Thank you for your interest in using our products and services.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Boylan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:52 PM
> To: PIPS News Release
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Patch to add resolution information to iscan
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 02:14:24PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for the late reply.
> > > I (c) in my name and release it under GNU Public License v2 or
> > > later; I believe this is the same license as the software it is
> > > patching, which is available at
> > > http://www.epkowa.co.jp/english/linux_e/lsd_e.html.
> >
> > Although probably with the best intentions, releasing your patch
> > under
> > the GPL makes it unusable for us. The reason for this is that the
> > iscan program links with a proprietary library. All source code for
> > the iscan program carries a special exception that explicitly permits
> > this kind of linking. Without this exception, the GPL does not permit
> > us to link with that library. The exception reads:
> >
> > As a special exception, EPSON KOWA Corporation gives permission
> > to link the code of this program with the esmod library and
> > distribute linked combinations including the two. You must obey
> > the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the
> > code used other then esmod.
> >
> > If you would reconsider the licensing of your patch, we can probably
> > use it as is.
>
> Oops: I hereby relicense the code with the exception paragraph cited
> above (substituting "I" for "EPSON KOWA Corporation"). Except maybe
> I'm about to change the "I" when we get to the copyright.
Hmm, your substitution sounds very natural, but I wonder if that would be enough ...
Perhaps we should rephrase that exception a bit to make it easier to accept patches.
> > Then some nit-picking about the copyrighting :-)
> > It would get very cumbersome to maintain the source code if we have
> > to
> > keep track of the copyright owners for all patches, especially for the
> > kind of minor patches that add/change relatively little in the sources
> > (like your patch does).
> > # If you were to add new files, then there is probably no problem if
> > # you want to claim copyright on those files.
> >
> > Would it be okay with you if we acknowledge your contribution in an
> > AUTHORS file and keep the copyright of the files you modified as is?
> > # This AUTHORS file is currently missing, but can easily be added.
>
> That would be fine. I intended the copyright to apply to my patch
> only, not to the original files (which aren't mine to copyright
> anyway). I thought the GNU license pretty much granted anyone
> permission to mix and match code as long as they kept it GNUish.
Yes, the GPL "pretty much grant[s] anyone permission to mix and match code as long as
they [keep] it [GPL'd]", but I was referring to keep copyright statements like this
up-to-date with every patch:
Copyright (C) 2003 EPSON KOWA Corporation
Modifications
Copyright (C) 2003 Ross Boylan <>
Copyright (C) 2003 H. Acker <>
Copyright (C) 2003 ... <>
Copyright (C) 2003 ... <>
Copyright (C) 2003 ... <>
Your patch modifies, what?, five or six files. If we have to add such copyright
statements in every single modified file, that gets a little unwieldy. # Now, if the
patch contained the copyright mods as well ...
Furthermore, if you would agree to hand over the copyright to EPSON KOWA Corporation
(thereby keeping the number of copyright holders low), then it would be easier in the
future for us to liberalize the licensing conditions because there would be a lot less
people to contact to get permission from. It is not quite unlikely that many of these
"minor" copyright holders will no longer be traceable (email addresses change ...). #
OK, so we could be real nasties and try to restrict the conditions. # In that unlikely
case you would still have the (more-or-less) GPL'd # versions to continue with, though.
Then there are also the reasons cited by the FSF for handing over copyright to the FSF
on changes to FSF copyrighted programs. As a matter of fact, they suggest that minor
modifications, like yours, are placed in the public domain.
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AssignCopyright
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/categories.html#PublicDomainSoftware
> I thought only some BSD licenses had this problem with lengthy
> acknowledgements trailing around. Some acknowledgement is nice,
> though.
That's why I suggested mentioning you in an AUTHORS file as having contributed PNG
resolution support or whatever else you come up with and we decide to include.
So, we get copyright on the changes and you get mentioned in the AUTHORS file (with or
without email address, as per your request). Does that sound fair enough to you?
> > > P.S. There are some other changes I'd like to make, like having
> > > iscan remember whether you selected png or pnm, and having it
> > > remember what directory you are in. I think that requires
> > > learning about gtk preferences, though.
> >
> > These also sound like useful little additions, so are you going to
> > hit
> > the books? :-)
> >
> I was secretly hoping someone would pop up and at least point me in
> the right direction. It's not a top priority for me, particularly
> since I've now edited the source to make png the default (that is not
> in the patch I sent out).
It would certainly be nice to be able to save user preferences, but it is not on the
list of things to do yet. Personally, I am not much of a GTK guru so can't help you
out a great deal. Perhaps looking at how other applications do it would be your best
bet if you want to give it a try.
> By the way, I've noticed that iscan is *way* faster than xsane when
> saving an image, even when xsane is using (as far as I can tell) the
> same (epkowa) backend as iscan. The speed difference is not in the
> scanning, but in the time between hitting save and having the image
> saved. I speculate this is because xsane is converting between one or
> more intermediate forms, but I don't really know. Or perhaps the mere
> act of displaying two progress bars slows xsane down? Anyone have any
> ideas?
I haven't really noticed, but then again don't play around much with xsane either. I
doubt though that it has anything to do with the backend, no matter which one (epson
or epkowa) you use. The SANE API has no "save-to-file" kind of functionality; that is
something for the frontend to handle.
> I hope the patch is useful, and that it's now appropriately licensed.
See above. If you don't mind getting mentioned in an AUTHORS file and hand over
copyright, your patch will make it into the next version. In the mean time, we will
also review the formulation of our exception clause to ease the process of accepting
patches. # Hmm, perhaps an explanation in the README might be in place.
It got a little long but I hope it is clear.
Best regards,
EPSON KOWA Corporation
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
