Hi Allan, m. allan noah writes:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Olaf Meeuwissen > <paddy-h...@member.fsf.org> wrote: >> Hi Allan, >> >> I just dashed off a rather long explation to James and the list. >> >> m. allan noah writes: >> >>> I personally am of the opinion that Brother is in violation of our >>> license. However, our license is not strictly GPL, and the differences >>> were clearly not written by a lawyer. You could argue that we give >>> some space for a company to steal our work, and keep it from their >>> users. >> >> The sane-backends source code contains files that are GPL and some that >> are GPL with an exception. The exception is similar in spirit to what >> the LGPL allows and was, IIRC, added before (or around) the LGPL was >> introduced. As long as they only used GPL with exception code (based on >> library symbols, I they did), there isn't really anything you can object >> to (unless you also object to using LGPL'd code ;-). > > Well, I disagree on that point. I believe we have disagreed on this point in the past ;-) Not trying to start a flame, just would like to arrive at a common point of view for SANE. > In my mind, the key words in the exception are 'an executable'. My thinking on this has been influenced by the libtool documentation which says[1]: libraries are programs with multiple entry points and the GPL FAQ on "aggregation" and "modified versions"[2], which says: If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program. [1] https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/libtool.html#Libtool-paradigm [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation I basically regard libraries and programs (do these cover executables?) as the same thing and draw a border at the process boundary. From that point of view, I don't think that non-free third party backends linking with libsanei violate the "SANE exception". # I would like to arrive at the opposite conclusion, though. # BTW, like all SANE backends, the Brother backend links statically with # libsanei/ so only parts of it are included and used. From what I saw # in terms of library symbols all of those parts are GPL+exception. I # didn't notice any SANE parts outside of sanei/. Whether my interpretation corresponds with the thinking of the people who added that exception, I don't know. Perhaps we should ask? > At the time the exception was added, > many people believed that free OS's were the way of the future, but we > would still be using large numbers of closed-source, shrink-wrapped > apps. The exception seems to have been intended to allow userspace > programs like StarOffice to initiate scanning. This is different from > linking SANE to a library, even if that library acts as a SANE > backend. I think it is a stretch to call Brother's usage in a backend > 'an executable'. Yes, a library contains executable code, but it > cannot be started from the command line without a front-end. If that front-end would be a closed-source, shrink-wrapped app, would Brother be off the hook in your opinion? Does that depend on how the app links with the backend (directly or through libsane-dll)? Approaching things from the opposite end, what about GPL'd front-ends (think scanimage and saned; they carry no exception) using a non-free backend such as Brother's? Would that be okay? Wouldn't that be kind of misleading users of these frontends? They're using a GPL'd app but under the covers they might unwittingly be using non-free backends. >> Personally, I wished that more of the sane-backends code is GPL, making >> it harder for folks to take what we share without sharing back. > > I also wish we could change it, but it is too late. There have been > too many authors over too many years. There is a good chance that a > few of the authors have died. It would be very difficult to identify > entire files which could have their license changed. I know, I've read the LICENSE file ;-) Doesn't stop me from wishing, though. Talking about that file, perhaps we should add a clarification about the use of libsanei. Now, the file only mentions the SANE backends. > When I added sanei_magic, I seriously debated making it GPL. But, I > decided that I could not find a way to convert my backends (which > needed to use it) to the GPL as well. Have you considered making it LGPL rather than GPL+exception? It might be a good idea to suggest that license for *new* code. Just an idea. Hope this helps, -- Olaf Meeuwissen, LPIC-2 FSF Associate Member since 2004-01-27 GnuPG key: F84A2DD9/B3C0 2F47 EA19 64F4 9F13 F43E B8A4 A88A F84A 2DD9 Support Free Software https://my.fsf.org/donate Join the Free Software Foundation https://my.fsf.org/join -- sane-devel mailing list: sane-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sane-devel Unsubscribe: Send mail with subject "unsubscribe your_password" to sane-devel-requ...@lists.alioth.debian.org
