On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Julien BLACHE <jb at jblache.org> wrote: > Lei Chen <Raymond.Chen at Sun.COM> wrote: > > Hi, > > > >> agreed. if i were to make sane2 myself, i would change the license to > >> straight GPL3. > > > > Why not LGPL? Is LGPL not so straight for libraries and dynamic > > objects? The current license makes thing complex. People have to pay > > close attention to GPL libraries and backends, with or without that > > exception claiming, in SANE. > > All backends in SANE are GPL + exception, which is roughly equivalent > to the LGPL. > > Relicensing SANE is not possible, because quite a few copyright > holders cannot be reached to obtain permission. > >
Julien is correct of course, but you asked why would i do that if i had the chance? Because we are routinely asked about things like descreening or color correction- problems which have been solved long ago, with code that is now lost to us, because it was only delivered as a binary. Reinventing the wheel over and over, just because some now-dead company decided that some text was secret is a stupid waste of human resources. Using the LGPL allows that trend to continue, with proprietary front-ends, and proprietary backend 'plugins'. allan -- "The truth is an offense, but not a sin"