Re: Canon printer minor quibble
On Wed 05 Oct 2016 at 15:10:42 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 30 Sep 2016 at 14:40:44 (+0100), Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 30 Sep 2016 at 22:02:05 +0900, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 01:31:03PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > > On Fri 30 Sep 2016 at 20:54:32 +0900, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:31:45PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday 29 September 2016 16:03:38 Mark Fletcher wrote:
> > > > > > > which I find ironic
> > > > > > > considering what the U of CUPS stands for
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why? MacOSX is Unix based (via BSD) and CUPS is supposed to be common to all
> > > > > > Unices (though I have only used it on Linux and MacOSX).
> > > > > >
> > > > > Precisely, Lisi. Precisely.
> > > >
> > > > The "U" in CUPS officially doesn't stand for anything. The same applies
> > > > to the "C", "P" and "S".
> > > >
> > > According to whom, Brian? (Apart from you, obviously :) ). According to
> > > the Internet (so it _must_ be true) it stands for Common Unix Printing
> > > System. Are they, and the Gutenprint driver which prints that on its
> > > test pages, just making sh*t up then? (To be fair I don't know which
> > > component creates the test page, but I do know, because I am sitting
> > > here with one about an inch away from my left hand, that when you ask
> > > CUPS to print a test page, it prints that on the test page.)
> >
> > I take it you are talking about the Debian PrinterTestPage (the logo is
> > at the left hand side). Nowhere on that page does it say "Common Unix
> > Printing System". Even if it did say that this is a Debian document, not an
> > official upstream CUPS document. It wouldn't count.
> >
> > The Internet might want CUPS to mean "Common Unix Printing System"; it
> > could organise a day of protest demanding CUPS to mean "Common Unix
> > Printing System"; it could sell tee shirts saying "CUPS - the Common
> > Unix Printing System". That doesn't count either.
> >
> > Find any significant occurance of "Common Unix Printing System" in the
> > official CUPS documentation or in its source code and there would be a
> > case to answer. There isn't, so there isn't. :)
> >
> > The official name of the software is CUPS.
>
> http://www.apple.com/server/docs/Print_Services_TB_v10.4.pdf
> "At the heart of Mac OS X Server print services is a comprehensive,
> standards-compliant open source printing architecture based on Common
> UNIX Printing System (CUPS)."
brian@desktop:~$ pdfinfo Print_Services_TB_v10.4.pdf
Title: untitled
Producer: Acrobat Distiller 6.0 for Macintosh
CreationDate: Mon Apr 4 17:10:52 2005
ModDate: Thu Apr 7 12:19:13 2005
Written in 2005. Wasn't that before Apple bought CUPS? ESP used CUPS
and Common UNIX Printing System interchangably at the time, didn't it?
It would be natural for a non-copyright holder (who had licensed the
software) to follow suit.
> https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/Printing/osxp_aboutprinting/osxp_aboutprt.html
> "The Common UNIX Printing System (CUPS) layer provides the low-level
> services, print queue management, and driver interfaces needed to
> communicate with printing devices."
At the bottom of the page
Copyright © 2002, 2012 Apple Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Most likely first written in 2002. Isn't that before Apple bought CUPS?
Now read the Revision History on the same page. Looks like someone
forgot something or didn't see it as important. That is often the nature
of web pages. I provided feedback but am not holding my breath.
> cups-2.2.1/locale/cups_ca.po (source)
> "#
> # "$Id$"
> #
> # Message catalog template for the Common UNIX Printing System (CUPS).
> #
> # Copyright 2007-2015 by Apple Inc.
> # Copyright 2005-2007 by Easy Software Products.
> #
> # These coded instructions, statements, and computer programs are the
> # property of Apple Inc. and are protected by Federal copyright
> # law. Distribution and use rights are outlined in the file "LICENSE.txt"
> # which should have been included with this file. If this file is
> # file is missing or damaged, see the license at "http://www.cups.org/";. "
Good catch. This is the only file in all the source code which has that
line in it. A reasonable person would ask themselves - is this
deliberate or is it an oversight? Does it have significance weighed up
against all the other evidence? Would a bug report produce a change or
not? Is there life after solving printing queries on -user?
> A couple of logos in cups-2.2.1/test/testfile.{pdf,ps} . The redition
> in the latter is protected by Apple's copyright.
The PS file does have the copyright Apple. It was originally in the ESP
distribution but the logo and the file became Apple's. I'm unsure what
the logo proves though; apart from the fact that the association of "C"
with "Common" is a link to the pre-Apple era. That's ok; after all, it
is only a logo, not a declaration of the official name of the software.
The PDF is an original ESP document.
> I suppose we now have to discuss the meaning of significant occurance [sic].
It's akin to deciphering the Rosetta Stone. We would make a good team.
--
Brian.
Reply to: