On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 11:10:52 -0400 "m. allan noah" <kitno455 at gmail.com> wrote:
> yes- this seems reasonable, however, this 'program' cannot be derived > from existing GPL'd software that does not already have this added > permission, because that would change the original program's license > without permission of the authors. correct. > so, is our answer to Mengqiang that there are only four choices? > > 1. you can write an entirely free backend, and use code from SANE. yay! :) > 2. you can write a partly free backend, that runs the closed parts as > a separate process, and use code from SANE in the free part, provided > that the interface to the closed parts is simple and well documented. this is the hp way if i've got it corretly. I find it a bit ugly. > 3. you can write a partly free backend, that dynamically links to the > closed parts, provided that you place a license exception in the free > part allowing said linking. you cannot use any code from SANE, other > than sane.h and the sane specification, in either part. this means that the sane I/O facilities cannot be used. however it may be the cleanest thing. that's similar to the epkowa way, which uses sane io facilities iirc? -- Best regards, Alessandro Zummo, Tower Technologies - Torino, Italy http://www.towertech.it
