On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:00 PM, abel deuring <adeuring at gmx.net> wrote: > On 27.01.2009 18:28, m. allan noah wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 8:01 AM, abel deuring <adeuring at gmx.net> wrote: >>> On 27.01.2009 07:30, Ed Hamrick wrote: >>>> Hi Olaf, >>>> >>>> The source you referred to is attached. I'm happy >>>> to assist people with getting copies of the source >>>> code to the trivial parts of SANE that I used in >>>> VueScan. And yes, I'm obviously capable of spending >>>> an hour or two stripping the sanei_scsi module >>>> out of VueScan - after all, VueScan does support many >>>> things (like infrared cleaning) on Epson scanners that >>>> you're incapable of supporting :) >>> Actually, I'd appreciate if you would remove sanei_scsi from Vuescan. I >>> remember a bug report from a Vuescan user a few years ago who stumbled >>> over a sanei_scsi bug. I could fix this bug quickly -- but the poor user >>> was out of luck: you wrote that you hadn't had enough time to link the >>> fixed sanei_scsi version into a new Vuescan release... >>> >>> That was a reason why I always considered to start a discussion if Sane >>> shouldn't switch to the LGPL: It would allow Vuescan users to link a >>> fixed Sane library into Vuscan and other proprietary programs for >>> themselves. >>> >>>> This is also an "official request" to Ren? Rebe to >>>> provide the source code to avision.c that he's included >>>> in ExactScan 2. >>> Yeah -- the funny thing with this request is that it was Rene who wrote >>> the avision backend. So your request may be formally valid, but, >>> frankly, it looks a bit weird. >> >> No, it is not weird at all. The GPL is not to punish Rene, it is to >> give rights to Ed (and everyone else). If he has received a legitimate >> copy of ExactScan, he is entitled to the SANE portions. Since >> ExactScan comes as a free trial, everyone is a legitimate user. There >> seems to be no other way to get this code than asking Rene directly. > > As Julien aleady wrote, if Rene is the only author of the backend he can > whatever he wants with the code.
true enough. Though with patches from users/authors, this is an ideal state rarely reached. > >> >> allan >> >> ps- these license issues would be clarified by switching to the LGPL, >> but because the copyright holder of SANE is each individual author, >> you would have to get all of their permission. An impossible task, >> IMHO. > > Agreed. That's the main reason why I did not start this discussion. Yes, it seems that some projects are assigning copyright to a single entity just to avoid this problem. allan -- "The truth is an offense, but not a sin"
