"m. allan noah" writes:
> On 6/8/08, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
>> "m. allan noah" writes:
>>
>> > [snip]
>>
>> >>
>> >> 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 fac
"m. allan noah" writes:
> [snip]
>>
>> 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?
>
> well, if epkowa dynamically links and uses sanei, then it is not using
"m. allan noah" writes:
> [snip}
> 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.
>
> 2. you can write a partly free backend, that runs the closed parts as
> a separate process, and use code from SANE in the
Johannes Meixner writes:
> Hello,
>
> [snip]
> On Jun 6 Olaf Meeuwissen wrote (shortened):
>> If GPL'd code uses a non-compatible library via dlopen that's just as
>> much a violation as linking to it directly. The code runs in the same
>> process space. That makes the combined work a derivativ
