Reinhold Kainhofer <reinhold at kainhofer.com> writes:
> On 2012-06-21 23:19, m. allan noah wrote:
>> Clearly the license of magicolor applies to you now, though i wonder
>> if the magicolor license is legitimate, based on its origin?
The epson backend, from which epson2 was forked, clearly states one has
the right to delete the exception in epson.[ch].
If you write modifications of your own for SANE, it is your choice
whether to permit this exception to apply to your modifications.
If you do not wish that, delete this exception notice.
Unfortunately, the epson_{scsi,usb}.[ch] files have no license blurb but
should probably be assumed to be under the same terms. The epson2
backend only kept the epson_scsi.[ch] files and did not add any license
blurb. Whether or not these files may be used with a GPL-only backend
remains a question.
> Sorry, I don't understand which concerns you have. The magicolor
> backend is a fork of the GPL'ed epson2 backend, adjusted to
> magicolor-specific functionality and scanner protocol.
> The magicolor backend is under the GPL, too, so I don't think there
> should be any concern as to the ligitimacy of the license or the
> backend.
The magicolor backend seems to have only "copied" epson2.c so can be
argued to be in the clear. As a matter of opinion, I would hardly call
it a fork. Looks like you just kept the general structure of the file
and replaced the body of just about every function.
IANAL but hope this helps anyways,
--
Olaf Meeuwissen, LPIC-2 FLOSS Engineer -- AVASYS CORPORATION
FSF Associate Member #1962 Help support software freedom
http://www.fsf.org/jf?referrer=1962
