[sane-devel] In progress: TRUST Imagery 9600SP (TECO_VM6552)
Frank Zago ha scritto: > Hello Andrej, > > Ralph sent me his code in April but went silent since then. I've > attached what he send me, so you (or someone else) can start from there. > Thanks, I will give a tray. Andrej
[sane-devel] problems with genesys and MD6228
Le Tuesday 10 June 2008 22:50:53 Werner Holtfreter, vous avez ?crit?: > Am Dienstag, 10. Juni 2008 21:09:58 schrieb stef: > > > Thanks, this works fine! The starting point at the top of page > > > varies only between 0,4...0,8. > > > > > > But --resolution 100 (I have short tested with others, but seen > > > only with 100) the old problem sometimes: The scanner head > > > starts to shake and does not move properly. Sometimes means > > > about 30 %. > > > > > > (Log comes direct to you.) > > > > I've inspected the log. The only difference I can see with a > > 'reference' run here is that the hack used to reset the AFE isn't > > trigger here. Since I believe this issues are related to > > powersaving, could check if your linux kernel has been built with > > CONFIG_USB_SUSPEND=y ? The config file used to build kernel is > > often stored in /boot. > > I configured my kernel without it. It may be the difference. > > Hello, > > /boot/config-2.6.22.17-0.1-default contains: > > . > . > . > # > # USB support > # > CONFIG_USB_ARCH_HAS_HCD=y > CONFIG_USB_ARCH_HAS_OHCI=y > CONFIG_USB_ARCH_HAS_EHCI=y > CONFIG_USB=m > # CONFIG_USB_DEBUG is not set > > # > # Miscellaneous USB options > # > CONFIG_USB_DEVICEFS=y > # CONFIG_USB_DEVICE_CLASS is not set > # CONFIG_USB_DYNAMIC_MINORS is not set > # CONFIG_USB_SUSPEND is not set <- > # CONFIG_USB_OTG is not set > . > . > . > > I'm not sure that it is, what you searching. I use: > Suse10.3 2.6.22.17-0.1-default > > By the way: I've seen the same problem (scanner head starts to > shake) on a Window-PC. (My scanner was earlier on a other PC.) > -- > Viele Gr??e > Werner Holtfreter Hello, so this isn't a USB_SUSPEND issue. Could you try your scanner at 100 dpi gray scan on a windows PC ? If so, you can check that the scanner is working (ie no hardware issue), then record the USB communication with the usb sniffer available at http://www.pcausa.com/Utilities/UsbSnoop/default.htm . Then send me the log file of a 100 pdi scan so that I check that your scanner has really the same hardware than mine. Regards, Stef
[sane-devel] In progress: TRUST Imagery 9600SP (TECO_VM6552)
Hello Andrej, Ralph sent me his code in April but went silent since then. I've attached what he send me, so you (or someone else) can start from there. Regards, Frank. -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: teco3.tgz Type: application/x-compressed Size: 14932 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/sane-devel/attachments/20080611/7b95f26b/attachment.bin
[sane-devel] In progress: TRUST Imagery 9600SP (TECO_VM6552)
A month ago, you have post that you have developed a backend for Trust Imagery 9600SP for sane in which you appointed that you are the only possessor of an VM6552 device. In fact this is not true, because there are many possessors of this device. In fact I don't have such device, but my friend who don't use Linux have. I found that the only way to work out is to run with Sane. I not approved that you wouldn't release your backend, for the reason that there are so many people with this device. If you google a little bit, you find that so many people request for a windows xp driver. So if de device will ever work with sane, why do not to release this driver. I understand that you have to develop a new backend for a few scanner, but in time you can release your patch for teco3 for the other people who own a VM6552 device. Regards Andrej Suligoi
[sane-devel] Please give me some help to solve the license issues in using sane
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:55:14 +0900 Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: > > GPL backend + proprietary decoding libs. A manufacturer would choose > > compatible terms for this case and it is not forbidden by the GPL. > > There are two possibilities here: > > 1) the non-free decoding libs are licensed under a GPL compatible > license. This means that you need to provide the source code > and allow modification, redistribution and redistribution of > modifications, making the decoding libs in effect mostly free. > > 2) add an exception to the GPL which makes the backend no longer > GPL'd (in the strict sense). > > In either case, your scenario ceases to exist. > > # If users are free to drop the exception to the GPL when making > # derived works, you could argue the backend is GPL'd, though. I don't think any mfr would care if is GPL or GPL-strict, as long as it is allowed for them to distribute their work. -- Best regards, Alessandro Zummo, Tower Technologies - Torino, Italy http://www.towertech.it
[sane-devel] Please give me some help to solve the license issues in using sane
Alessandro Zummo writes: > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:49:04 +0900 > Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: > >> > correct. >> >> No so. As per my reply to Johannes' mail: >> >> This depends on the respective license conditions of the free and >> non-free parts. If all of the conditions are not mutually exclusive, >> then there is no problem license wise. If even only two of the >> conditions are mutually exclusive, you have a license violation on >> your hands. >> >> The above goes for any kind of combination where multiple licenses >> are involved, not just when combining with GPL'd software. > > clear. I was talking about a possible proprietary sane backend > scenario: > > GPL backend + proprietary decoding libs. A manufacturer would choose > compatible terms for this case and it is not forbidden by the GPL. There are two possibilities here: 1) the non-free decoding libs are licensed under a GPL compatible license. This means that you need to provide the source code and allow modification, redistribution and redistribution of modifications, making the decoding libs in effect mostly free. 2) add an exception to the GPL which makes the backend no longer GPL'd (in the strict sense). In either case, your scenario ceases to exist. # If users are free to drop the exception to the GPL when making # derived works, you could argue the backend is GPL'd, though. Hope this helps, -- Olaf Meeuwissen FLOSS Engineer -- AVASYS Corporation FSF Associate Member #1962 sign up at http://member.fsf.org/
[sane-devel] How to use DBG(level, fmt, ...) to output debug information?
Hi I look up the , and I also refer to the backends wrote by others, but I still confused how to use DBG(level, fmt, ...) to output specific information. e.g. I define below macro follow the sanei_debug.h, #include #define BACKEND_NAME MY_BACKEND #define FUNCTION_DETAIL 1 #define FUNCTION_TRACE 2 I call DBG_INIT() in sane_init (). In some functions I use DBG(1, "%d", param) and DBG(2, "%d", msg) to output debug information. But the backend doesn't output any information that I wanted while I debug it . Does anyone tell me what should I do to output these debug information? Thank you. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/sane-devel/attachments/20080611/9a91bdcb/attachment.htm
[sane-devel] Please give me some help to solve the license issues in using sane
Alessandro Zummo writes: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:00:38 +0200 (CEST) > Johannes Meixner wrote: > >> As far as I see, it seems to be allowed from the legal point >> of view to have free software that uses non-free libraries >> because they only say that the program won't be fully usable >> or not usable at all in a free environment but they don't >> say it violates the GPL. > > correct. No so. As per my reply to Johannes' mail: This depends on the respective license conditions of the free and non-free parts. If all of the conditions are not mutually exclusive, then there is no problem license wise. If even only two of the conditions are mutually exclusive, you have a license violation on your hands. The above goes for any kind of combination where multiple licenses are involved, not just when combining with GPL'd software. >> But what does "If it depends on a non-free library to run at all, >> it cannot be part of a free operating system such as GNU" mean? >> >> Is "cannot be part of GNU" meant as a license violation or >> just that it cannot be included in a "free operating system" >> simply because it is useless? > > I think it mean it would be included in debian non-free rather > than main, for example. or something like that. Johannes was reading from the GPL FAQ, on gnu.org. A free operating system would be one that is free in terms of GNU philosophy. I think the "cannot be part of a free operating system" bit should be interpreted as "has no place in a free operating system". > [snip] Hope this helps, -- Olaf Meeuwissen FLOSS Engineer -- AVASYS Corporation FSF Associate Member #1962 sign up at http://member.fsf.org/
[sane-devel] Please give me some help to solve the license issues in using sane
Johannes Meixner writes: > Hello, > > On Jun 6 16:40 Alessandro Zummo wrote (shortened): >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs > > As far as I see, it seems to be allowed from the legal point > of view to have free software that uses non-free libraries > because they only say that the program won't be fully usable > or not usable at all in a free environment but they don't > say it violates the GPL. This depends on the respective license conditions of the free and non-free parts. If all of the conditions are not mutually exclusive, then there is no problem license wise. If even only two of the conditions are mutually exclusive, you have a license violation on your hands. The above goes for any kind of combination where multiple licenses are involved, not just when combining with GPL'd software. > But what does "If it depends on a non-free library to run at all, > it cannot be part of a free operating system such as GNU" mean? > > Is "cannot be part of GNU" meant as a license violation or > just that it cannot be included in a "free operating system" > simply because it is useless? The latter. If something that requires non-free parts to operate were added to a free operating system, that operating system automatically becomes non-free. Please remember, the GNU project takes freedom seriously. If there is one REQUIRED non-free component, the whole thing is no longer free. Any free operating system needs to be 100% free. Anything less would simply not be free. > But why can't there be a program in a "free operating system" > which requires a proprietary library which checks if the > library file is there before it dlopens it and if the library > file is not installed, it shows a message where to get it > (e.g. where to download it - or perhaps it even runs a > download user GUI with appropriate license information). If said program would be free-as-in-freedom, that program could be part of a free operating system, license wise. However, as it exists solely to allow the user to make their operating system non-free, it is very likely to attract a fair bunch of flac from the die-hard free software corners. > For example a GPL media player which supports only a proprietary > media format. GNU folks will write a free library to support the media format (as they do with gnash, a free flash player) or advocate alternative, free formats (as they do with ogg/vorbis). > Such a program would be even useful without the proprietary library > installed because it would show the user a message where to get the > missing part. Of course the proprietary library might be not > available for all hardware architectures but this does not mean that > such a GPL media player is useless in any case. Of course all > proprietary media formats and all proprietary device communication > protocols are against the intention of a "Free World" but this does > not mean that programs for such formats/protocols are useless. If the only use of the program is telling the user how to sacrifice one's freedom in the interest of convenience, the program is not useful in a GNU world. Quite on the contrary, it is decidedly counter-productive to the GNU project's cause. > They even say: > --- > If the program is already written using the non-free library, > perhaps it is too late to change the decision. You may as well > release the program as it stands, rather than not release it. > --- So others can take a look at replacing the non-free components and benefit from the effort that went into writing the rest of the program? > This seems to indicate that free software that uses non-free > libraries is in compliance with the GPL from the legal point > of view. IF AND ONLY IF the license conditions of all the parts involved are not mutually exclusive. Please refrain from making such unqualified statements. They are misleading. In general, the combination of GPL'd software with non-free libraries results in mutually exclusive license conditions. That's why the library gets labelled non-free in the first place. Only if the license conditions of the GPL'd parts are changed to add exceptions enabling use with the non-free library can you resolve the mutually exclusive conditions. Once you do that, the GPL'd parts are no longer GPL. They become GPL + exception. The GNU Coding Standards[1] even mention some notation in the section on the --version option[2] where they list GPL/Guile and GPL/Ada. [1] http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/standards.html [2] http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/standards.html#g_t_002d_002dversion > Of course this is only what I perceive right now from what > I read there and of course I am not a lawyer! Hope this helps, -- Olaf Meeuwissen FLOSS Engineer -- AVASYS Corporation FSF Associate Member #1962 sign up a
[sane-devel] How to use DBG(level, fmt, ...) to output debug information?
the DBG macro only prints if the proper environment var is set: SANE_DEBUG_BACKENDNAME scanimage -L but change 'BACKENDNAME' to an all-capital version of your backend name. allan On 6/10/08, eagleskycloud wrote: > > Hi > >I look up the , and I also refer to the backends > wrote by others, but I still confused how to use DBG(level, fmt, ...) to > output specific information. e.g. I define below macro follow the > sanei_debug.h, > #include >#define BACKEND_NAME MY_BACKEND >#define FUNCTION_DETAIL 1 >#define FUNCTION_TRACE 2 > > I call DBG_INIT() in sane_init (). In some functions I use DBG(1, "%d", > param) and DBG(2, "%d", msg) to output debug information. But the backend > doesn't output any information that I wanted while I debug it . Does anyone > tell me what should I do to output these debug information? > > Thank you. > > -- > sane-devel mailing list: > sane-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/sane-devel > Unsubscribe: Send mail with subject "unsubscribe your_password" > to sane-devel-request at lists.alioth.debian.org > -- "The truth is an offense, but not a sin"
[sane-devel] Please give me some help to solve the license issues in using sane
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:49:04 +0900 Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: > > correct. > > No so. As per my reply to Johannes' mail: > > This depends on the respective license conditions of the free and > non-free parts. If all of the conditions are not mutually exclusive, > then there is no problem license wise. If even only two of the > conditions are mutually exclusive, you have a license violation on > your hands. > > The above goes for any kind of combination where multiple licenses > are involved, not just when combining with GPL'd software. clear. I was talking about a possible proprietary sane backend scenario: GPL backend + proprietary decoding libs. A manufacturer would choose compatible terms for this case and it is not forbidden by the GPL. -- Best regards, Alessandro Zummo, Tower Technologies - Torino, Italy http://www.towertech.it
