[Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

Daniel Dressler danieru.dressler at gmail.com
Wed Jun 25 22:00:09 UTC 2014


Thank you Till

Does anyone know of a specific company which would be interested in
putting money behind GPLv2+ or Apache? If a company wants to avoid
GPLv3 at all costs they will not be allowed to linux at all because
the Coreutils are GPLv3. As such any re-licensing offer would include
porting to Windows without any dependency on Cygwin.

Daniel

2014-06-25 15:49 GMT-06:00 Till Kamppeter <till.kamppeter at gmail.com>:
> For me it is important that ippusbxd gets as successful as possible,
> which means that it goes into all distros (distros accept all GPL2,
> GPL3, BSD, MIT, Apache, all what is considered "free software") but it
> should also not be rejected by printer manufacturers or by the PWG, as
> if printer manufacturers test it, we get better compatibility and better
> free software OS support from the manufacturers.
>
> Therefore I also do not want to have it GPL3.
>
> I would prefer MIT or BSD if everyone agrees.
>
> Would it also be possible to let it be GPL2+?
>
>    Till
>
>
> On 06/25/2014 11:28 PM, Ira McDonald wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> I'm aware of printer vendors who have fired or reassigned test
>> engineers who downloaded a *binary* of GLP3-based software
>> (and abandoned product or research projects for this reason).
>>
>> Perhaps these printer vendors were overly cautious, but there
>> are some real reasons for caution here, I think.
>>
>> It seemed to me that ippusbxd would be an excellent component
>> in an internal product development and testing process within a
>> printer vendor.
>>
>> BTW - if ippusbxd has a "difficult" license, then the PWG won't
>> be able to use it in any future PWG IPP certification tools, which
>> would be unfortunate.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> - Ira
>>
>>
>>
>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
>> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
>> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
>> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
>> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
>> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
>> Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
>> http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
>> http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
>> mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com <mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com>
>> Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
>> Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Daniel Dressler
>> <danieru.dressler at gmail.com <mailto:danieru.dressler at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Thank you Ira, and thank you for the support you have given me and
>>     ippusbxd in the past.
>>
>>     Do you know of any printer vendors or OS interested in using ippusbxd?
>>     I must admit I only expected ippusbxd to be used by the open source
>>     distributions. I am not sure what changes need to be made to reuse
>>     ippusbxd from the printer side.
>>
>>     Of the OSes which avoid GPLv3: Android, Chromeos, MacOSX, Windows. I
>>     did not expect any of them to adopt ippusbxd. MacOSX alone has Michael
>>     Sweet himself working on their ippusbd.
>>
>>     I would a company prevent their developers from testing against
>>     ippusbxd? Under the GPLv3 if they download a compiled binary through a
>>     linux distrobution, or an exe from a website, they have no
>>     obligations. They only need to worry if desire to redistribute the
>>     source or binary.
>>
>>     This is similar to what happens when you test against Windows or OSX.
>>     The major difference here is there is atleast an option to
>>     redistribute with GPLv3.
>>
>>     Daniel
>>
>>     PS: I would just like to re-iterate: my presentation at the
>>     openprinting sumit/f2f will be licensed creative commons zero. Which
>>     is a very liberal license which you can think of as the BSD of BSD
>>     like licenses. Except in jurisdictions where authors are not allowed
>>     to re-assign some copyrights the CC0 license is as close as we can get
>>     to public domain.
>>
>>     2014-06-25 14:51 GMT-06:00 Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com>>:
>>     > Hi Daniel,
>>     >
>>     > ALL of the work (design and code) of the Open Printing Job Ticket API
>>     > team used BSD/MIT (for reasons Mike Sweet has cited) - based on
>>     > actual legal opinions from a number of printer vendors.
>>     >
>>     > Being "up-to-date" with GPL3 simply guarantees that no printer vendor
>>     > will ever allow their engineers to use (even in a test lab)
>>     "ippusbxd".
>>     >
>>     > I'm very strongly opposed to licensing this work under any form of
>>     GPL3.
>>     >
>>     > There are several other major OS vendors who have an absolute rule
>>     > that no GLP3 code is used in any product *or* product design (no
>>     I'm not
>>     > going to name them).
>>     >
>>     > If your work on "ippusbxd" has a GPL3 poison pill included, then I
>>     also
>>     > can't encourage it's use in the IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group, which
>>     > would be sad.
>>     >
>>     > ALL - amateur discussion of license and patent terms is DANGEROUS.
>>     > Please use caution in your email assertions.
>>     >
>>     > Cheers,
>>     > - Ira
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
>>     > Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
>>     > Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
>>     > Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
>>     > Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
>>     > IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
>>     > Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
>>     > http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
>>     > http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
>>     > mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com <mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com>
>>     > Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
>>     <tel:734-944-0094>
>>     > Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434
>>     <tel:906-494-2434>
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Daniel Dressler
>>     > <danieru.dressler at gmail.com <mailto:danieru.dressler at gmail.com>>
>>     wrote:
>>     >>
>>     >> Michael
>>     >>
>>     >> You're right that I do not intend to file any patents, and you're
>>     also
>>     >> right that I do not plan to hide ippusbxd from users with DRM.
>>     Granted
>>     >> if I did wanted to do those things I still could, since I own the
>>     >> copyright. The GPLv3 only applies downstream, where one needs a
>>     >> license to avoid copyright infringement.
>>     >>
>>     >> In general mainline distros distribute plenty of GPLv3 since the GNU
>>     >> project's software has been GPLv3 for a long time. Android and
>>     OSX are
>>     >> the only big OSes which include GPLv2 but avoid GPLv3.
>>     >>
>>     >> Now it is true many companies involved with printing want to avoid
>>     >> GPLv3 and so their engineers will not be able to contribute.
>>     >>
>>     >> The low-down is that I'm working at about one tenth the market rate.
>>     >> Thus I don't see myself as being an employee of GSoC but rather that
>>     >> GSoC is providing a stipend to keep me afloat while I work on
>>     this. In
>>     >> return I am asking that downstream users provide the same freedoms to
>>     >> their downstream as I'm providing to them and in some cases provide
>>     >> their own work under similar terms.
>>     >>
>>     >> So what I'm trying to say is what I want to get out of this summer is
>>     >> more power for users over their software, plus of course working IPP
>>     >> over USB printers. This may not be compatible with some business
>>     >> plans, which is okay since those business plans are not paying me
>>     >> market rates either. Now if those business plans were interested in
>>     >> making up the difference between the stipend and market rate I would
>>     >> love to negotiate a friendly license, for them. Until then the
>>     >> opportunity cost, the amount of money which would be in my bank
>>     >> account if I was not working on ippusbxd, is approaching one and a
>>     >> half Honda Civics at MSRP.
>>     >>
>>     >> Now the BSD people have a different goal, they would prefer their
>>     >> software get used even if it means users cannot edit it. For me if
>>     >> users cannot edit the software then it might as well be proprietary,
>>     >> and proprietary software licenses often include large bundles of
>>     cash.
>>     >> So my price sheet would look like: A: lots of power to the users, or
>>     >> B: lots of cash to me.
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> Daniel
>>     >> PS: Michael, you might be thinking of how Apache 2 is not compatible
>>     >> with GPLv2 since it includes restrictions on patents. While the
>>     Apache
>>     >> foundation says that Apache 2.0 -> GPLv3 is compatible:
>>     >> https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
>>     >> PPS: I understand where everyone is coming form, and I don't
>>     think any
>>     >> of you are wrong or evil. I don't want to hurt anyone with my
>>     words or
>>     >> actions. I hope this email layed out why I picked GPLv3
>>     >> PPPS: I do understand that someone from the BSD side of open source
>>     >> may think that I'm greedy, but please understand my preference is for
>>     >> user freedom over the cash.
>>     >>
>>     >> 2014-06-25 10:24 GMT-06:00 Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com
>>     <mailto:msweet at apple.com>>:
>>     >> > Daniel,
>>     >> >
>>     >> > Unless you plan on filing patents for the work you've done for
>>     IPP USB,
>>     >> > the patent protections of GPL3 simply do not apply.  (and the
>>     reason why
>>     >> > corporations don't like the GPL3 patent provisions is because
>>     they are
>>     >> > overly broad - use GPL3 software and you may be giving away
>>     your rights to
>>     >> > assert your patents, even for defensive purposes...)
>>     >> >
>>     >> > Similarly, DRM is a non-issue - IPP USB involves no DRM and (I
>>     assume)
>>     >> > you are not incorporating a blob or non-open code signing
>>     mechanism.  Any
>>     >> > operating system mechanism falls under the "standard system
>>     library/service"
>>     >> > clauses.
>>     >> >
>>     >> > What may be an issue is future contributions - GPL2+ is
>>     generally OK but
>>     >> > GPL3 will assure that few corporations allow their devs to help
>>     out for fear
>>     >> > of "contamination".  Apache is not GPL3-compatible.  2-clause
>>     BSD and MIT
>>     >> > are GPL3 compatible but don't prevent people from taking your
>>     work and doing
>>     >> > something non-free with it.
>>     >> >
>>     >> > So in my mind the best choices (the ones that will create the
>>     fewest
>>     >> > problems long-term) are GPL2+ or BSD/MIT.
>>     >> >
>>     >> > But perhaps the best people to ask are the lawyers at the
>>     various Linux
>>     >> > distros - they are the ones that need to distribute your work,
>>     and if you
>>     >> > choose a license they are not comfortable with then it won't be
>>     included in
>>     >> > the distros.
>>     >> >
>>     >> >
>>     >> > On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:05 PM, Daniel Dressler
>>     >> > <danieru.dressler at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:danieru.dressler at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>     >> >
>>     >> >> Hello everyone
>>     >> >>
>>     >> >> I just wanted to chime in and explain why I picked GPLv3.
>>     >> >>
>>     >> >> The two big reasons is that the GPLv2 does not handle DRM and
>>     patents.
>>     >> >> Which is understandable since version 2 was written before DRM was
>>     >> >> enforceable by law and before software patents were common.
>>     >> >>
>>     >> >> Now I'm not a lawyer but I have read the GPLv3 license. The
>>     license
>>     >> >> handles patents by requiring a patent license to cover the
>>     software.
>>     >> >> Which just means that if software A violates patent B and a
>>     developer
>>     >> >> for company C contributes to software A then patent B must be
>>     licensed
>>     >> >> to users of software A. With some extra details: that company
>>     C that
>>     >> >> patent B, and any new patents or new additions to the software
>>     do not
>>     >> >> create further obligations to license father patents.
>>     >> >>
>>     >> >> The purpose of the GPLv3's patent clauses is to prevent
>>     someone from
>>     >> >> distributing code and then placing further restrictions on the
>>     user.
>>     >> >> The GPLv3 is very similar to Apache 2 in regards to patents. With
>>     >> >> Apache 2 being Google's and Microsoft's preferred license as
>>     of late.
>>     >> >>
>>     >> >> DRM meanwhile is the bigger sticking point for corporations.
>>     This is
>>     >> >> also where there is controversy. My reading of the GPLv3 made
>>     me think
>>     >> >> it is okay to encrypt and check signatures of operating system
>>     images
>>     >> >> and updates provided the user can get their own images and updates
>>     >> >> installed. Which as a user an unlocked android this is a feature I
>>     >> >> like.
>>     >> >>
>>     >> >> In short I think GPLv3 does a better job of guaranteeing the
>>     user's
>>     >> >> freedoms.
>>     >> >>
>>     >> >> Now, any code in my presentation at the summit will be CC0,
>>     likewise
>>     >> >> any contributions to other projects as part of integrating
>>     ippusbxd
>>     >> >> will be under those project's existing licenses.
>>     >> >>
>>     >> >> Daniel
>>     >> >>
>>     >> >> PS: ippusbxd only links with libusb, a lgpl system library. I
>>     cannot
>>     >> >> think of something we could gain by switching to GPLv2. Apple
>>     already
>>     >> >> has their ippusbd and I doubt Microsoft is interested in using
>>     mine =)
>>     >> >> Even if one of them was interested I expect they would want to
>>     >> >> negotiate a more corporate friendly license than even GPLv2.
>>     >> >> PPS: The MIT and BSD licenses do not handle patents which I'd say
>>     >> >> makes them unreliable. The Apache 2 license is better if you
>>     want a
>>     >> >> non-copyleft license.
>>     >> >>
>>     >> >> 2014-06-25 8:26 GMT-06:00 Till Kamppeter
>>     <till.kamppeter at gmail.com <mailto:till.kamppeter at gmail.com>>:
>>     >> >>> Should we do GPL2+ then or better something non-GPL (like
>>     MIT, BSD,
>>     >> >>> ...)
>>     >> >>> to get maximum flexibility?
>>     >> >>>
>>     >> >>>   Till
>>     >> >>>
>>     >> >>> On 06/25/2014 01:09 PM, Michael Sweet wrote:
>>     >> >>>> GPL3 is a poison pill for most corporations, thanks to the
>>     draconian
>>     >> >>>> patent terms and generally unfriendly stance towards any
>>     other OSS license.
>>     >> >>>> Apple has a blanket policy of not allowing any GPL3/LGPL3
>>     use without
>>     >> >>>> special authorization, and an absolute prohibition of
>>     inclusion of
>>     >> >>>> GPL3/LGPL3 licensed software or documentation in any products.
>>     >> >>>
>>     >> >>>
>>     >> >>> _______________________________________________
>>     >> >>> Printing-architecture mailing list
>>     >> >>> Printing-architecture at lists.linux-foundation.org
>>     <mailto:Printing-architecture at lists.linux-foundation.org>
>>     >> >>>
>>     >> >>>
>>     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
>>     >> >> _______________________________________________
>>     >> >> Printing-architecture mailing list
>>     >> >> Printing-architecture at lists.linux-foundation.org
>>     <mailto:Printing-architecture at lists.linux-foundation.org>
>>     >> >>
>>     >> >>
>>     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
>>     >> >
>>     >> > _________________________________________________________
>>     >> > Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>>     >> >
>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>     >> Printing-architecture mailing list
>>     >> Printing-architecture at lists.linux-foundation.org
>>     <mailto:Printing-architecture at lists.linux-foundation.org>
>>     >>
>>     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
>>     >
>>     >
>>
>>
>


More information about the Printing-architecture mailing list