.
The problem for Apple could be "implied consideration". In this case,
the software contributors had entered into a contract (the GPL or
LGPL), and contributed to the product, which increased in "value"
based on that contribution. Attempting to unilaterally alter the
terms of that contract, without getting the agreement of the affected
parties - could constitute fraud and/or theft.
Traditionally, however, the issue is normally resolved in what's
called "GPL retailation". When the NCSA altered the agreement
unilaterally, all patches to the NCSA server were released exclusively
under the terms of GPL (automatically making the whole browser GPL if
the patch was applied). Eventually, a new license was created which
gained the agreement of nearly all of the patch publishers, and the
new, fully patched package, under the new license, became known as
Apache.
When SSH tried to unilaterally alter the agreement, a new team formed
OpenSSH which published numerous enhancements under GPL. Even today,
there are commercial products based on ssh or ssl which are vulnerable
because patches released under GPL or LGPL are not available in the
"binary only" patch.
> : I'm quite certain that the armies of lawyers employed by Apple understand
> : the situation far better than you do.
You are probably right. Ultimately, a copyright license, a contract,
is a function of agreement. If all of the parties are in agreement,
all is well. If the agreement is altered unilaterally, and too many
people no longer agree, they could create a new agreement.
> I am sure Apple has some fine lawyers.
Yes they do. Appearantly not as good as Microsoft's. ;-)
Apple has been pretty good about supporting and maintaining OSS
software. It's not quite as supportive as IBM, HP, and Sun
Microsystems, but they are getting the sense of the product.
Ironically, the liability could be, not Apple's, but the author who
"sold" the copyrights to Apple. He could transfer his original code,
but all patches, upgrades, enhancements, and bug fixes would still be
subject to the terms of the original agreement.
If Linux tried to "sell" Linux to Microsoft, they might get a 10,000
line program.
That's about all they would have any legal right to. And even then,
Microsoft
could not revoke the GPL, since the original software was published
under those terms.
Nedd Ludd
news:1184275902.5...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
: On Jul 12, 3:22 pm, "Nedd Ludd" <NeddL...@comcast.net> wrote:
: > "[H]omer" <s...@uce.gov> wrote in
messagenews:cf9im4-...@sky.matrix...
: >
: > :
: > : An important question that needs answering, is how does Apple propose
: > : releasing proprietary blobs to CUPS in such a way that does not
violate
: > : the GPL? AFAICT if it links GPL code, it must conform to the GPL
license.
: >
: > Apple owns the program. They can license it as they see fit. If CUPS
was
: > GPL'ed then Apple can slap a Berkley license on it and not have to worry
: > about the GLP 3 lunacy.
:
: Apple only owns the parts of the programs they bought. If Mr. Sweet
: did not own all of the rights, and it seems that he did not, then
: Apple can only purchase from Mr. Sweet what Mr. Sweet owned. You can
: buy my car if you like, but you have to buy it from me. Mr. Sweet may
: take your money, but you do not aquire legal ownership of my car
: despite what you, Mr. Sweet, or any lawyer says.
CUPS was written by Michael R Sweet, an owner of Easy Software Products.
http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L476+I0+T+M10+P1+Q
: >
: > If it is acceptible for a software license to change from GPL 2 to GPL 3
: > then it is acceptible for the license to change from GLP to BSD. The
terms
: > of the license change in both cases.
:
: The GPLv2 specificly states that you could use a later version of the
: GPL. It does not say you can use other licenses. This is in section
: 9 :
:
: 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new
: versions
: of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions
: will
: be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail
: to
: address new problems or concerns.
If is a minor change to a detail then it will probably not be an issue.
If the change is substantive then it probably nullifies the contract.
A court would decide if the change is minor or substantive.
:
: Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
: specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and
: "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and
: conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
: the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a
: version number of this License, you may choose any version ever
: published by the Free Software Foundation.
:
: Dean G.
he will continue to develop and support CUPS, which is still being released
under the existing GPL2/LGPL2 licensing terms.
http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L476+I0+T+M10+P1+Q
Personally, I think purchasing CUPS was a defensive move by Apple to keep a
critical tool from being polluted by GPLv3.
Nedd Ludd
For a contract to exist 3 things are required; an offer, an acceptance and
consideration. If any of these three things are missing then there is no
contract. If there was no consideration when the developer shared his
contribution then there was never a contract and the developer has no
standing.
It's contract law 101.
"To be legally binding as a contract, a promise must be exchanged for
adequate consideration."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Contracts
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:51:03 -0000,
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> On 2007-07-12, [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>> An important question that needs answering, is how does Apple propose
>> releasing proprietary blobs to CUPS in such a way that does not violate
>> the GPL? AFAICT if it links GPL code, it must conform to the GPL license.
<snip>
> Anyway, Apple is now the owner of CUPS. They don't need anyone's
> permission to do things with the code, such as link in proprietary
> blobs. GPL is only relevant here to non-Apple people and companies that
> want to do things with the code.
Assuming that any contributors to CUPS had either assigned their
copyright to the original owners of the CUPS stuff, or Apple gets their
permission to release under a licence other than GPL< or Apple rewrites
those bits.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGlsuod90bcYOAWPYRApI/AJ9cuS4hc3RAeh3ZdICeFYQoOk0NcgCgv196
ITn2UNrzopNUjbgM+6hSGRM=
=ig8m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Homo sapiens, isn't
cc
I can't say I completely understand the GPL (go ahead call me an
idiot, I know you want to), but it seems like if companies are
seemingly going to ignore it (as people in here are claiming Apple and
Microsoft are), and no legal action is going to be taken, then what's
the point of the GPL? You say this won't fly with the FSF, but what
have they done so far? It's like the whole GPL thing is just for shits
and giggles and some have no interest in following it, and none have
any interest in enforcing it.
Tim Smith
Jeanette <jru...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> and seems they already made a change.
>
> http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L179+I0+T+M10+P1+Q
>
>
>
> Created at 10:58 Jul 23, 2004 by mike
I see everyone has overlooked that "Jul 23, 2004". And, in fact, if you
check www.cups.org at archive.org, you'll find the Apple license
exception has been there at least as far back as October, 2002.
It's at least as early as October, 2002.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> Assuming that any contributors to CUPS had either assigned their
> copyright to the original owners of the CUPS stuff, or Apple gets their
> permission to release under a licence other than GPL< or Apple rewrites
> those bits.
CUPS requires copyright assignment before accepting outside code.
Not that this actually matters, since Apple hasn't changed the
license--CUPS has been "GPL + Apple license exception" for nearly five
years.
--
--Tim Smith
Rex Ballard
> "Dean G." <dguttada...@4ecp.com> wrote in message
Contract law also states that the consideration does not have to be
in the form of currency. For example, if I give you permission to
borrow
my car, in exchange for an agreement that you will not damage the car,
and
that I can have a party at your house, and you then you drive the car,
you are now under a contract to let me have the party. If you drive
the car,
and hit a telephone pole, you have violated the contract, but you are
still
under obligation to provide the party.
A copyright license is a written agreement between the author, and the
recipient. When a patch is provided, there is a similar exchange of
consideration. In the case of GPL, you are given permission to use
the software, but you are required to provide any changes back to the
author of the original work, with the understanding that any such
changes will be published under the terms of the same license.
The "giveback" is actually a secondary license. In this case, the
provider of the patch or upgrade, is receiving consideration in the
form of a an agreement not to publish the patch under a different
license without the patch writer's permission.
The same premise is true for other forms of consideration. For
example, if a Linux advocate provides promotional services similar to
those which would be provided for fee in a more traditional contract,
a service has been rendered, and part of the agreement is that the
person promoting the product is doing so under the agreement of a GNU
Public License. If the publisher or author wishes to publish under
the terms of a different license, then they would have violated the
terms of the original agreement.
The same would be true for a tester who provided quality assurance
information. This would be a service which would be compensated in a
more traditional environment. In this case, the service is being
performed under the terms of the GPL, or whatever license.
Copyright licenses are legally binding contracts, and in many cases,
there are license terms in which the publisher recieves benefit from a
recipient, which is rendered under the terms of that license.
If Microsoft publishes source code to be used with VC++ on Windows,
and I write new code based on that source code, I cannot then legally
run that same code on Linux, because I have no legal license to do
so. Conversely, if I write an application for Windows, and Microsoft
provides a library upgrade, and one of the terms of the library
upgrade is that the new software can only be used on machines licensed
for Windows XP, I cannot then use that library to run my application
on a machine that is ONLY licensed for Linux. Even if the machine
were running Linux, and I wanted to run the application under WINE,
the Microsoft library license requires that I purchase a valid Windows
XP license, either from the OEM, or from a retailer, or from
Microsoft.
Even though Microsoft may have only provided a bug fix, or security
update, the contract of the copyright license for that library is
legally binding. I cannot unilaterally alter the contract without
getting the consent of Microsoft.
This is why Vista is "product non grata" at many corporations. The
Windows XP license only required that the machine be licensed for
Windows XP. The Vista license only permits use of Vista libraries on
the Vista operating system. Furthermore, the Home Edition licenses
(included with most retail machines) does not permit the use of Vista
as a Virtual Machine to Linux.
Microsoft is legally within it's rights to mandate these terms in it's
license, but providers of other device drivers, 3rd party software,
and other libraries, may opt to NOT allow Vista users to use their
software, because Microsoft has altered the license agreements under
which they developed their software.
For example, Oracle, Sun, Novell, IBM, HP, and anyone else could state
that because the Microsoft library licenses have changed, users are
not permitted to use their applications on this new library.
This is a potential problem with GPL-3 licensing as well. A
contributor who contributed patented software, and agreed not to
enforce patent against GPL software, my not be willing to forfeit
patent royalties on Non-GPL implementations using similar software.
Nedd Ludd
"dapunka" <dap...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1184271057.3...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
And should CUPS go to a BSD license, then what damages would the developer
claim?
1) they still get credit for writing code in a production environment
2) they can still see and point others to their code
3) they still get to watch their code evolve as others add, improve and
change it
Should CUPS go close sourced then the contributor might be able to claim
damages from losing #2 and #3.
There are no damages for the developer to claim as long as CUPS has an open
source license.
That said, I think Apple was simply trying to keep a critical system from
being polluted by GPLv3.
CUPS will remain GPLv2 and any GPLv3 contributions will get sent down the
memory hole.
If CUPS remains GLPv2 then the contributors have nothing to complain about
because all their code was submitted GPLv2'ed.
Nedd Ludd
: On Jul 12, 8:25 pm, "Nedd Ludd" <NeddL...@comcast.net> wrote:
: > "Dean G." <dguttada...@4ecp.com> wrote in message
: >
: > For a contract to exist 3 things are required; an offer, an acceptance
and
: > consideration. If any of these three things are missing then there is
no
: > contract. If there was no consideration when the developer shared his
: > contribution then there was never a contract and the developer has no
: > standing.
: >
: > It's contract law 101.
:
: Contract law also states that the consideration does not have to be
: in the form of currency. For example, if I give you permission to
: borrow
: my car, in exchange for an agreement that you will not damage the car,
: and
: that I can have a party at your house, and you then you drive the car,
: you are now under a contract to let me have the party. If you drive
: the car,
: and hit a telephone pole, you have violated the contract, but you are
: still
: under obligation to provide the party.
Agreed. In the case of a CUPS consideration could the contributor seeing
his name in the source code (some degree of fame), see his work in a
production environment the ability to show potential employers his coding
skills and the pride in seeing his work evolve. That said, what damages
could be claimed if CUPS moves to a BSD or Apache style license? The
contributor would still be benefiting from all the non-monetary
considerations. I suspect the judge would say, "you're right Mr.
Contributor but you haven't been harmed so Apple can continue licensing CUPS
under a BSD license."
: A copyright license is a written agreement between the author, and the
: recipient. When a patch is provided, there is a similar exchange of
: consideration. In the case of GPL, you are given permission to use
: the software, but you are required to provide any changes back to the
: author of the original work, with the understanding that any such
: changes will be published under the terms of the same license.
Do you really think GPLv3 patches will be integrated into offical CUPS
distributions?
Apple purchased the company that owns CUPS back in Feburary. CUPS is
licences under GLPv2 with an some extra clauses for Apple.
Purchasing CUPS was a great move by Apple.
<a snip>
: The same would be true for a tester who provided quality assurance
: information. This would be a service which would be compensated in a
: more traditional environment. In this case, the service is being
: performed under the terms of the GPL, or whatever license.
Including testers is a bit of a stretch.
Anyone who ever ran CUPS could claim to be a 'tester'.
: Copyright licenses are legally binding contracts, and in many cases,
: there are license terms in which the publisher recieves benefit from a
: recipient, which is rendered under the terms of that license.
In the context of CUPS, all the contributers will continue to recieve the
same compensation they always had under GPLv2 as long as Apple maintains
some form of Open Source License.
: If Microsoft publishes source code to be used with VC++ on Windows,
: and I write new code based on that source code, I cannot then legally
: run that same code on Linux, because I have no legal license to do
: so. Conversely, if I write an application for Windows, and Microsoft
: provides a library upgrade, and one of the terms of the library
: upgrade is that the new software can only be used on machines licensed
: for Windows XP, I cannot then use that library to run my application
: on a machine that is ONLY licensed for Linux. Even if the machine
: were running Linux, and I wanted to run the application under WINE,
: the Microsoft library license requires that I purchase a valid Windows
: XP license, either from the OEM, or from a retailer, or from
: Microsoft.
If the source code MS published was 'significant' and you copied it into a
program that you claim to be 100% yours then you're breaking the license
agreement whether it is run on Windows or Linux.
: Even though Microsoft may have only provided a bug fix, or security
: update, the contract of the copyright license for that library is
: legally binding. I cannot unilaterally alter the contract without
: getting the consent of Microsoft.
In the context of CUPS (let's stay on topic), 1) Apple bought the company
that owns CUPS 2) hired the program's author 3) purchased CUPS from him.
Apple has a lot of flexibility with respect to what they can do with CUPS.
...
<off topic stuff snipped>
...
: This is a potential problem with GPL-3 licensing as well. A
: contributor who contributed patented software, and agreed not to
: enforce patent against GPL software, my not be willing to forfeit
: patent royalties on Non-GPL implementations using similar software.
Companies like RedHat may be screwed with Apple's purchase of CUPS. Apple
won't change licensing terms from GLPv2 so any GPLv3 contributions will be
ignored.
But let's say some superduper feature is written for CUPS and the
contributor GPL3's it. RedHat could be in violation of Apples copyright if
they include it in their distribution. Apple could say, "That's not CUPS
you're distributing since the Official CUPS does not include this superduper
feature. Stop calling it CUPS". If RedHat says "fine, we'll rename it,
'KUPZ', then Apple would respond by saying, "Please remove ALL CUPS code
from KUPZ". RedHat would in a situation where they have to re-write CUPS
(or find someone to do it for free).
Nedd Ludd
news:3ejim4x...@supertux.my.domain...
They can't fork it since Apple owns the source code. CUPS would need to be
re-written to exclude anything code Apple owns. I'm guessing they couldn't
call it CUPS either since that's a trademark of a product Apple owns.
I'm also guessing that since CUPS has been OSS for a while and 1000's of
developers have had a chance to debug it, CUPS's code is now pretty well
optimized. That'd would mean the cheesy CUPS knock-off would not be nearly
as good as the original.
Apple purchasing CUPS was a great move. Clearly it was defensive so they
could continue to use it in OSX and worry that'll be polluted by GPLv3. You
can all thank Stallman for this pickle you're in.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:10:12 -0400,
Nedd Ludd <Nedd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Jerry McBride" <mcbr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3ejim4x...@supertux.my.domain...
>: Jeanette wrote:
>:
>: > Looks like our "friends" at Apple bought CUPS
>: >
>: > http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L475
>: >
>: > and seems they already made a change.
>: >
>: > http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L179+I0+T+M10+P1+Q
>: >
>:
>: No worries... fork it... :')
>
> They can't fork it since Apple owns the source code. CUPS would need to be
> re-written to exclude anything code Apple owns. I'm guessing they couldn't
> call it CUPS either since that's a trademark of a product Apple owns.
>
Yes, it could be forked. Since it's been released under the GPL2, you
can spin off another one, under that licence with no problem.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGlwK2d90bcYOAWPYRAhXKAKCbO7ZsIVzG1Jd+lPc9sNO98+vUuwCgwyEd
5dDyGYb2Zn89+Zg9fv6VPBQ=
=2wWA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"And the faults in bad software can be so subtle as to be practically
theological."
- Bruce Sterling - The Hacker Crackdown
Mark Kent
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:10:12 -0400,
> Nedd Ludd <Nedd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Jerry McBride" <mcbr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:3ejim4x...@supertux.my.domain...
>>: Jeanette wrote:
>>:
>>: > Looks like our "friends" at Apple bought CUPS
>>: >
>>: > http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L475
>>: >
>>: > and seems they already made a change.
>>: >
>>: > http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L179+I0+T+M10+P1+Q
>>: >
>>:
>>: No worries... fork it... :')
>>
>> They can't fork it since Apple owns the source code. CUPS would need to be
>> re-written to exclude anything code Apple owns. I'm guessing they couldn't
>> call it CUPS either since that's a trademark of a product Apple owns.
>>
>
>
> Yes, it could be forked. Since it's been released under the GPL2, you
> can spin off another one, under that licence with no problem.
>
The developer in question maintains that the code will continue to be
supported under GPL2/LGPL2 as required - it's on the website reference
above.
As you say, if Apple try to proprietise it, then it can be forked
anyway.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
Mark Kent
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:51:03 -0000,
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> On 2007-07-12, [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>>> An important question that needs answering, is how does Apple propose
>>> releasing proprietary blobs to CUPS in such a way that does not violate
>>> the GPL? AFAICT if it links GPL code, it must conform to the GPL license.
>
><snip>
>
>> Anyway, Apple is now the owner of CUPS. They don't need anyone's
>> permission to do things with the code, such as link in proprietary
>> blobs. GPL is only relevant here to non-Apple people and companies that
>> want to do things with the code.
>
>
> Assuming that any contributors to CUPS had either assigned their
> copyright to the original owners of the CUPS stuff, or Apple gets their
> permission to release under a licence other than GPL< or Apple rewrites
> those bits.
>
Nor can they change the licensing of the original code anyway, so the
last GPLv2 release will always covered by the provisions of that
licence.
Linonut
> Linonut wrote:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Jeanette belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L179+I0+T+M10+P1+Q
>>>
>>> This file is subject to the Apple OS-Developed Software exception.
>>
>> That ain't going to fly with the FSF. Apple must release their modified
>> source code to their Apple users.
>
> Except that apple now are the copyright owners.
> They *can* allow additional rights.
Since they're effectively forking CUPS (but only on Apple systems)?
> And this is an additional right, somewhat like the LGPL
It is an additional right for Apple, but a removal of a right for
Apple's CUPS users.
> CUPS itself is not changed by this, it still is under GPL
> What they are talking about is additional stuff build around CUPS
Which is exactly a topic of the GPL.
Anyway, on a happier note, I went to the QEMU site yesterday, after
seeing kqemu in the Debian repository for lenny, and I see that the
author finally opened up the source code to the QEMU accelerator.
I wonder if somebody finally paid him to do it, or he simply had a
change of heart.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> If you don't like the direction CUPS takes then you can write your own.
Except that you will have to reverse any new features that Apple adds
now, if you think those features are desirable, and Apple hasn't
patented them, like they did their anti-aliasing implementation.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> It's contract law 101.
Actually, one needs to cite copyright law here.
Sounds like Apple (a la Tivo) thinks they found a legal loophole in the
GPL.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> I can't say I completely understand the GPL (go ahead call me an
> idiot, I know you want to), but it seems like if companies are
> seemingly going to ignore it (as people in here are claiming Apple and
> Microsoft are), and no legal action is going to be taken, then what's
> the point of the GPL? You say this won't fly with the FSF, but what
> have they done so far? It's like the whole GPL thing is just for shits
> and giggles and some have no interest in following it, and none have
> any interest in enforcing it.
It's only been a couple days. And, as far as I've seen, the FSF does
follow up on violations. Think Linksys routers, for one.
--
Tux rox!
Alexander Terekhov
With this whole Guh-NÜ silliness being started due to RMS' problems
with printer, it's kind of ironic that there won't be GPLv3 printing
on Guh-NÜ "system" any time soon. Kudos to Apple.
Complete neutralization of GCC is in the works too, BTW.
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2007-July/009817.html
regards,
alexander.
--
"Mathematics is primarily a language for ensuring reliable results
in human social activity. "
-- Columbia Professor Eben Anarcho-Dot Communist Moglen
Linonut
> They can't fork it since Apple owns the source code. CUPS would need to be
> re-written to exclude anything code Apple owns. I'm guessing they couldn't
> call it CUPS either since that's a trademark of a product Apple owns.
>
> I'm also guessing that since CUPS has been OSS for a while and 1000's of
> developers have had a chance to debug it, CUPS's code is now pretty well
> optimized. That'd would mean the cheesy CUPS knock-off would not be nearly
> as good as the original.
>
> Apple purchasing CUPS was a great move. Clearly it was defensive so they
> could continue to use it in OSX and worry that'll be polluted by GPLv3. You
> can all thank Stallman for this pickle you're in.
You know, you were starting to sound intelligent for awhile.
Then you completely lost track of the fact that Apple left the code as
GPLv2, with one exception.
http://www.cups.org/articles.php?L179+I0+TFAQ+M10+P1+Q
So there's no need to fork it. (Also note the other exception:
Apple Inc. explicitly allows the compilation and distribution of
the CUPS software with the OpenSSL Toolkit.)
What is needed is a way to get the source code for Apple's extensions,
so that the end user can modify the drivers themselves. (Although PPD
files are human-editable, so I'm not sure how much Apple's secrecy
here really matters.)
Ironic, too, that this situation is exactly the situation that spurred
RMS to create the GPL license in the first place.
--
Tux rox!
Dean G.
> "Rex Ballard" <rex.ball...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Companies like RedHat may be screwed with Apple's purchase of CUPS. Apple
> won't change licensing terms from GLPv2 so any GPLv3 contributions will be
> ignored.
Of course the developers know this, and it is their choice wether or
not to contribute. Most OSS people are happy with both GPL2 and GPL3.
Only the proprietary companies are upset with GPL3. Few developers,
even the ones pushing for GPL3, are really opposed to GPL2, they just
don't like the unethical practices that GPL2 allows. Fortunately, only
a small handful of companies engage in such egregious behavior.
>
> But let's say some superduper feature is written for CUPS and the
> contributor GPL3's it. RedHat could be in violation of Apples copyright if
> they include it in their distribution.
Not if they start with the last (current, as Apple will continue with
GPL2 for now) GPL2 version. Apple has aquired the copyrights, but they
cannot revoke the perpetual licenses that have already been issued. As
long as Red Hat uses GPL2 code, Apple cannot force them to do anything
except abide by the GPL2 provisions.
> Apple could say, "That's not CUPS
> you're distributing since the Official CUPS does not include this superduper
> feature. Stop calling it CUPS". If RedHat says "fine, we'll rename it,
> 'KUPZ', then Apple would respond by saying, "Please remove ALL CUPS code
> from KUPZ".
They cannot force Red Hat to remove any code they released under the
GPL or GPL2. Sorry, Charlie, they have already given Red Hat
permission to use the GPL and GPL2 part in perpetuity. The trademark
is different than the copyright. The trademark covers the name CUPS,
but not the code. Also, I seem to recall that Intel switched to
"Pentium" because the short 586 moniker was not something they could
enforce a trademark on. CUPS is short, and a very common word, so I
doubt Apple will risk their precious IP by starting a case they could
very well lose, particularly when they have nothing to gain by doing
so.
> RedHat would in a situation where they have to re-write CUPS
> (or find someone to do it for free).
Red Hat would have to do no such thing. They would simply have to
branch at the last GPL2 version, and call it something else.
After reading more about this, I actually prefer that Apple has the
copyright now than Easy Software Products. I don't see Apple having
anything to gain by screwing the OSS community, and they do have quite
a bit to gain by keeping the peace. ESP was essentially an individual,
and their motives are less certain than larger organizations.
Dean G.
Dean G.
> "Dean G." <dguttada...@4ecp.com> wrote in message
That is completely irrelevant. I was talking about copyrights, and the
writer owns them unless explicitly assigned to someone else. If no
license / contract exists, then the writers (i.e. the individual
contributors) would own the copyrights, and ESP/Apple would be out of
luck.
However, after reading up on this, I note that ESP only included code
in the product if the contributor assigned the copyrights to ESP, so
ESP did own CUPS, and only because the contributors explicitly
assigned the copyrights to ESP.
Barring the explicit assignment, every single contributor could claim
standing, and the lack of a contract only would work in the
contributor's favor.
>
> It's contract law 101.
No, it is copyright law, and without a contract or license, you have
no right to distribute the contributor's code. Please note there is a
legal difference between a license such as the GPL2 and a contract.
Dean G.
Tim Smith
> Actually, one needs to cite copyright law here.
>
> Sounds like Apple (a la Tivo) thinks they found a legal loophole in the
> GPL.
These will clear up your misconceptions about GPL:
<http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#HeardOtherLicense>
<http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCReleaseUnderGPLAndNF>
Jerry McBride
> Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> espoused:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:51:03 -0000,
>> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>> On 2007-07-12, [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>>>> An important question that needs answering, is how does Apple propose
>>>> releasing proprietary blobs to CUPS in such a way that does not violate
>>>> the GPL? AFAICT if it links GPL code, it must conform to the GPL
>>>> license.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Anyway, Apple is now the owner of CUPS. They don't need anyone's
>>> permission to do things with the code, such as link in proprietary
>>> blobs. GPL is only relevant here to non-Apple people and companies that
>>> want to do things with the code.
>>
>>
>> Assuming that any contributors to CUPS had either assigned their
>> copyright to the original owners of the CUPS stuff, or Apple gets their
>> permission to release under a licence other than GPL< or Apple rewrites
>> those bits.
>>
>
> Nor can they change the licensing of the original code anyway, so the
> last GPLv2 release will always covered by the provisions of that
> licence.
>
That's the salient point I was looking for...
Cups CAN BE FORKED, from the version prior to the Apple purchase.
Personally, I'd distance myself from the Apple bullshit as soon as
possible...
--
Jerry McBride
Peter Köhlmann
It still can be forked from the recent version under apples control.
Nothing has changed. It is GPL2
> Personally, I'd distance myself from the Apple bullshit as soon as
> possible...
I don't get it. As if having some GPLed software under control of a
commercial entity is something bad. It is neutral, neither good nor bad.
At the moment (and not a second before) they start to behave badly, you do a
fork. And thats it. Until then, business as usual
--
Only two things are infinite,
the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
Thufir
> If RedHat says "fine, we'll rename it, 'KUPZ', then Apple would respond
> by saying, "Please remove ALL CUPS code from KUPZ". RedHat would in a
> situation where they have to re-write CUPS (or find someone to do it for
> free).
Err, no, the code is GPL 2.
There's a quote, somewhere, of Linus pointing out that anyone could come
by and fork linux and name it after themselves, provided they complied
with the GPL.
-Thufir
[H]omer
Two obvious and current examples of this, would be Debian's Iceweasel
and Icedove (Firefox and Thunderbird, resp.).
And anyway, Apple cannot demand that people "remove" code that Apple did
*not* contribute, regardless of whether or not the project is forked.
The situation with CUPS is not difficult to understand. Any non-GPLed
work that is contributed by Apple (or anyone else) is subject to
whatever license conditions they impose on *that* contributed code ...
and does *not* affect the existing GPL covered content.
However there is still the question of whether or not they can
legitimately incorporate non-GPLed (or compatable) code into a GPLed
project, without somehow violating the license. I'm sure we'll find out
exactly what the practical upshot of this is, in the fullness of time.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Computer games don’t affect kids, I mean if Pac man affected us as
| kids, we’d all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills
| and listening to repetitive music." - Kristian Wilson, Nintendo
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.21-1.3194.fc7
10:09:09 up 17 days, 9:03, 3 users, load average: 2.16, 2.46, 2.29
Tim Smith
> However there is still the question of whether or not they can
> legitimately incorporate non-GPLed (or compatable) code into a GPLed
> project, without somehow violating the license. I'm sure we'll find out
It's not an open question to those who know copyright law, or to those
who read the GPL FAQ at fsf.org.
--
--Tim Smith
Mark Kent
> Verily I say unto thee, that Thufir spake thusly:
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:58:12 -0400, Nedd Ludd wrote:
>
>>> If RedHat says "fine, we'll rename it, 'KUPZ', then Apple would
>>> respond by saying, "Please remove ALL CUPS code from KUPZ". RedHat
>>> would in a situation where they have to re-write CUPS (or find
>>> someone to do it for free).
>>
>> Err, no, the code is GPL 2.
>>
>> There's a quote, somewhere, of Linus pointing out that anyone could
>> come by and fork linux and name it after themselves, provided they
>> complied with the GPL.
>
> Two obvious and current examples of this, would be Debian's Iceweasel
> and Icedove (Firefox and Thunderbird, resp.).
>
> And anyway, Apple cannot demand that people "remove" code that Apple did
> *not* contribute, regardless of whether or not the project is forked.
>
> The situation with CUPS is not difficult to understand. Any non-GPLed
> work that is contributed by Apple (or anyone else) is subject to
> whatever license conditions they impose on *that* contributed code ...
> and does *not* affect the existing GPL covered content.
>
> However there is still the question of whether or not they can
> legitimately incorporate non-GPLed (or compatable) code into a GPLed
> project, without somehow violating the license. I'm sure we'll find out
> exactly what the practical upshot of this is, in the fullness of time.
>
It amazes me that there are still people here who, even after having had
these issues pointed out hundreds of times, do not seem to grasp the GPL
at all. It offers *protection*. It's a huge condom for your code. You
can do what you like with it, so long as you abide by the GPL. Others
/cannot/ tell you what to do with it, so long as you abide by the