Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[Till Kamppeter]

On 06/12/2014 02:45 AM, James Cloos wrote:
> I though I sent a note about this earlier, but it looks like i did not.
> 
> When Daniel and I spoke before coding started, he said he wants to
> release the code under GPL3.
> 
> Given cups' and cups-filters' licensing, is that acceptable to LF?
> 

I am free in licensing the code of the OpenPrinting projects. LF is not
requiring anything special.

> Even though I am a GNU maintainer, and thus support gpl3, I was
> concerned about the compatibility issues, but could not dissuade him.
> 

GPL3 or GPL3+ is OK for me if it does not conflict with the use of any
of the libraries used by ippusbxd.

I suggest to get some more opinions on the printing-architecture list.
Therefore I am CCing the list now.

   Till

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[Michael Sweet]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1459 bytes --]

Till,

GPL3 is fine when linking against libcups (LGPL2).  I'm not 100% sure about the other libraries he'll need to use.

That said, I am not a fan of the GPL3 and would prefer this be released under GPL2.


On Jun 24, 2014, at 2:35 PM, Till Kamppeter <till.kamppeter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 06/12/2014 02:45 AM, James Cloos wrote:
>> I though I sent a note about this earlier, but it looks like i did not.
>> 
>> When Daniel and I spoke before coding started, he said he wants to
>> release the code under GPL3.
>> 
>> Given cups' and cups-filters' licensing, is that acceptable to LF?
>> 
> 
> I am free in licensing the code of the OpenPrinting projects. LF is not
> requiring anything special.
> 
>> Even though I am a GNU maintainer, and thus support gpl3, I was
>> concerned about the compatibility issues, but could not dissuade him.
>> 
> 
> GPL3 or GPL3+ is OK for me if it does not conflict with the use of any
> of the libraries used by ippusbxd.
> 
> I suggest to get some more opinions on the printing-architecture list.
> Therefore I am CCing the list now.
> 
>   Till
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Printing-architecture mailing list
> Printing-architecture@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair


[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4881 bytes --]

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[Ira McDonald]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2468 bytes --]

Hi Till,

I agree with Mike about preferring GPL2 over GPL3, from comments
from some of my colleagues at printer and OS vendors.

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@gmail.com
Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434



On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote:

> Till,
>
> GPL3 is fine when linking against libcups (LGPL2).  I'm not 100% sure
> about the other libraries he'll need to use.
>
> That said, I am not a fan of the GPL3 and would prefer this be released
> under GPL2.
>
>
> On Jun 24, 2014, at 2:35 PM, Till Kamppeter <till.kamppeter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 06/12/2014 02:45 AM, James Cloos wrote:
> >> I though I sent a note about this earlier, but it looks like i did not.
> >>
> >> When Daniel and I spoke before coding started, he said he wants to
> >> release the code under GPL3.
> >>
> >> Given cups' and cups-filters' licensing, is that acceptable to LF?
> >>
> >
> > I am free in licensing the code of the OpenPrinting projects. LF is not
> > requiring anything special.
> >
> >> Even though I am a GNU maintainer, and thus support gpl3, I was
> >> concerned about the compatibility issues, but could not dissuade him.
> >>
> >
> > GPL3 or GPL3+ is OK for me if it does not conflict with the use of any
> > of the libraries used by ippusbxd.
> >
> > I suggest to get some more opinions on the printing-architecture list.
> > Therefore I am CCing the list now.
> >
> >   Till
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Printing-architecture mailing list
> > Printing-architecture@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@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4065 bytes --]

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[Till Kamppeter]

What are the advantages of GPL2 against GPL3?

   Till

On 06/24/2014 09:27 PM, Ira McDonald wrote:
> Hi Till,
> 
> I agree with Mike about preferring GPL2 over GPL3, from comments
> from some of my colleagues at printer and OS vendors.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com
> <mailto:msweet@apple.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Till,
> 
>     GPL3 is fine when linking against libcups (LGPL2).  I'm not 100%
>     sure about the other libraries he'll need to use.
> 
>     That said, I am not a fan of the GPL3 and would prefer this be
>     released under GPL2.

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[James Cloos]

>>>>> "TK" == Till Kamppeter <till.kamppeter@gmail.com> writes:

TK> What are the advantages of GPL2 against GPL3?

That really should be 2+ vs 3+, just to be clear.

(gpl2-only cannot link against gpl3, gpl3+, lgpl3+, agpl3 or agpl3+ code
unless the latter has a linking-permitted clause.)

2+ vs 3+ is mostly about some entities wanting to avoid 3 at all costs.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[Johannes Meixner]

Hello,

On Jun 24 15:27 Ira McDonald wrote (excerpt):
> I agree with Mike about preferring GPL2 over GPL3, from comments
> from some of my colleagues at printer and OS vendors.
...
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote:
>> ... I am not a fan of the GPL3 and would prefer this be released
>> under GPL2.

Also SUSE/openSUSE in general prefer GPL2 over GPL3.

But I am neither a licensing expert nor a lawyer so that I cannot
tell you the reasoning behind (if needed I can get you in
contact with an expert at SUSE/openSUSE).


Kind Regards
Johannes Meixner
-- 
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH -- Maxfeldstrasse 5 -- 90409 Nuernberg -- Germany
HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendoerffer

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[Michael Sweet]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1189 bytes --]

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.


On Jun 24, 2014, at 3:56 PM, Till Kamppeter <till.kamppeter@gmail.com> wrote:

> What are the advantages of GPL2 against GPL3?
> 
>   Till
> 
> On 06/24/2014 09:27 PM, Ira McDonald wrote:
>> Hi Till,
>> 
>> I agree with Mike about preferring GPL2 over GPL3, from comments
>> from some of my colleagues at printer and OS vendors.
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com
>> <mailto:msweet@apple.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>    Till,
>> 
>>    GPL3 is fine when linking against libcups (LGPL2).  I'm not 100%
>>    sure about the other libraries he'll need to use.
>> 
>>    That said, I am not a fan of the GPL3 and would prefer this be
>>    released under GPL2.
> 

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair


[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4881 bytes --]

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[Till Kamppeter]

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.

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[Daniel Dressler]

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@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@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[Michael Sweet]

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@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@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@lists.linux-foundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
> _______________________________________________
> Printing-architecture mailing list
> Printing-architecture@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[Daniel Dressler]

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@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@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@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@lists.linux-foundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
>> _______________________________________________
>> Printing-architecture mailing list
>> Printing-architecture@lists.linux-foundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[Ira McDonald]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9538 bytes --]

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@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 1:36 PM, Daniel Dressler <danieru.dressler@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@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@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@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@lists.linux-foundation.org
> >>>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Printing-architecture mailing list
> >> Printing-architecture@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@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12449 bytes --]

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[Daniel Dressler]

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@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@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 1:36 PM, Daniel Dressler
> <danieru.dressler@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@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@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@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@lists.linux-foundation.org
>> >>>
>> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Printing-architecture mailing list
>> >> Printing-architecture@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@lists.linux-foundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
>
>

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[Ira McDonald]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 12994 bytes --]

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@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@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@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@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 1:36 PM, Daniel Dressler
> > <danieru.dressler@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@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@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@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@lists.linux-foundation.org
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Printing-architecture mailing list
> >> >> Printing-architecture@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@lists.linux-foundation.org
> >>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
> >
> >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 17837 bytes --]

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[Daniel Dressler]

Ira thank you for mentioning the certification tools and you raise a good point.

Thank you also for mentioning that GPLv3 has caused problems for
developers. I appreciate that companies are taking complacence
seriously. I guess all I can offer is that if they download and use a
Ubuntu ISO, plugin their printer, if it does not work I would have no
problem if they send very generic bugs reports since they cannot dig
deeper.

Daniel
PS: If anyone is reading and is worried that they cannot use ippusbxd
when combined with company policy I would love if you contacted me, we
might be able to talk something out.

2014-06-25 15:28 GMT-06:00 Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>:
> 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@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@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@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@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 1:36 PM, Daniel Dressler
>> > <danieru.dressler@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@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@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@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@lists.linux-foundation.org
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> Printing-architecture mailing list
>> >> >> Printing-architecture@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@lists.linux-foundation.org
>> >>
>> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
>> >
>> >
>
>

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[Till Kamppeter]

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@gmail.com <mailto:blueroofmusic@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@gmail.com <mailto:danieru.dressler@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@gmail.com
>     <mailto:blueroofmusic@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@gmail.com <mailto:blueroofmusic@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@gmail.com <mailto:danieru.dressler@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@apple.com
>     <mailto:msweet@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@gmail.com
>     <mailto:danieru.dressler@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@gmail.com <mailto:till.kamppeter@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@lists.linux-foundation.org
>     <mailto:Printing-architecture@lists.linux-foundation.org>
>     >> >>>
>     >> >>>
>     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
>     >> >> _______________________________________________
>     >> >> Printing-architecture mailing list
>     >> >> Printing-architecture@lists.linux-foundation.org
>     <mailto:Printing-architecture@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@lists.linux-foundation.org
>     <mailto:Printing-architecture@lists.linux-foundation.org>
>     >>
>     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
>     >
>     >
> 
> 

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[Daniel Dressler]

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@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@gmail.com <mailto:blueroofmusic@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@gmail.com <mailto:danieru.dressler@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@gmail.com
>>     <mailto:blueroofmusic@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@gmail.com <mailto:blueroofmusic@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@gmail.com <mailto:danieru.dressler@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@apple.com
>>     <mailto:msweet@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@gmail.com
>>     <mailto:danieru.dressler@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@gmail.com <mailto:till.kamppeter@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@lists.linux-foundation.org
>>     <mailto:Printing-architecture@lists.linux-foundation.org>
>>     >> >>>
>>     >> >>>
>>     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
>>     >> >> _______________________________________________
>>     >> >> Printing-architecture mailing list
>>     >> >> Printing-architecture@lists.linux-foundation.org
>>     <mailto:Printing-architecture@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@lists.linux-foundation.org
>>     <mailto:Printing-architecture@lists.linux-foundation.org>
>>     >>
>>     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-architecture
>>     >
>>     >
>>
>>
>

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[Michael Sweet]

Daniel,

On Jun 25, 2014, at 5:14 PM, Daniel Dressler <danieru.dressler@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.

You wouldn't use it on the printer side, but you *would* use it to test your printer implementation.

> 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 can see Android and ChromeOS supporting IPP USB.

And don't forget the BSD-derived operating systems.  And Solaris.

> 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.

I can only state that Apple legal is leery of even allowing employees to run GPL3 code - while the GPL3 isn't a typical EULA, the output of a GPL3 program or library can also fall under the GPL3 terms - some GNU software has disclaimers/exceptions for output, but not all.

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[Daniel Dressler]

Hello Everyone

I'm worried we're having a "color of the bikeshed" discussion.

We've hit many major trade offs to strong copyleft. Please understand
I think the GPLv3 best fulfils my intentions.

If someone needs a disclaimer or exception to test against ippusbxd
please contact me.

Daniel

PS: I also hope Android and ChromeOS will have IPP over USB support.
If anyone is interested in that or knows anything about it please do
contact me.

2014-06-25 19:59 GMT-06:00 Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>:
> Daniel,
>
> On Jun 25, 2014, at 5:14 PM, Daniel Dressler <danieru.dressler@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.
>
> You wouldn't use it on the printer side, but you *would* use it to test your printer implementation.
>
>> 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 can see Android and ChromeOS supporting IPP USB.
>
> And don't forget the BSD-derived operating systems.  And Solaris.
>
>> 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.
>
> I can only state that Apple legal is leery of even allowing employees to run GPL3 code - while the GPL3 isn't a typical EULA, the output of a GPL3 program or library can also fall under the GPL3 terms - some GNU software has disclaimers/exceptions for output, but not all.
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>

Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license

[Daniel Dressler]

With some thought maybe I've been too much of a stick in the mud.

If I ask myself "what would it take for me to want to release ippusbxd
under a non-copyleft license", my answer is adoption of IPP by
Android.

I think Android has been a massive boon to user freedoms. Yet they did
it by allowing but discouraging restriction of user freedoms by phone
manufacturers. The final result has been more freedoms for the users.
There was a time where it looked like every Android phone would be
locked at the bootloader. Now the major manufacturers have simple
unlock procedures.

In short: I am very interested in working with anyone brining IPP to
Android and re-licensing ippusbxd is included in that offer.

Daniel

2014-06-26 1:59 GMT-06:00 Daniel Dressler <danieru.dressler@gmail.com>:
> Hello Everyone
>
> I'm worried we're having a "color of the bikeshed" discussion.
>
> We've hit many major trade offs to strong copyleft. Please understand
> I think the GPLv3 best fulfils my intentions.
>
> If someone needs a disclaimer or exception to test against ippusbxd
> please contact me.
>
> Daniel
>
> PS: I also hope Android and ChromeOS will have IPP over USB support.
> If anyone is interested in that or knows anything about it please do
> contact me.
>
> 2014-06-25 19:59 GMT-06:00 Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>:
>> Daniel,
>>
>> On Jun 25, 2014, at 5:14 PM, Daniel Dressler <danieru.dressler@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.
>>
>> You wouldn't use it on the printer side, but you *would* use it to test your printer implementation.
>>
>>> 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 can see Android and ChromeOS supporting IPP USB.
>>
>> And don't forget the BSD-derived operating systems.  And Solaris.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I can only state that Apple legal is leery of even allowing employees to run GPL3 code - while the GPL3 isn't a typical EULA, the output of a GPL3 program or library can also fall under the GPL3 terms - some GNU software has disclaimers/exceptions for output, but not all.
>>
>> _________________________________________________________
>> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>>