Re: [Lcms-user] foundation for littleCMS ?
An ICC-based CMM for color management
Brought to you by:
mm2
From: Bob F. <bfr...@si...> - 2005-10-19 14:42:49
|
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Jan-Peter Homann wrote: > Hello list, hello Bob and Marti > --- > I=B4m just observing the colormanagement market. Actually littleCMS has g= rown=20 > up to a status, that is comparable or even better than e.g. > - Microsoft ICM > - AppleCMM > - AdobeCMM > - KodakCMM > - EFICMM It has held this esteemed status for a number of years now. > Now, commercial companies are using it for free, without giving back=20 > something to Marti or the open-source community. Is using Little CMS for free a problem? It is something that the=20 license was recently changed to help support. While there are commercial companies (mySQL was mentioned, but Alladin=20 Ghostscript, and TrollTech's Qt are other examples) which require=20 licensing their product for commercial use, Little CMS does not appear=20 to follow these money-grubbing principles. > The future of littleCMS is clearly in the hand of Marti, because it is hi= s=20 > project, and he wrote more or less 100% of the code. But legal issues can= =20 > also be important to projects which are using littleCMS. Legal issues can certainly be important. Let's take care to not=20 exchange one legal issue for another. In order for Marti and Little=20 CMS to be protected by a "foundation" that foundation must be legally=20 incorporated, with a board of directors, quarterly meetings,=20 profit/loss statement, audits, etc., and Marti must sign away=20 ownership of Little CMS to that foundation. By selling Little CMS to=20 the foundation, Marti is no longer responsible for legal issues=20 related to Little CMS except for as pertains to his membership in the=20 foundation. This does not in fact protect users of Little CMS. > 5 years later, BEST was selling worldwide the highest quantity of digital= =20 > proofing solutions. > One big issue at BEST was the question, which CMM they should licence, th= at=20 > they are shure, that the owner of the CMM has strong enough patents not = to=20 > be suited by EFI or others. Most open source organizations abhor patents. Patents are the bane of=20 open source. While it is true that that the "foundation" could file=20 for many patents (like a large corporation) and have a substantial=20 arsenal of patents by which they could counter-sue (and would also=20 have to sue to protect), it is philosophically contrary to the goals=20 of most open source and public-interest organizations (see=20 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fighting-software-patents.html and=20 http://www.eff.org/patent/). It is like an anti-gun organization=20 heavily arming themselves with guns so that it can fight the=20 organizations which are pro-gun. > So legal issues concerning littleCMM are also legal issues for projects,= =20 > which make use of littleCMS. Yes, of course. They always will be. As far as patents go there is=20 nothing to be done about that. The most that can be gained by selling=20 Little CMS to an umbrella organization is to ensure that any lawsuits=20 don't impact Marti's pocketbook. However, commercial users of Little=20 CMS are far more at risk than Marti since they are selling a product. Bob =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Bob Friesenhahn bfr...@si..., http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ |