On 6/8/08, David Lochrin <dlochrin at d2.net.au> wrote: > On Sunday 08 June 2008 04:18, Nicolas wrote: > > A bit of clarification: > > > > Canon released a packaged frontend+backend named scangearmp. This > > program works fine as a whole, independently from SANE, with a few pixma > > models only. > > > > Among this package, there are some files named libsane-canon_mfp.* , > > which look like a closed source SANE backend. > > But as Daniel pointed out, never heard about any successful experience > > in using these files with SANE. And I'm wondering whether they really > > conform to the SANE standard ... > > > True, I ran the whole Canon package. I noticed the files whose naming was > suggestive of a connection with SANE, but found SANE clearly had nothing to > do with the whole package. I notice the licence at (for example) > http://support-au.canon.com.au/contents/AU/EN/0100084201.html includes the > GPL, Version 2. > > Perhaps Wang would be good enough to clarify the matter? > > > In relation to my previous post, if it's possible to accomodate > manufacturers' sensitivities regarding proprietary code within the > constraints of the GPL and overall SANE architecture (especially a major > player such as Canon) the status of SANE as a de-facto standard would be > greatly helped.
... at the expense of helping users to give away their essential freedoms that made their otherwise free system possible in the first place? allan -- "The truth is an offense, but not a sin"
