On Wednesday 11 June 2008 09:55, Alessandro Zummo wrote:
> I was talking about a possible proprietary sane backend
> scenario:
>
> GPL backend + proprietary decoding libs. A manufacturer would choose
> compatible terms for this case and it is not forbidden by the GPL.
I think this thread is
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:55:14 +0900
Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> > GPL backend + proprietary decoding libs. A manufacturer would choose
> > compatible terms for this case and it is not forbidden by the GPL.
>
> There are two possibilities here:
>
> 1) the non-free decoding libs are licensed under
Alessandro Zummo writes:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:49:04 +0900
> Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
>
>> > correct.
>>
>> No so. As per my reply to Johannes' mail:
>>
>> This depends on the respective license conditions of the free and
>> non-free parts. If all of the conditions are not mutually exc
Alessandro Zummo writes:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:00:38 +0200 (CEST)
> Johannes Meixner wrote:
>
>> As far as I see, it seems to be allowed from the legal point
>> of view to have free software that uses non-free libraries
>> because they only say that the program won't be fully usable
>> or not
Johannes Meixner writes:
> Hello,
>
> On Jun 6 16:40 Alessandro Zummo wrote (shortened):
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
>
> As far as I see, it seems to be allowed from the legal point
> of view to have free software that uses non-free libraries
> because they only say t
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:49:04 +0900
Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> > correct.
>
> No so. As per my reply to Johannes' mail:
>
> This depends on the respective license conditions of the free and
> non-free parts. If all of the conditions are not mutually exclusive,
> then there is no problem l
(Quote)
> They even say:
> ---
> If the program is already written using the non-free library,
> perhaps it is too late to change the decision. You may as well
> release the program as it stands, rather than not release it.
>
ne-devel] Please give me some help to solve
>;the license issues in using sane
>;
[snip]
>;>
>;> your politeness and enthusiasm impressed me deeply. very
>;glad to exchange personal opinion.
>;> Wang mengqiang
>;
>;
>;Thank you very much for the reply. I am a
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:00:38 +0200 (CEST)
Johannes Meixner wrote:
> As far as I see, it seems to be allowed from the legal point
> of view to have free software that uses non-free libraries
> because they only say that the program won't be fully usable
> or not usable at all in a free environment
Hello,
On Jun 6 16:40 Alessandro Zummo wrote (shortened):
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
As far as I see, it seems to be allowed from the legal point
of view to have free software that uses non-free libraries
because they only say that the program won't be fully usable
o
Hello Wang Mengqiang,
On 10 Jun 08 16:24, Wang Mengqiang wrote:
> For example, you are building the high-way,
as we are talking about writing drivers, a more obvious analogy comes to mind.
Hardware producers build cars. But these days they don't tell you how to drive
these cars and there are no
Hello,
>;-Original Message-
>;From: Johannes Meixner [mailto:jsmeix at suse.de]
>;Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 9:06 PM
>;To: Olaf Meeuwissen
>;Cc: Wang Mengqiang; sane-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org
>;Subject: Re: [sane-devel] Please give me some help to solve ;the
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, m. allan noah wrote:
> On 6/10/08, Daniel Gl?ckner wrote:
>> Hello Wang Mengqiang,
>>
>>
>> On 10 Jun 08 16:24, Wang Mengqiang wrote:
>> > For example, you are building the high-way,
>>
>>
>> as we are talking about writing drivers, a more obvious analogy comes to
>> mind
On 6/10/08, Daniel Gl?ckner wrote:
> Hello Wang Mengqiang,
>
>
> On 10 Jun 08 16:24, Wang Mengqiang wrote:
> > For example, you are building the high-way,
>
>
> as we are talking about writing drivers, a more obvious analogy comes to mind.
> Hardware producers build cars. But these days they do
"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
On Sunday 08 June 2008 22:06, m. allan noah wrote:
>>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 sta
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 facilities
> >> iirc?
> >
> > well,
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
On 6/6/08, Daniel Gl?ckner wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 11:10:52AM -0400, m. allan noah wrote:
> > 3. you can write a partly free backend, that dynamically links to the
> > closed parts, provided that you place a license exception in the free
> > part allowing said linking. you cannot use a
On 6/8/08, kilgota at banach.math.auburn.edu
wrote:
>
> And here we see the problem, in a nutshell. My own course is quite similar
> to Allan's, though I do my work for another project.
>
> I think that what is going to have to happen, ultimately, is that some of
> these hardware manufacturers a
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008, m. allan noah wrote:
> On 6/8/08, kilgota at banach.math.auburn.edu
> wrote:
[...]
> Canon is a very big company, where one hand may not know what another
> hand is doing. I personally have spent the last couple of years
> negotiating an NDA with Canon USA to get docs for
And here we see the problem, in a nutshell. My own course is quite similar
to Allan's, though I do my work for another project.
I think that what is going to have to happen, ultimately, is that some of
these hardware manufacturers are going to see if they can find a
competitive advantage by co
On 6/8/08, David Lochrin wrote:
> On Sunday 08 June 2008 22:06, m. allan noah wrote:
> >>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 (especia
On 6/8/08, David Lochrin 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 th
> On Thursday 05 June 2008 23:55, Daniel Gl?ckner wrote:
> > Last year Canon released Linux drivers for the MP scanners that require a
> > closed source module. We have never heard of anyone successfully using this
> > driver. On the other hand there is the open source pixma driver that is
> > act
Hello,
On Thursday 05 June 2008 23:55, Daniel Gl?ckner wrote:
> Last year Canon released Linux drivers for the MP scanners that require a
> closed source module. We have never heard of anyone successfully using this
> driver. On the other hand there is the open source pixma driver that is
> active
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 11:10:52AM -0400, m. allan noah wrote:
> 3. you can write a partly free backend, that dynamically links to the
> closed parts, provided that you place a license exception in the free
> part allowing said linking. you cannot use any code from SANE, other
> than sane.h and the
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 11:10:52 -0400
"m. allan noah" wrote:
> yes- this seems reasonable, however, this 'program' cannot be derived
> from existing GPL'd software that does not already have this added
> permission, because that would change the original program's license
> without permission of the
From: kilgota at banach.math.auburn.edu
>;[mailto:kilgota at banach.math.auburn.edu]
>;Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 9:00 AM
>;To: Alessandro Zummo
>;Cc: Wang Mengqiang; SPD-GW; sane-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org
>;Subject: Re: [sane-devel] Please give me some help to solve
>;the license
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:36:39 +0200
Alessandro Zummo wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 10:26:04 -0400
> "m. allan noah" wrote:
>
> >
> > no, the GPL is all about derivative works and combining code, it makes
> > no difference the direction:
>
> You are probably right, the closest entry in the faq th
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 10:26:04 -0400
"m. allan noah" wrote:
>
> no, the GPL is all about derivative works and combining code, it makes
> no difference the direction:
You are probably right, the closest entry in the faq that describes this
situation
seems to be http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-fa
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 09:54:13 -0400
"m. allan noah"
> gpl faq is pretty clear on this one:
>
> 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 mean
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:24:25 +0900
Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
>
> 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 derivative, so, all the
> terms of the GPL
Hello,
On 5 Jun Wang Mengqiang wrote (shortened):
> we plan to use several special modules which do not contain
> any open source code from sane or other party, because they
> contain some tecnology that we do not want to open.
> So, that is, our backend is composed of two parts,
> one part is o
On 6/6/08, Alessandro Zummo wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 11:10:52 -0400
>
> "m. allan noah" wrote:
>
>
> > yes- this seems reasonable, however, this 'program' cannot be derived
> > from existing GPL'd software that does not already have this added
> > permission, because that would change the or
On 6/6/08, Alessandro Zummo wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:36:39 +0200
>
> Alessandro Zummo wrote:
>
>
> > On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 10:26:04 -0400
> > "m. allan noah" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > no, the GPL is all about derivative works and combining code, it makes
> > > no difference the direction:
>
Hello,
On Jun 5 11:30 m. allan noah wrote (shortened):
> Sane is not here to provide sanei for proprietary backends to steal.
Many thanks!
Now it is clear for me!
Kind Regards
Johannes Meixner
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany
AG Nuernberg, HRB 16746, GF:
On 6/6/08, Alessandro Zummo wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 09:54:13 -0400
> "m. allan noah"
> >
> > gpl faq is pretty clear on this one:
> >
> > If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are
> > definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run
> > linked t
On 6/6/08, Alessandro Zummo wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:24:25 +0900
>
> Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> >
>
> > 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 combi
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Wang Mengqiang wrote:
> Theodore Kilgore,
>
> Thank you for your ardent reply.
>
> I feel your earnest expectation to improve the communication with hardware
> manufacture. But, very sorry, I am afraid I have no ability to take this
> responsibility.
>
> Thank you sharing t
"m. allan noah" writes:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 3:49 AM, Johannes Meixner wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Jun 4 21:02 m. allan noah wrote (shortened):
>>>
>>> SANE is GPL, with an added exception to allow proprietary front-end
>>> programs to link against it. What you are suggesting is the opposit
Johannes Meixner writes:
> I have another question:
>
> Assume because of whatever reason a scanner manufacturer
> cannot make a free backend (e.g. because of third-party
> license stuff, or just because the upper management at the
> manufacturer is full of fear that another manufacturer might
>
Wang Mengqiang,
I am not one of the regular SANE developers, but I am quite active in
another, similar project, Gphoto, which supports digital still cameras. I
find this thread interesting because it raises issues which affect us all.
I hope very much that the SANE developers will not mind if
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:02:08 +0800
"Wang Mengqiang" wrote:
> Thank you for your reply and truth.
>
> From your reply, it seems there is no way to use other modules, for example,
> if we buy some modules from other company without source code, how to deal
> with it? Would you please give me som
Hello,
On Jun 5 15:55 Daniel Gl?ckner wrote (shortened):
> It may sound naive, but usually a scanner driver just needs to write some
> registers and accept the incoming image data.
> I don't see what needs to be hidden in that process.
...
> Maybe it is possible to make your driver compile with a
Hello,
On 5 Jun 08 08:28, Wang Mengqiang wrote:
> 1) In the development, we plan to use several special modules which do not
> contain any open source code from sane or other party, because they contain
> some tecnology that we do not want to open.
May I ask what functionality is contained in
Thank you for your reply and truth.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 3:49 AM, Johannes Meixner wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Jun 4 21:02 m. allan noah wrote (shortened):
>>
>> SANE is GPL, with an added exception to allow proprietary front-end
>> programs to link against it. What you are suggesting is the opposite-
>> you wish to have a free 'midd
Hello,
On Jun 4 21:02 m. allan noah wrote (shortened):
> SANE is GPL, with an added exception to allow proprietary front-end
> programs to link against it. What you are suggesting is the opposite-
> you wish to have a free 'middleware' layer, which loads closed
> backends to do that actual work?
Hello, everyone,
My name is Wang mengqiang, I am expecting to get your help on development very
much.
I am investigating to develop a commerce driver on linux. I have studied the
sane project for some time. And, we are planning to develop the driver on sane.
But, I have some doubts on license
On 6/4/08, Wang Mengqiang wrote:
> Hello, everyone,
>
> My name is Wang mengqiang, I am expecting to get your help on development
> very much.
>
> I am investigating to develop a commerce driver on linux. I have studied
> the sane project for some time. And, we are planning to develop the dri
54 matches
Mail list logo
