Hi,
Roger Sewell writes:
> Hi - I'm new here.
>
> I've been trying to get xsane to work on an Epson ET-4500
> print/scan/copier. Everything works except scanning from the automatic
> document feeder (ADF) - I can scan fine from the flatbed.
The ET-4500 is not documented as supported by the
Olaf, and whoever kindly maintains the epson2 backend:
Please find attached a debug log of my attempt to run a 2-page scan from
the ADF of an Epson ET-4500 using the epson2 backend over the network.
(I have unfortunately not been able to reproduce a similar
non-functioning previously observed
Roger Sewell writes:
> Andrea,
>
>> I also had the same problem with the scanner part of an Epson
>> multifunction printer. I solved it by installing the drivers from the
>> Epson web site, which are indeed almost impossible to find. Here a
>> link:
m. allan noah writes:
> The sane project controls neither of the sites you link to. They are
> maintained by former project members. I suggest you do a google site
> search like so:
>
> site:https://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/sane-devel/ 'your search terms'
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:50
I was wondering whether or not any of the developers here know the
story behind the Brother scanner drivers? They offer a Debian
package that identifies itself as GPL, and that claims it is based
on sane-backends.When I asked them about getting ahold the
source (I want to port it to ARM), I
Dear Sir/Madam,
While doing some user support on the sane-devel mailing list, I noticed
that your download site is providing misleading license information for
Image Scan v3.
The license information[1] for Image Scan v3 only mentions the GNU
General Public License, version 3. While this is
Olaf,
> > > A compressed debug log, preferably over USB, would be helpful.
> > >
> > > SANE_DEBUG_EPSON2=128 scanimage [options] 2> debug.log
> > > xz debug.log
> > >
> > > should do the trick.
> > Is this still of interest now I've got it working ?
> ...Anyway, why don't you create a
I personally am of the opinion that Brother is in violation of our
license. However, our license is not strictly GPL, and the differences
were clearly not written by a lawyer. You could argue that we give
some space for a company to steal our work, and keep it from their
users. I vote with my
