[sane-devel] SANE2, what do we want ?

"m. allan noah" wrote: >> >> Call ECMA and ISO, we need a fast-track for SANE1. >> > Do you have the money for that :-). Biggest problem is MS. Have to ask >> Bill >> > for permission to fast track it :-) >> >> Maybe the MS/Novell agreement can help? > > foul- thats below the belt :) >:->

[sane-devel] SANE2, what do we want ?

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:26:53 +0200 Julien BLACHE wrote: > > I believe RMS could kill should he read the exception that > > allows linking a closed source frontend to a backend.. :) > > So he would commit suicide reading the LGPL? :) Don't tell him, he might do it :-D -- Best regards,

[sane-devel] SANE2, what do we want ?

Sigurd Stordal wrote: >> Call ECMA and ISO, we need a fast-track for SANE1. > Do you have the money for that :-). Biggest problem is MS. Have to ask Bill > for permission to fast track it :-) Maybe the MS/Novell agreement can help? JB. -- Julien BLACHE

[sane-devel] SANE2, what do we want ?

On Wednesday 02 April 2008 19:28:19 Julien BLACHE wrote: > Johannes Meixner wrote: > > Hi, > > > Currently SANE1 is only internally (i.e. within the SANE project) > > a standard, but from the outer world there is no confirmation > > that one can rely on SANE1 for the near future, see (*) above. >

[sane-devel] SANE2 standard completion

Johannes Meixner wrote: Hi, > I think I understand now what the difference is between > cupsd/saned and hpiod/libhpmud: > > cupsd and saned provide a driver and frontend independent > single central service to do printing and scanning. Exactly. > In contrast the hpiod was an additional special

[sane-devel] SANE2, what do we want ?

Johannes Meixner wrote: Hi, > Currently SANE1 is only internally (i.e. within the SANE project) > a standard, but from the outer world there is no confirmation > that one can rely on SANE1 for the near future, see (*) above. Call ECMA and ISO, we need a fast-track for SANE1. JB. -- Julien BL

[sane-devel] SANE2, what do we want ?

Alessandro Zummo wrote: Hi, > I believe RMS could kill should he read the exception that > allows linking a closed source frontend to a backend.. :) So he would commit suicide reading the LGPL? :) JB. -- Julien BLACHE

[sane-devel] SANE2, what do we want ?

"m. allan noah" wrote: Hi, > IMHO, that exception was to allow proprietary front-ends, not backend > pieces. Specifically the use of the the term 'link against such a > library', implies that proprietary code could dlopen a backend, but > not that the backend could dlopen a proprietary library,

[sane-devel] SANE2, what do we want ?

Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: Hi, > The epkowa backend is free-as-in-freedom software. It is licensed > under the terms of the GPL and carries an exception that allows for > the use of non-free extensions. "It's free software (but for this and this and this and this model you need a binary-only, prop

[sane-devel] SANE2, what do we want ?

"m. allan noah" writes: > On 4/1/08, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: >> Julien BLACHE writes: >> >> > Johannes Meixner wrote: >> >> >> For example the epkowa driver from IScan is free software. >> > >> > No, epkowa is not free software. A large part of the scanners it >> > supports actually rely on

[sane-devel] SANE2, what do we want ?

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Julien BLACHE wrote: > Sigurd Stordal wrote: > > >> Call ECMA and ISO, we need a fast-track for SANE1. > > Do you have the money for that :-). Biggest problem is MS. Have to ask Bill > > for permission to fast track it :-) > > Maybe the MS/Novell agreement can

[sane-devel] SANE2 standard completion

Hello, On Apr 1 18:00 Emmanuel Fust wrote (shortened): > That's the point: CUPSD is a daemon regardless of implementation > of the backend, daemon or I/O-lib. Nothing talk or invoke directly > this io backend all talk to CUPSD via tcp or domain-unix socket > in case of printing. It should be the

[sane-devel] SANE2, what do we want ?

Hello, On Apr 2 15:49 Olaf Meeuwissen wrote (shortened): > ... the epkowa backend does not require the non-free extensions. As far as I understand the license stuff, this is the crucial condition whether or not some piece of software can be under GPL even if it "uses" some non-free additional mo

[sane-devel] SANE2, what do we want ?

Hello, On Apr 1 18:36 Julien BLACHE wrote (shortened): > I think SANE1 has proved its stability over the years now. The way how the discussion regarding SANE2 is done could indicate exactly the opposite for the future (*) for someone at a manufacturer who listens to this discussion to decide whe

[sane-devel] SANE2, what do we want ?

On 4/2/08, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: > "m. allan noah" writes: > > > On 4/1/08, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: > >> Julien BLACHE writes: > >> > >> > Johannes Meixner wrote: > >> > >> >> For example the epkowa driver from IScan is free software. > >> > > >> > No, epkowa is not free software. A

[sane-devel] Xsane & the Epson V200

"m. allan noah" writes: > the sane project does not provide this driver. i would suggest that > you ask the maker. Of the backend? Then I'd like to see some debugging information. For starters, when do you get the message? Right at the start of the scan or after part of the document has been

[sane-devel] SANE2, what do we want ?

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 21:45:25 -0400 "m. allan noah" wrote: > > The epkowa backend is free-as-in-freedom software. It is licensed > > under the terms of the GPL and carries an exception that allows for > > the use of non-free extensions. > > well, i just heard RMS speak again a few days ago, and

[sane-devel] SANE2, what do we want ?

Julien BLACHE writes: > Johannes Meixner wrote: >> For example the epkowa driver from IScan is free software. > > No, epkowa is not free software. A large part of the scanners it > supports actually rely on proprietary, binary-only protocol > interpreters shipped as Linux/i386 shared libraries.