Thu May 22 12:28:38 UTC 2008
example, if we buy some modules from other company without source code, =
how to deal with it? Would you please give me some suggestion for =
commerce development like this?
I agree to your opinion that we should not violate the spirit of =
freedom through the middle-ware layer. Our idea is to open as much as we =
can ( not to open all), but not to close as much as possible.=20
Any comments and suggetion are valuable for us, thanks.
>;From: m. allan noah [mailto:kitno455 at gmail.com]=20
>;Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 9:03 AM
>;To: Wang Mengqiang
>;Cc: sane-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org
>;Subject: Re: [sane-devel] Please give me some help to solve=20
>;the license issues in using sane
>;On 6/4/08, Wang Mengqiang <WangMengqiang at canon-ib.com.cn> wrote:
>;> Hello, everyone,
>;> My name is Wang mengqiang, I am expecting to get your help=20
>;on development very much.
>;> I am investigating to develop a commerce driver on linux. =20
>;I have studied the sane project for some time. And, we are=20
>;planning to develop the driver on sane. But, I have some=20
>;doubts on license of sane so, I'd like to get the answer from=20
>;we are not lawyers, but we will try to help.
>;> 1) In the development, we plan to use several special=20
>;modules which do not contain any open source code from sane=20
>;or other party, because they contain some tecnology that we=20
>;do not want to open. So, that is, our backend is composed of=20
>;two parts, one part is open source code which we refer to the=20
>;source code from sane, and another part is one that should=20
>;not be open. Of course, the first part(open source part) will=20
>;call the functions in the second part(closed source part).=20
>;After compiling and linking them together, we get the=20
>;backend. My questions is whether we can keep the second part=20
>;closed in this way, whether this way comform to the license=20
>;of sane(GPL)? Please refer to the attached image for the=20
>;SANE is GPL, with an added exception to allow proprietary=20
>;front-end programs to link against it. What you are=20
>;suggesting is the opposite- you wish to have a free=20
>;'middleware' layer, which loads closed backends to do that=20
>;actual work? I think this is in violation of the spirit of=20
>;the license exception, though perhaps not the letter. Please=20
>;read the file LICENSE in the sane-backends source, it=20
>;attempts to clarify the situation, by specifically referring=20
>;to the 'licensing status of the _program_ that uses the=20
>;libraries', not the status of a library.
>;Note also that your plan prevents those of us that use=20
>;alternative CPU's (PPC, ARM) from using your code, unless you=20
>;are going to compile it for us.
>;"The truth is an offense, but not a sin"
More information about the sane-devel