[hpoj-devel] new I/O driver coming soon

[PASCHAL,DAVID (HP-Roseville,ex1) <dav...@hp...>]

Hi,

I am pleased to report that I have gotten permission from my management to
release the new user-mode I/O driver ("ptal-mlcd") I've been working on
lately.  There are still a few formalities I have to take care of first
before I can do that, but at this point I can say with fairly high
confidence that I will be able to start checking it into CVS within the next
2-4 weeks (or earlier if possible).  I just updated the web page, especially
http://hpoj.sourceforge.net/todo.shtml, to indicate the most recent plans.
The most significant changes include greatly improved stability, USB
support, and parallel-port support for probably any version of Linux (not
just 2.2 and 2.4).

In the meantime, I'd like to take this opportunity to solicit ideas and
feedback on a particular license/copyright issue.  I intend to license
ptal-mlcd under the GPL, as has been done already with the rest of the hpoj
package, to guarantee its status as free software.  The difference here is
that some of the code in ptal-mlcd (in particular, the portion that actually
implements MLC/1284.4) is also used by HP in non-GPL products.  That in and
of itself isn't a problem, since as the copyright holder HP may license the
code simultaneously under the GPL as well as under a traditional proprietary
license.  The problem arises when accepting contributions to this code from
outside of HP, because I need to be able to incorporate those changes into
the non-GPL version.  This makes my job much easier, since I'm responsible
for maintaining both versions, and I want to keep them consistent for now.
I plan to handle this issue by requiring people who contribute changes to
ptal-mlcd to assign copyright of the changes to HP, probably either by
signing and sending in a paper form agreeing to this (as Sun does with
http://openoffice.org), or by including with each submitted patch a canned
statement to this effect.

I would like to know if anybody has comments or concerns regarding this
copyright-assignment proposal.  At the very least it will apply to the
MLC/1284.4 portion of ptal-mlcd.  I haven't yet decided if it will apply to
other parts of the codebase that I (and by extension HP) contributed.
However, I personally am planning on transferring my copyrights (i.e. on
PTAL) to HP, since this i

Keep in mind that the intent is not to take unfair advantage of anybody's
efforts.  In addition to making 
, and it also makes it easier for HP to defend against copyright
infringement.


On the other hand, since this is GPL code, one would be perfectly free to
"fork" the code into a separate project and make their own changes without
contributing them directly to this project and assigning copyright to HP, as
long as they abide by the GPL.

David

Allen Barnett wrote:
> Subject: [hpoj-devel] Choice of Devices
> I'm trying to decide between an HP G85 and a G95 (which is 
> evidently the
> same machine as the G85, except you get a JetDirect 170 with it). I
> already have a B&W PostScript laser printer connected to my parallel
> port which I am loath to give up. So, I either need to be able to
> connect the new device to a USB port or get the G95 and connect it to
> the network. I have no real need currently for a networked printer,
> however. Also in the mix: I need to run a 2.4 kernel to support some
> other hardware and there (still?) appear to be some issues with its
> parallel port support.
> 
> I guess my question is: Is USB connectivity for the the G series going
> to happen in the next month or so, or should I go ahead and 
> get the G95.
> (Or better still, is there some way I could contribute to making this
> happen?)


Anthony.F.Segredo wrote:
> Subject: Linux 2.0.36 Officejet R40 support
> I am running the 2.0.36 kernel from the Redhat 5.2 distribution. I see 
> that the Officejet support is only for kernels 2.2.x and 2.4.x, is this 
> because of the parport driver? Is it possible that if I install and 
> build the parport source that the Officejet driver will work on 2.0.36?
> Where should your download code be rooted?
>
> I'm really pleased at the idea that I no longer have to put files in 
> the Windows partition to print them but am a little scared at the idea 
> of downloading and building the whole kernel although I have customized 
> and rebuilt the 2.0.36 kernel. I am a software professional but a Linux 
> newbie.