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 > > > > >