[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [hackers-il] Stallman's Printer Driver Test (was: RE: making anon-GPLed module)
- To: <hackers-il(at-nospam)yahoogroups.com>
- Subject: Re: [hackers-il] Stallman's Printer Driver Test (was: RE: making anon-GPLed module)
- From: Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir(at-nospam)technion.ac.il>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:42:20 +0200 (IST)
- cc: linux ILUG <linux-il(at-nospam)linux.org.il>
- Delivered-To: linux.org.il-linux-il@linux.org.il
- In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSU.4.30_heb2.09.0111281310070.7326-100000@actcom.co.il>
- Sender: linux-il-bounce(at-nospam)cs.huji.ac.il
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Omer Zak wrote:
> There is a discussion about GPL related issues in the Linux-IL mailing
> list, and since my point is not Linux-specific, I suggest to move the
> discussion (if any) to Hackers-IL.
>
> Everyone, who read the history of FSP, knows that Stallman started the
> free software idea after having encountered a problem with a printer
> driver.He bought a new printer. The printer's driver lacked a feature,
> which he needed very much in order to be able to use the printer in his
> network.He tried to get the printer driver modified to include this
> feature.But the company, which produced the printer, refused to fix the
> driver (low priority for them), or to give him the source code so that he
> can fix the driver himself.
>
> As a result, Stallman was forced to buy another printer.
>
> In view of the above, I suggest that every time someone argues about the
> merits of GPL, LGPL etc., Stallman's Printer Driver Test be applied, where
> the test is:
> Suppose Stallman's printer driver were licensed under the terms in
> question, would Stallman have been able to have the driver fixed according
> to his needs?And once the driver was fixed, would Stallman have been
> able to share the fix with other people, who bought the same printer and
> need the same fix to the driver?
There is also the issue of commercial re-distribution.
Consider an example that is related to printers, in a way:
So how do you consider, for instance, APFL GhostScript?
Background: Ghostscript is develped by a company called Aladin. The latest
version is available under a license called AFPL (Aladin Free Public
License). It basically allows you to do anything you like with it, except
selling it.
Aladin also makes older versions of GS available under the GNU GPL. This
is Gnu Ghostscript.
All major linux distros include Gnu Ghostscript. But what would have
happened if Aladin wouldn't have had such a policy?
AFPL Ghostscript and other programs with "almost free" licenses (pine,
qmail) certainly pass the Stallman Printer Driver Test. RMS could have
made his
modifications available as patches. Anyone else can download the original
sources and patch them.
But in a way they do limit:
Compare the installation of Qmail and Djbdns to the installation of
Sendmail and Bind . All for four programs are not trivial to set-up. but
sendmail and bind got added to some major linux distros, and as a result,
setting them up has become easier. Linux vendors tend to put in some
patches that they think are useful (even if the original package
maintainer thinks otherwise. Sometimes the original maintainer isn't
right). This can save you a whole bunch of troubles when setting up the
package.
So this test not perfect...
--
Tzafrir Cohen
mailto:tzafrir@technion.ac.il
http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to linux-il-request@linux.org.il with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail linux-il-request@linux.org.il