Re: [hpoj-devel] new I/O driver coming soon (second try)

[Christopher Y. <cy...@wc...>]

I have a few reservations about HP holding the copyright to the entire 
codebase.  I would personally feel better if at least one complete 
release is released completely under the GPL without any furthur 
limitations.

My reasoning for taking this position is simple.  If HP owns the 
copyright to all of the code, they have the authority (PLEASE!  Someone 
correct me if I am wrong) to take future releases of the code and change 
the license.  This was done with SSH if I remember correctly and thus 
was formed the OpenSSH project.  There is now a huge debate about 
trademarking issues in that arena as a result of a licensing change made 
to open source code.

I don't wish to hurt the development of software that I believe makes 
Linux more attractive and allows some really good, useful hardware to be 
available to Linux users.  I just worry about commercial companies 
controlling Free Software code in this manner.

If we have one release that is completely GPL (and without copyright 
restrictions), then the community can decide to fork off the code and 
not have to get permission from HP to change licensing (if ever there 
arose a need to do so - new version of GPL, the need to license certain 
pieces under LGPL).  Changing the license would of course require all of 
the ppl who have contributed code (which should be tracked properly in 
the AUTHORS/LICENSE files) but at least the community could make that 
decision without limitations.

I'm not an expert on licensing and the GPL, but I think my concerns are 
valid.  Again, I don't wish to limit anything, just would like this 
issue to at least be debated a little bit.  I reiterate that I am not a 
licensing/copyright expert and would very much appreciate someone who 
can provide some insight into the potenial issues to speak up.

Chris

PASCHAL,DAVID (HP-Roseville,ex1) wrote:

> (Sorry, I accidentally pressed Ctrl-Enter ("Send" in Outlook) before I was
> done writing this message!  Let's try this again, and please disregard the
> previous partial message...)
> 
> 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).  I will send out another announcement when that's done to
> give people an opportunity to start playing around with it, but I will still
> have some additional development to do before I can put out 0.8.
> Nevertheless, printing and scanning already work well over both parallel and
> USB.
> 
> 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 the MLC/1284.4 transport) 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 to facilitate further updates.  I plan to handle this
> issue by requiring people who contribute changes to the transport portion of
> 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.
> 
> Keep in mind that the intent here is not to take unfair advantage of
> anybody's efforts.  In addition to making it easier for me to maintain, it
> also makes it easier for HP to defend against copyright infringement;
> otherwise, we would have to get every copyright holder to become involved.
> 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.  Hopefully that won't be necessary, but
> there's nothing wrong with it.  In any case, as the gatekeeper of both
> versions of the code I will need to be fairly conservative about what
> changes I accept to the MLC/1284.4 portion of ptal-mlcd, so this issue may
> not come up much or at all anyway.
> 
> 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, and it may apply to the entirety 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 my
> involvement is finally becoming officially sponsored by HP, as opposed to
> its being a personal project the way it has been for me so far.  Most of the
> other code (ieee12844, ojlib, apps/print, and apps/cmdline) will go away in
> 0.8 (being replaced by PTAL equivalents), so there won't be any question
> about that in the first place.  The only remaining part of the codebase that
> I didn't develop would be xojpanel.  I think it will be fine to keep the
> copyright on xojpanel the way it is currently (unless Joe and Andreas really
> want to transfer it).
> 
> Thanks in advance for any comments on these matters, and stay tuned for the
> actual code in the near future, assuming there isn't so much dissent here
> that I have to go back to the drawing board.  :-)
> 
> 
> 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 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.
> 
> 
> Hi, Anthony.  I would recommend against trying to back-port the "parport"
> code into 2.0.  It also might be kind of tricky to upgrade the kernel on
> your system, because you might need to upgrade various other system-level
> utilities as well.  If you want this to work right away you could upgrade
> your entire system to a more recent version of RedHat or another
> distribution.  However, I think you would be better off waiting for the new
> driver (see above).  That way you can help test it on kernel 2.0.  Also,
> please subscribe to hpoj-announce and hpoj-devel if you haven't already so
> that you can fully participate in testing and debugging.
> 
> David

-- 

Christopher M. Young,
SCSA, RHCE, MSCE, CCNA, CCA

PTC/GTC Systems Engineer,
World Commerce Online
cy...@wc...