Hi, On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 10:54:00PM +1000, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > Oh. I'd looked at the license in packaged into /usr/share/doc/sane and it > just said GPLv2. Now the source says:
The file "LICENSE" that you quote is also installed to /usr/local/share/sane. COPYING contains the original text of the GPL. > Backend libraries are protected by the GNU General Public License (see > file COPYING), but as an exception, it is permissible to link against > such a library without affecting the licensing status of the program > that uses the libraries. For details, see the copyright notice at the > head of the backend files (e.g., backend/dll.c). > > Isn't that just the LGPL? It's similar. As far as I know, when SANE was born, there was no LPGL. > Anyway, I have no objections but obviously this needs to be organised > properly and agreed to by people. Is it actually a requirement though? It > doesn't appear to be so. I think currently all backends use GPL+SANE clause. Pure GPL may be critical if a distribution links to a non-GPL software. So if possible, I'd prefer to keep GPL+SANE clause for the backends. Bye, Henning