[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