From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ePynOoAdMvKtIH/lB9cPOaCxhIQzptOTFqzCY/t1GX8=; b=O2eCYEkvjhqoxQCvJK8/0B7lujodjolAs9YbmYc1Q9ZLLX3zsW5jlyCzTvxYPSZzCL l7mIDRT4jiIzyZvawaqiOcIhdGIhukzeyqqpqizqpE5jgCJdp9CPzMteDkVi5m1BhgFV te0fK8437wXeQzHNCVcy2H1RehM9mjmWmU7mLpVsTvJoUOyhhgi228rWcvAScp7vd3Tf 7lpN7cIa3G1620iRkU6JJkf+5T3MogPqA8yeEKyCF2G4vXt/KP5Rg0zZO/J4XsxtcJqe Oc1Z11ssbLFyDHPGMUONubdXzRu+WWkA0E+maDXAaP/0ycvxqTTITpXZOCDmf2Li7I/K qQ3g== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <53A9C50D.4000306@gmail.com> <53A9D7F0.1010909@gmail.com> <7231748A-31C3-4C70-9C91-19437661D464@apple.com> <53AADC12.50705@gmail.com> <94101C68-DC20-420E-8C93-AAC754638926@apple.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:42:37 -0600 Message-ID: From: Daniel Dressler Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Printing-architecture] ippusbd license List-Id: Printing architecture under linux List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Ira McDonald Cc: "printing-architecture@lists.linux-foundation.org" , Till Kamppeter 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 : > 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 > 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 : >> > 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 >> > 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 : >> >> > 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 >> >> > 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 : >> >> >>> 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 >> > >> > > >