4 ms·
The title is misleading. It should say that the license was changed to Apache 2. I favor APL over GPL in almost every instance but can anyone speak to how this
by atonse 9y ago
The title is misleading. It should say that the license was changed to Apache 2. I favor APL over GPL in almost every instance but can anyone speak to how this would affect end users?
- bitL 9y agoIf Apple created unique printer driver modifications via proprietary patches on top of CUPS, they wouldn't be required to give them to their customers (nor competitors).
- atonse 9y agoBut it also allows a lot more companies to use it in their products. Overall this seems like good news (unless you align with the FSF)
- bitL 9y agoI think AGPL is the way to be honest due to companies left-and-right using free software on the server-side/cloud, but never contributing anything back nor allowing their users to make changes. But the current state is a complete defeat of free software ideals using the very same free software that was supposed to prevent it from happening. Kinda neat hack if you are on the "dark side".
- Someone 9y agoI’m not sure think they need to do that now. They own the software, amd from what I understand, the copyrights on all of it, so they could easily license it to themselves under a different license.
- pilif 9y agoApple owns the CUPS source code. They can already do whatever they want and are not bound by the GPL. In fact, the current GPL licensed CUPS already comes with an exception clause to make sure macOS printer drivers don’t have to be released under the GPL even if they link against CUPS: https://sources.debian.net/src/cups/2.2.1-8/debian/copyright/#L50 https://sources.debian.net/src/cups/2.2.1-8/debian/copyright...