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
>
"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
Le Thursday 05 June 2008 14:00:22 m. allan noah, vous avez ?crit?:
> On 6/4/08, stef wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > to maintain the curent 1.0.x version of sane-backends I propose
> > to tag current sources with:
> > DEVEL_1_0_TRUNK
>
> i just made this tag.
>
> > Then make a b
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:
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 the possible reasons on the block of communication.
Whate
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 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
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 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 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 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
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 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 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:
>
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
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 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
Am Mittwoch, 4. Juni 2008 21:09:56 schrieb stef:
> you can compile and test CVS without installing it system-wide.
> In a command shell, create a directory then 'cd' to it.
> First you have to get the sources with (see
> http://www.sane-project.org/cvs.html):
>
> cvs -d:pserver:anonymo
Le Friday 06 June 2008 20:15:36 Werner Holtfreter, vous avez ?crit?:
> Am Mittwoch, 4. Juni 2008 21:09:56 schrieb stef:
> > you can compile and test CVS without installing it system-wide.
> > In a command shell, create a directory then 'cd' to it.
> > First you have to get the sources with
19 matches
Mail list logo
