Slashdot Mirror
Epson Pulls Linux Software Following GPL Violations
ChrisWong writes "GPL violations has caused Epson to yank their free downloads of their ImageScan! and Photo Image Print System software for Linux. While one can use xsane instead of their ImageScan! software, the latter is easier to use and produces subjectively more attractive output."
One of the popular Jabber clients PSI has also found some company has used their source in a closed source product, they are in talks w/ the co. and FSF.
/. I think it was an mpeg codec or something, my memory fials me (and so did a quick /. search)
I find their poll (Is the GPL inforcable) an interesting one you may want to vote on.
I also remember read about another GPL violation on
I haven't used the software in question, but I'm glad Epson decided to act responsible with respect to the GPL. Thing is, don't you wonder how Epson got in trouble with the FSF to begin with? The GPL was violated. I'm wondering which scenario is more likely:
(A) Joe Developer knowingly doesn't tell his boss that his software is based on GPL software and passes it off as original.
(B) Joe Developer tries release software under the GPL but either his boss or marketing droids don't give a rats ass about it and release it as Epson proprietary.
When the GPL denies users access to something useful, because it generates the impression that the GPL is anti-user. (Trolls and dumb modders, note that I didn't say the GPL was anti-user, but that these types of incidents create that impression).
This is unfortunately the kind of thinking Microsoft would love to perpertuate and here they didn't have to raise a finger or spend a cent.
Just providing a viewpoint from outside the GNU rules! Linux-uber-alles camp...
---
Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.
A very good point that many people don't understand. The GPL doesn't apply unless you agree to it. It isn't an EULA that you need to agree to in order to simply -touch- the software. It's simply an attached agreement allowing you to -modify- and -distribute- the software. It grants you extra rights if you agree to the terms. If you don't agree, you don't get those rights, and then normal copyright restrictions apply.
So the worst thing that could happen to them is they get sued for copyright violation. Being forced to release their source is highly unlikely no matter if they lost or not. Though really, I think the way it's being dealt with is the best way.
The enemies of Democracy are
Until I read this on slashdot. I didnt even know that Epson had written any scanner software for Linux. Next time I go to buy a scanner, I'll now seriously consider Epson. That is providing their Linux products come back into action. Any publicity is good publicity?? G.
I've never used the Epson-produced / labeled software, but XSane is one of the best, easiest scanning programs I've ever seen / used.
And since I think most software interfaces are terrible, maybe it's just that I'm a dummy with exactly umgekehrt tastes in software, but what exactly does / did the Epson software do better?
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
They may have contractual obligations that prevent them from releasing the source.
They may have licensed patents from someone else, and used them in the software. That would make it incompatible with the GPL.
Maybe they are planning on releasing the source, but needed to do an audit on it first, to make sure they were legally allowed to release it all.
I know this is slashdot, but you don't have to jump everytime a conclusion passes by.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Like Sun with Java on the desktop, the GPL tries to tightly regulate what can and can't be done source code. Like Java on the desktop the GPL will eventually whither and die because who wants to deal with that bureaucratic BULLSHIT? Either code is free (BSD) or it isn't. Restricting developer's freedoms to use the source code how they see fight is wrong.
I have released code under the GPL, and seeing as it is my code, I feel no compunction about doing it. Furthermore, I like the fact that if someone improves the program, I get the improvements back if I want them. Furthermore, when I modify someone else's GPL'ed code, I am usually champing at the bit to give my modifications back to the author so everyone can benefit.
Look at it this way - I've already done the work on the code, so what is the effort of sending a diff to the author by comparison. I might even get a bit of fame out of it.
---
Judging from the way Epson deals with GPL/opensource and Linux I made the decision that my next printer will be an Epson. Even though they made a mistake - they seem to be attempting to correct it and Im sure that there will be a good solution to this shortly. /m