Johannes Meixner jsmeix at suse.de 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
m. allan noah kitno455 at gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 3:49 AM, Johannes Meixner jsmeix at suse.de 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
Le Thursday 05 June 2008 14:00:22 m. allan noah, vous avez ?crit?:
On 6/4/08, stef stef.dev at free.fr 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
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.
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 open
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:24:25 +0900
Olaf Meeuwissen olaf.meeuwissen at avasys.jp 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,
On 6/6/08, Alessandro Zummo azummo-lists at towertech.it wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:24:25 +0900
Olaf Meeuwissen olaf.meeuwissen at avasys.jp 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
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 09:54:13 -0400
m. allan noah kitno455 at gm
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
On 6/6/08, Alessandro Zummo azummo-lists at towertech.it wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 09:54:13 -0400
m. allan noah kitno455 at gm
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
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 the
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 10:26:04 -0400
m. allan noah kitno455 at gmail.com 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
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:36:39 +0200
Alessandro Zummo azummo-lists at towertech.it wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 10:26:04 -0400
m. allan noah kitno455 at gmail.com wrote:
no, the GPL is all about derivative works and combining code, it makes
no difference the direction:
You are probably
On 6/6/08, Alessandro Zummo azummo-lists at towertech.it wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:36:39 +0200
Alessandro Zummo azummo-lists at towertech.it wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 10:26:04 -0400
m. allan noah kitno455 at gmail.com wrote:
no, the GPL is all about derivative works and
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 11:10:52 -0400
m. allan noah kitno455 at gmail.com 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
On 6/6/08, Alessandro Zummo azummo-lists at towertech.it wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 11:10:52 -0400
m. allan noah kitno455 at gmail.com wrote:
yes- this seems reasonable, however, this 'program' cannot be derived
from existing GPL'd software that does not already have this added
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:anonymous at
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 (see
19 matches
Mail list logo
