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."
fp for all the firefighters and police officers who died in 9/11
post first hi mom!
first post?
Anyone know what exactly the violation was?
goatsee
you say goatseh
he says goats
whos right?
here it is...
Says it all I think...
Well, damn. There isn't much else you can say.
Are we supposed to be mad at the Evil Corporation(tm) for violating the GPL, or dancing in the streets because Epson is taking proactive steps to remedy said GPL violations? Please, Slashdot, tell me how I'm supposed to think!
Nathan
Within the software industry, the recent clash of source-code licensing philosophies has proponents of commercial software and open-source advocates frequently at loggerheads. Both commercial and open-source software models, however, have demonstrated value for various sectors of the software market, which has determined that multiple licensing and distribution models should coexist in healthy competition. The market, in fact, is driving both camps toward a middle ground where the most beneficial aspects of both philosophies are embraced.
In May 2001, Microsoft® responded with a Shared Source Initiative (SSI) to provide source access to a broad range of customers, partners, independent developers, researchers and other interested individuals, while preserving the intellectual property rights that have sustained innovation throughout the industry over the past quarter-century. The SSI framework supports a spectrum of licensing programs, each tailored to the source-access needs of a specific constituent community. Meanwhile, prominent open-source developers began to adopt certain commercial distribution methods in their own pragmatic migration toward the middle. These developers commonly rely on open-source licenses, like those based on the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license, that place few if any restrictions on licensees' subsequent use of licensed source code, including its use in commercial software development.
Free software distributors, by contrast, use the highly restrictive GPL, which was created by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in furtherance of its philosophy that software should not be subject to ownership, and thus that commercial software is inherently immoral. The GPL governs distribution of some popular free software, including Linux. The GPL may be beneficial to noncommercial developers and certain licensees in other contexts, but several of the license's terms and uncertainties should raise red flags for commercial developers considering its use.
Because many businesses may not understand the GPL and its potential implications, Microsoft offers this document as a checklist and to provide important background information. Most or all of the following questions will be familiar to those who have examined the GPL. Many of them have generated considerable debate even among open-source and free-software advocates. Comments in this document are based on GPL Version 2, Lesser General Public License (LGPL) Version 2.1 and the GNU GPL FAQ page (www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html).
The GPL is a complicated agreement. To understand your potential rights and obligations, you must interpret the various provisions of the license and apply them to your particular circumstances. Microsoft recommends that you obtain legal counsel as appropriate. This document does not and cannot offer legal advice.
1. Have your lawyers read the GPL (and the LGPL)? Because the GPL is so frequently misunderstood and because it attempts, under certain circumstances, to impose significant obligations on licensees and their intellectual property rights, no responsible business should use GPL software without ensuring that its lawyers have read the license and explained the business' rights and obligations. They should also review and explain the Lesser General Public License, or LGPL, a related license that is sometimes used with open source libraries.
2. How are you using GPL software and what obligations does it impose? The obligations associated with the GPL vary substantially depending upon the way in which GPL code is used. Even limited or relatively obscure uses (e.g., including a few lines of GPL code in a commercial product or linking directly or indirectly to a GPL library) may have a dramatic effect on your legal rights and obligations. To understand the potential implications of the GPL, you need to have a detailed understanding of your use of GPL code. Basing any analysis upon a superficial understanding may present serious risks.
3. How does your use of GPL software affect your intellectual property rights? One of the most significant impacts of the GPL is its potential effect on your intellectual property rights. The GPL is widely referred to as 'viral' because it attempts to subject independently-created code (and associated intellectual property) to the terms of the GPL if it is used in certain ways together with GPL code (see Sections 2 and 3 of the GPL). For example, a business that combines and distributes GPL code with its own proprietary code may be obligated to share with the rest of the world valuable intellectual property (including patent) rights in both code bases on a royalty free basis. Other uses of GPL code may also create obligations for the user. It is important to perform a careful legal and technical review of this issue before using GPL software.
4. What if you are simply a customer, acquiring GPL software from other businesses? Does the GPL have any effect on your rights and obligations? Section 0 of the GPL says "[a]ctivities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted." So, a customer who only runs the Program should have no obligations to the author of the code under the GPL. As discussed below, however, such a customer also has no rights from the author (e.g., no assurance that the code is even free from "known" copyright infringement problems) and may have liabilities to third parties. If, on the other hand, the customer's use of GPL code involves even limited modification, copying or distribution of the code, the GPL arguably does impose obligations to the author, discussed above and below. In assessing this possibility, customers should carefully consider what the GPL means by "copying, modifying and distribution."
5. Can you develop applications for a GPL program, like Linux, without subjecting those applications to the GPL? This is a particularly important question. The answer will almost certainly depend upon a detailed analysis of the way in which the application was developed and distributed and will be subject to caveats regarding the interpretation and enforceability of the GPL. For example, the analysis will presumably involve a careful review of your development team's exposure to and use of GPL code during the development process, especially whether the application incorporated any such code or was otherwise derived from it. The analysis would also likely consider what libraries are used; how are they used (e.g., statically linked or dynamically linked); whether they, in turn, link to other libraries; and which licenses (GPL or LGPL) govern all of these various libraries. Similarly, the analysis would probably consider what header files are used; whether they, in turn, include other headers; and which licenses govern these various headers. In addition, the analysis would presumably consider whether the application is distributed with GPL code and, if so, how it is distributed and by whom.
6. Can distribution of your code with GPL code require you to license your code under the GPL? Have you combined your own code with code licensed under the GPL? The GPL attempts to address these questions directly. Section 2 of the GPL says that identifiable sections of a work that are not derived from a GPL program and that "can be reasonably considered independent and separate" are not subject to the GPL when distributed as separate works. But if these separate sections are distributed "as part of a whole which is a work based on" a GPL program, then this distribution of the "work as a whole" is subject to the GPL. Section 2 also says that a "mere aggregation of another work not based on the [GPL] Program on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License." A licensee is left with the difficult task of deciding whether a particular combination is a "work as a whole" (GPL infection apparently intended) or a "mere aggregation" (GPL infection disclaimed).
7. If your software becomes "infected" by the GPL, do you have to give it away for free? Section 3 of the GPL says that you can copy and distribute a GPL program (or a work based on such a program) in object code or executable form, subject to several restrictions. You are supposed to make the corresponding source code available, for example, by including the source code with the object code or offering to distribute it to any third party (Section 3). Section 1 says that you "may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy," but Section 2 says that you "must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from [a GPL] Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." The net effect is, apparently, that you are able to charge a fee for your software, but that right is significantly undercut by your obligation to give others (including your competitors) the right to distribute your software for free.
8. Are your obligations under the GPL "flexible" or "proportional" to your use of GPL code? Suppose Business A uses a few hundred lines of GPL code in its existing 500,000-line proprietary program and makes copies for its own employees or distributes ten copies of the modified program as a collective work. Suppose Business B combines 500,000 lines of GPL code with an existing 1000-line proprietary program and distributes 500,000 copies of the modified program as a collective work. The GPL may be read as to require both businesses to share the source code for their modified programs (including their existing commercial programs) and allow royalty-free redistribution of those programs. This is true despite the potentially dramatic differences in the volume, value and copies of the GPL code used.
9. Do you have all of the rights required to use GPL code? Could your use of GPL code cause you to infringe on the intellectual property rights associated with code you have licensed from others? The seemingly obvious answer to the first question is yes because those rights are provided under the GPL. The correct answer, however, may require more careful analysis. If, for example, you plan to combine and distribute GPL code with pre-existing code, the "viral" nature of the GPL may require you to provide source code for the pre-existing code to all third parties and license others to use it on a royalty-free basis (see Section 2). Unfortunately, if you licensed some of the pre-existing code from a third party, you may not even have access to the source code, much less the right to license it to the rest of the world on a royalty-free basis under the terms of the GPL.
10. Do you have any existing obligations that might preclude your use of GPL software? Could your use of GPL code put you in breach of existing contractual obligations? As noted above, the use of GPL code with code licensed from another party could, under certain circumstances, arguably obligate you to sublicense the other party's code under the GPL. If you expressly agreed not to attempt to sublicense the other party's code, you should consider whether your use of the GPL code presents a risk that breaches your earlier contract. Even if no breach occurs, the GPL includes provisions that may make it impossible for licensees to retain both their GPL rights and rights under other agreements. For example, Section 7 of the GPL says that if "conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this license, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all." Suppose Business A has developed a program using trade secret rights that were licensed from Business B under an agreement that prohibited their disclosure. Now assume that A uses GPL code in a way that "infects" its program. Section 7 apparently says that use of GPL code in such a program is impermissible. This places A in an untenable situation: unless it persuades B to divulge its trade secrets to the world, A must cease distribution of its program. This may be true even if A's use of GPL code is minimal.
11. Have you considered the risk that GPL code might infringe on third party intellectual property rights? Although it is always difficult for a business to ensure that acquired products do not infringe on third-party intellectual property rights, the risks associated with the use of GPL software may be substantially higher than those associated with commercial software. For example, given the distributed nature of open source development, you should understand what controls, if any, you have in place to screen unlicensed code or trade secret information from inclusion in the GPL program. This view is perhaps reinforced by the fact that Section 11 of the GPL expressly disclaims any warranties, including presumably a warranty that the program is free from infringements of third-party copyrights or trade secrets known to the contributor. You should also ask yourself if GPL developers may conclude that this disclaimer makes it okay to distribute code under the GPL when they know they don't have the rights required to do so. Developers of commercial software, in contrast, typically have procedures, contractual obligations, and a substantial financial stake in minimizing potential infringements.
12. What happens if an intellectual property owner, who claims that your use of GPL code infringes its intellectual property rights, sues you? As noted above, Section 11 suggests that you are "on your own" with respect to defense of the suit and payment for damages.
13. What is the extent of your liability for GPL-related infringements? Several provisions of the GPL may be read as requiring a GPL licensee to effectively sublicense its rights to the rest of the world (e.g., Section 2, relating to the modification and distribution of GPL works). GPL licensees should ask themselves whether, and to what extent, they might be responsible for the actions of their sub-licensees. For example, suppose Business A distributes a modified copy of GPL code to Businesses B, C, and D, and each of them further distributes 1000 copies. If Business A is sued for patent infringement relating to its use of GPL software, the patent owner might claim that the business is liable for direct infringement based upon the three copies distributed to Businesses B, C, and D and is further liable for direct, contributory, or induced infringement by the 3000 additional copies distributed by these businesses (and, of course, any and all later distributions by such businesses and their downstream sub-licensees). While actual liability would depend upon a host of factual issues, if Business A has deeper pockets than the other businesses, it should not be surprised to find plaintiff's counsel pursuing such an approach and claiming theoretically unlimited damages caused by Business A's limited initial distribution.
14. Can the author of a GPL program 'unilaterally' withdraw your right to distribute the program? Section 8 of the GPL gives "the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License" the right to preclude distribution in certain countries based on patents or interface copyrights. It is not clear that a licensee has any right to object to this restriction, which may be solely within the discretion of the original copyright holder. It is also not clear whether this restriction can be imposed retroactively, although Section 8 does say, "this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License." Companies relying on GPL code should carefully consider the potential impact such a geographical restriction could have on their business.
15. Can you use GPL tools in the development of your own software without subjecting your software to the GPL? As noted above, the GPL is sometimes referred to as being 'viral' because it attempts to subject related third-party code and intellectual property to the GPL. People concerned about this aspect of the GPL are probably careful about modifying GPL programs or combining their code with GPL code, but they may assume that their use of GPL tools cannot 'infect' the software they are developing. While this is probably true in many cases, it is not necessarily a safe assumption. For example, the 'Bison' parser developed by Richard Stallman, Robert Corbett and Wilfred Hansen was licensed under the GPL for some time before users realized that the software they were developing with the tool was arguably subject to the GPL. The potential exposure resulted from the parser's inclusion of incidental GPL material in the tool's output. In response to this problem, Bison version 1.24 and later was distributed with a 'special exception' regarding output files. The implication is that businesses concerned about the possible infection of their software by the GPL should make sure they consider: what, if any, GPL tools are being used by their developers; how those tools are used; and the possibility that such uses might subject their own code to the GPL.
16. If the GPL requires you to 'contribute' your modifications to GPL code to 'the community,' are you sure that your competitors are doing the same? Assuming that two competitors are making similar use of GPL code, their obligations under the GPL should be the same. There are, however, a number of scenarios to consider. Some competitors may not understand their obligations under the GPL and, for that reason, might not share their improvements with competitors. Other competitors' interpretation of the GPL might lead them to conclude that they have no obligation because they might believe the GPL is unenforceable in its entirety. Some competitors may intentionally ignore their obligations under the GPL to obtain a competitive advantage, relying on a variety of factors to avoid compliance. These factors might include obscuring object code to hide use of GPL code and the strength and enforcement of intellectual property laws in the country where they are doing business.
17. Does the GPL present any special challenges for businesses developing or distributing products with embedded software? The GPL does not expressly impose any 'special' obligations on embedded software businesses, but embedded businesses should consider whether the GPL presents any unique risks based upon scenarios common to the embedded product space. For example, the manufacturer of a hardware system that includes some embedded GPL software and some of the manufacturer's own proprietary software may find it particularly important to carefully assess whether the GPL and proprietary software form a 'mere aggregation' (GPL infection disclaimed under Section 2); a 'collective work' (GPL infection apparently intended); or something else altogether. Some embedded software developers, such as Caldera and Wind River, have publicly expressed concerns about the risks associated with the GPL.
18. Are your software developers aware of the many development-related issues that may affect GPL risks and obligations? Are you asking (or allowing) them to act as your legal counsel and are you willing to accept that risk? Are you 'betting your business' on informal or anonymous interpretations of the GPL posted on the Internet? As noted by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the potential implications of the GPL on software development ultimately depend on the way in which judges will interpret provisions of the GPL. A host of relatively detailed, development-related questions are also likely to be critical. You should probably make sure your developers are asking themselves a number of questions, including: Given the subtle nature of some of the legal issues presented by the GPL, you should also make sure your developers know when to consult legal counsel regarding any potential risks presented by a particular development activity. All businesses would be well advised to avoid taking actions based upon general 'understandings' of the GPL that are not based on a careful reading of the agreement itself.
19. Who can you go to if you have a question regarding the GPL's interpretation, want to clarify your risks under the GPL, or amend your obligations? The GPL was developed under the auspices of the FSF. The FSF is not, however, necessarily the owner of any and all intellectual property rights embodied in particular programs licensed under the GPL. Section 10 recognizes this by suggesting that a GPL licensee could write to a program's author (or authors) for permission to distribute the program under different terms. In some cases, no single person or entity may own all of these property rights. As a result, a prospective (or existing) GPL licensee may find it impractical, if not impossible, to negotiate a desired change in its rights and obligations or even obtain a clarification of those rights and obligations. Even if a licensee were somehow able to identify key contributors and reach agreement with all of them regarding a desired change or clarification, presumably those contributors would be unwilling or unable to represent and warrant that they had the entire right and title required to do so.
20. Are you using any software governed by the Lesser General Public License (LGPL) and, if so, how does that license affect your rights and obligations? The LGPL was developed by the FSF to give library developers an alternative to the GPL. Specifically, although the FSF generally discourages use of the LGPL, it notes that "using the Library GPL permits use of the library in commercial programs." The LGPL retains the 'viral' provisions of the GPL in the context of modifications to an LGPL library (Section 2). But a different set of obligations are imposed when code is linked to an LGPL library (Sections 5 and 6). If you are developing programs that link to LGPL libraries you should review and understand these obligations. You should also check whether the LGPL libraries used, in turn, link to other libraries and especially consider the implications if the LGPL library links to a GPL library.
21. Does the use of GPL software reduce the acquisition value of your company (as a start-up) or a particular business unit (as a spin-off)? As noted above, the GPL attempts, under certain circumstances, to subject licensees' code and related intellectual property to the terms of the GPL (see, e.g., Section 3). Once your software is 'infected' by the GPL, it is not clear whether and how this process can be reversed. So, while GPL code may seem like an inexpensive, convenient and useful way for a start-up to develop a new product quickly, it may also have costly and long-term consequences for the start-up. Parties interested in acquiring the business are likely to conclude, as a part of any acquisition due diligence, that the business has already effectively given away most of the commercial value in its code.
22. Does your use of GPL code present any issues re shareholder value and exposure to suit? In the context of initial public offerings, at least some businesses based upon GPL software have concluded that such software introduces risks that should be disclosed as part of the offering. These risks include: the companies 'inability' to offer warranties and indemnities because the code is developed by independent parties over whom the offering business has no control or supervision; the uncertain future of the code base (will further development occur and, if so, in what direction); the availability of the same code from other sources for free; and concerns about negative reactions from the open source community. (These issues are discussed in the '10Ks' of several of the publicly traded companies that distribute GPL programs). If you are beginning to use GPL code, you should ask whether this presents similar risks to your business.
23. Do you have a process for reviewing and approving prospective uses of GPL software? Are you willing to use precious developer resources required to assess the impact of prospective uses of GPL code that you will depend on? Most businesses that are engaged in software development establish procedures to avoid tainting their development process with software that is subject to other people's intellectual property rights. Although GPL code is often described as 'free,' as noted above it may impose severe obligations on users and is perhaps even more deserving of a company-wide process regarding review and approval before use.
24. Do you have or need any special procedures regarding potential GPL issues created by your licensing of third-party software and or acquisitions of software? Given the potential effect that the GPL may have on code and intellectual property acquired by (or licensed into) a company, it may make sense for businesses to develop procedures to ensure that such acquisitions and licenses are reviewed for GPL issues. For example, many companies have established 'due diligence' procedures to help them identify and evaluate potential issues associated with the acquisition of businesses, product lines, and intellectual property rights. Companies pursuing software-related acquisitions or investments should probably consider whether their due diligence procedures should be updated to specifically address GPL-related issues.
This sort of thing (unfortunately) gives credit to Microsoft's anti-gpl campaign
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
will never take away my goatse away.
At least they did the right thing... acknowledged the problem, and did an internal audit, and found a problem in the second piece of software.
The website implied that they'd have a compliant version up sometime, and that everyone should upgrade when it's available.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
for dealing with this responsibly--assuming, of course, that the violations weren't intentional. The /. post seems to have an overtone of "because of the GPL we lost a nice piece of software". But I think that's inappropriate way to look at it. Rather,
I hope that after taking stock of the situation, Epson decides to release the source code for those programs per the terms of the GPL. That's what the GPL is trying to promote and incentivize. If we miss out on a few possibly-useful proprietary programs as a result, I can live with that.
Great story. I was like on the edge of my seat. I had planned to go to sleep early, but it looks like this is a big news day!
a company doing something propelry instead of putting spin on it?
They admit the FSF informed them of violations, so they pulled the software from the site in order to check it out and get into compliance. They also drop a hint that they will encourage anyone to upgrade to the new compliant version once released.
Seems like they are playing fair to me.
Why don't you go protest against SUVs or have a rally for a snail darter. You people
make me sick. I'd like to piss on your tofu burger.
The page actually states that the closure is temporary, while the GPL violations are remedied. There is absolutely nothing on that page to indicate that the software is being permanently discontinued.
Nathan
You can insist to have the source code of the software if you got it, and watch Epson go into panic mode. Epson needs to learn the hard way not to touch GPL software without wearing thick rubber gloves.
Ooh look! A real live Microsoft astroturfer... Nice one.... Hah - it makes me laugh to read it! They say "The GPL is a complicated agreement" - have you ever read the never ending Microsoft EULA? David
i realize that its important that the GPL be preserved and enforced, but it's a pain in the ass for users like me who bought the scanner the day the software was pulled and can't get it now...and considering i tried getting normal SANE running by both recompiling and now soon by completely upgrading from redhat 7.2 to 7.3, it's annoying to go nearly a month without being able to use a piece of equipment...
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Come on...did you really need to reproduce this complete thing?
May we never see th
YHBT HAND
I'm in the process of purchasing printers and a company acting responsibly, with respect to the GPL or any license, would seem to be a company I'd be happy doing business with. Realistically, this is the best method to encourage hardware manufacturers to support the FSF and it's goals.
...to have a Slashdot story that has useful news but isn't also a rabble-rouser. :-)
Ah, well. I'm glad they didn't pull it completely because legal problems were a PITA.
Both Epson and the FSF did a good job here, I think.
This is a model for how future GPL violations should be handled...not tons of flames being sent to the violators (well, at least not at first }:-) )
May we never see th
Well, fuck. There isn't much else you can say.
I agree, it is nice to see a big company like Epson actually commit themselves to *nix support, and for them to raise their hand and say 'Ooops, we're sorting it out, sorry about that'.
Disclosure like this will mean they'll get more respect for being honest about the situation, rather than burying their head in the sand hoping people won't notice (like a certain company and their interpretation of OS security). A company who admit their mistakes will be more inclined to learn from them, rather than focusing their efforts on passing the buck.
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
Thank you for your patronage of our product and services.
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) informed us that our "Image Scan! for Linux" software violates the GNU General Public License. Prompted by the FSF's message, we have discovered that a number of our "Photo Image Print System" packages violate the GNU GPL for similar reasons.
As a provisional measure, Image Scan! and Photo Image Print System download services are temporarily closed.
Can someone please clue me into how the GPL has been violated? The link in the article doesn't say any details.
I doubt that the result of this will be any license conversion on Epson's part. This type of situation could potentially illustrate conflicts between "Free" and "Open Source" software since a less restrictive license could have allowed this Linux product to remain as it was (and therefore a host of others in the same situation)--the more of these pieces of software that cannot enter an essentially OSS platform the less attractive OSS and FSF look. On second thought, maybe a more in-depth analysis of the violation is needed here.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
It's not a black eye for GPL, so much is it a black eye for the lawyers these companies employ, as well as the non-education programmers get on licenses at most companies. If it was a MS EULA that was violated, would we be saying that it's a black eye for MS EULA's?. Remember ignorence of the law isn't considered a very good excuse.
YSMF HASD
Hail to the king, baby!
With HP's recent actions, it looks like Epson might be the printer/scanner of choice for conscientious buyers now.
It's good to see a company make an honest effort to comply with the GPL.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
"While one can use xsane instead of their ImageScan! software, the latter is easier to use and produces subjectively more attractive output."
As is normally the case when comparing Open Source to commercial software.
I thank you...
They may not want to release it under GPL if it includes their own propietary code. If they are foreced to release it anyway that will certainly bolster Microsofts argument and scare a lot of companies from using or contributing to GPLed code.
GPL violations has (should read have) caused Epson to yank their free downloads of their ImageScan! and Photo Image Print System software for Linux
If Epson used a normal license instead of a confusing one like GPL they wouldn't have had to waste money correcting this problem.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
So, please keep your flames to a moderate temperature.
While it would be cool if what they did here was to GPL their whole package, and contribute to the community, it looks like they'll replace whatever minor piece of GPL code they've incorporated with something else.
Epson has been pretty good about providing relatively good documentation and developer support for their products (which is why their printers and scanners are the best supported out there by free code), even if they haven't contributed actual code or algorithms.
Sure, people could intentionally steal a GPL projects' work and call it their own (i.e. Sigma Designs theft of Xvid's codec), which is pretty slimy, but heck, sometimes people just make mistakes. Maybe someone thought a package was BSD licensed, and wasn't careful enough, or didn't understand some semantic issue of the GPL..
Or, maybe they are thieves also, but I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, and call them innocent unless proven guilty.
I know I've pimped it here before, but I don't mind doing it again. VueScan is the best scanning software for Linux, Mac OS, and Windows. It supports all Epson USB, SCSI, and IEEE-1394 flatbed scanners, and a SCSI film scanner. The program is shareware, and registration costs $40.
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
someone mentioned demanding the source code.
thats just the sort of over-reaction thats going to make a company not want to deal with linux.
be happy they are rectifying the problem.
if you want to encourage linux development, attacking anyone that slips up with reckless abandon is not the way to do it, especially when it may have been an honest mistake.
zealots dont make good reps.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
I'm quite satisfied when I see cases like this one where it's the anally-obsessive GPL preachers who eat the shit because of their faith.
Not only would you probably never be able to distribute the software, if would cost your company millions of dollars to fight the law suit against you. The FSF is a fair organization enforcing the GPL in a fair manner where a company or person in violation can easly fix the violations with no loss in revenue and no legal costs.
Ok...now tell me again why I want to use or write software that runs on Windows?
Before I applaud them for playing fair (which they have done so far), I'll wait until the FSF takes a look at the new versions of the software to see if they've used smoke and mirrors to make it look like they aren't using open source code while they've actually plagiarized it.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, but we shall see.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
i always like to look on the bright side, even for astroturfers. it makes me happy that microsoft hires english majors. it's so annoying running into them in mcdonalds where they slow up lines correcting customers' grammar. employed by microsoft they're probably paid a good salary and they might even be exposed to other, more valuable skills.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Epson has been much more friendly than most violators. Epson on their own chose to put up that web page and admit their violation publicly. We did not require them to do so. Almost always, compliance is reached through private discussions between the Free Software Foundation and the violating party. Only rarely (usually because a third party posts on slashdot ;)
does the public even become aware of the compliance efforts underway.
You can read FSF's General Counsel's essay for more details on FSF's GNU GPL enforcement efforts.
Sincerely,
Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
From: S.B.
To: B.G.
Subject: New FUD Needed
I'm agonized to have to inform you that the usual anti-GPL FUD we've been foistering upon the world has once again been discredited. Epson corporation was found to have violated the GPL in the company's Linux based proprietary scanning application, and had merely to remove the offending code from the application. Unfortunately for us, no FSF lawsuit was filed to force Epson to give away its I.P. as we've been claiming for some time would happen in cases of GPL violations. Those damned hippies just politely asked Epson to correct the situation.
We should wake up the slugs...err...public relations department and have them think up new anti-GPL lies...err...messages.
******************
On a serious note, this is exactly how companies -should- act when found to be violating the GPL. Just admit that it happened, correct the violation, and everyone is happy. Nobody gets sued, the company gets a round of applause for playing nice, and life goes on. Congratulations Epson! You're a model of corporate integrity.
Ok...now tell me again why I want to use or write software that runs on Windows?
Uhm, because it works?
Oh, I don't know... Because people can and will use it? And you don't have GPL natzis ready to kill you in the street for the tiniest perceived violation of a liscence that isn't even legally enforceable? And that MS's liscences are practically BSDish compared to the faciest GPL?
It's strange to note that 'innocent until proven guilty' is so uncommon on slashdot that it needs to be explicitly mentioned.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
EULAs are there so losers like you dont sue for stupid bullshit.
GPL is there because linux fanboys have no idea what it is like to develop code for a living.
Unless they agree to the terms of the GPL, the GPL doesn't apply, and they lose all the rights it grants, and this becomes a simple copyright violation case, and they're probably justified in asking you to return the software, since they didn't have the right to give it to you in the first place.
It's strange to note that 'innocent until proven guilty' is so uncommon on slashdot that it needs to be explicitly mentioned.
The trick is that they have been proven guilty. They even admitted it, in fact.
So, we're just arguing about motive, basically.
It's certainly unfortunate that this GPL violation occurred and that Epson have had to pull this software, which I'm sure is useful to some people.
However, in terms of inconvenience to users, it means very little indeed. The combination of GIMP-Print drivers for Epson inkjets with CUPS doing the spooling already produces output that is arguably better quality than any driver Epson has produced for either Windows or Mac. With the KDEPrint subsystem providing the user interface, you get a system that is powerful, flexible, easy to use and can do everything that Epson's own drivers do, and then some, whilst looking and working as an integral part of KDE applications.
Similarly, the KDE scanner program, Kooka, is a nice, powerful KDE-style alternative to xsane, supporting all the scanner hardware that SANE does and better, can scan straight into all sorts of KDE software, including KOffice, similar to the TWAIN system on Windows and Mac.
There are, of course, plugins for the GIMP also - GIMP-Print and xsane's GIMP plugin which provide similar features, at least to the GIMP, although not GTK or GNOME applications as a whole (hey guys, is this going to be fixed anytime soon? printing from GNOME apps is still in the dark ages, and there's nothing like Kooka's scan-service mode at all :(
Personally, I don't see why Epson bothers - the Free Software community has outdone them. It would be far better if they just helped projects like GIMP-Print and SANE out more, although I guess that means they can't stick Epson logos all over the software... ahh, the joys of corporate ego gratification.
The simple fact is, for $100 you can buy an unlimited development lisence that includes access to a dozen development libraries that you can code to and redistribute with any number of applications without ever having to give anyone any code.
GNU? Don't even dare to sell it, you're foreced to give it all away.
QT? $1500 per application per platform.
There are a ton of other free (and worth every penny) development platforms out there (I've used them all). But MS's is overall the $ cheapest, most usefull and most lisence friendly of anything else out there. Fact.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A professor at the University of Mississippi is giving a
lecture on the supernatural. To get a feel for his
audience, he asks: "How many people here believe in
ghostses?" About 90 students raise their hands.
"Well, that's a good start. Out of those of you who
believe in ghostses, do any of you think you've ever seen
a ghostse?" About 40 students raise their hands.
"That's really good. Has anyone here ever talked to a
ghostse?" 15 students raise their hands.
"That's great. Has anyone here ever touched a ghostse?" 3
students raise their hands.
"That's fantastic. But let me ask you one question
further... Have any of you ever made love to a ghostse?"
One student way in the back raises his hand.
The professor is astonished and says, "Son, in all the
years I've been giving this lecture, no one has ever
claimed to have slept with a ghostse. You've got to come
up here and tell us about your experience."
The redneck student replies with a nod and a grin, and
begins to make his way up to the podium. The professor
says, "Well, tell us what it's like to have sex with
ghostse."
The student replies, "Ghostse?!? From ah-way back there ah
thought yuh said "goatse."
--
Mamma look!
Come back when the drugs wear off. Or start taking them. Something!
Wow! epson happily respects and complies with the GPL! they just won another loyal customer! AGFA,Cannon and HP can all sit aside while my next new Linux scanner will be an Epson!
If we dont support the companies that not only release a Linux program/driver but also respect the GPL then we all might as well just give up and install XP like good drones.
Kudos to Epson!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
please check the cal sticker on your dissimulationometer, we believe it may be operating out of spec.
If you are still using the obsoleted irony-ometer or feigntographer - or worse yet, the long unsupported subtle-jokometer, please have arrange with your cost center manager to upgrade as soon as possible.
cal dept.
Troll, right...
Truth hurts and you know it.
Go ahead, try to silence the oposition. The more you do the more look like the dark side.
I understand "liscence" is a spelling error for "licence", but is "faciest" an error for "fascist" or is it an error for "fanciest"?
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.
If they plan to solve it by releasing code as required by the GPL, but are delaying the release in order to possibly remove code they don't have the legal right to GPL (for example, licensed code from another company), then it'll be a good thing.
If they plan to solve it by removing the GPL'd components and replacing them with Epson-written components, then they are no longer in violation of the GPL, but nothing has been gained by the Free Software community (unless making your proprietary competitors do a little extra work counts as a gain).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Of course any top is going to have some degree of slant on the perspective. You usually only notice this when the slant goes against the grain of your oppinion. I personally think that the GPL is to restrictive in a lot of ways when it comes to commercial companies publishing software.
Yes, we are just aguing about motive. Thank you for bringing absolutely nothing to this discussion.
VueScan is very good indeed! I bought my license several years ago, and I still get free updates.
I use it with an Epson flatbed and a HP PhotoSmart slide scanner (both SCSI), and I never have any problems. And the program just keeps getting better and better. Ed Hamrick is doing a great job!
Free your mind!
Wouldn't releasing the source be the "right thing"!? It couldn't hurt them, and could make epson scanners the "de facto" Linux scanning hardware.
Would it be legal if an employee "leaked" the code for the version that contained GPL code?
What are the penalties for GPL violation? I'd want some serious financial compensation if my code was stolen. Hell, if rape victims can sue, why can't GPL programmings!?
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
what does that mean?
Ceci n'est pas un post
think user will respect EULA if them self
can't respect a simple license a the GPL.
if you're developing for windows, that might be true....
violations has caused
When are the Slashdot editors going to get a decent copy editor so they can stop embarrassing themselves with silly spelling and grammatical errors?
Maybe you got modded down because you spell like a second grade "special-needs" student. Just a thought.
GPL violation!!!
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
See, this is exactly why BSD is much better for truly free software. It's much freer.
Maybe they'll just decide that it's too expensive and too much trouble to support Linux
Perhaps next time you can schedule those resources before jumping down some company's throat and causing the resources to get overcommitted in the first place.
Or the short version: don't bite off more work than you can chew.
K PLZ THX.
Which of his body parts would they want to scan?
Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.Read more of this story at Slashdot.
not meant as a troll...
Epson violated the GPL, was caught, and is handling it.
The music industry uses a license for their products. Not the GPL, but it is a license.
Yet many people who get upset when the GPL is violated could care less about other licenses being violated using Napster etc.
What we need is GPL-DRM to protect code from the unwashed corporations...
this is not a sig
This is getting more and more confusing
If EPSON does not, in your opinion, violating any GPL licensing term, - in spirit or in deed, - then why in the world Slashdot flashes the title "Epson Violating GPL
So my question is:
DID EPSON VIOLATED GPL ?
AND HOW ?
What I would ask is that the parties maintaining the GPL'd software in question put forth some extra effort to help EPSON straighten this situation out!
If, as I suspect, we have a friend in Epson, then lets do what we can. Let's show companies that if they work with us, we'll bust our *sses to work with them.
That was my 2 cents. Where's my change.
I bought my Canon S520 before I had converted to Linux, and it worked great, but when I installed Linux, it was a NIGHTMARE to make it work. It took hours in SuSE, Lycoris, and Debian.
Next printer I get will be an Epson. I was considering an HP, but after canning Bruce Perens and Epson being nice to the Linux community, I'll make sure I get an Epson next time around.
Now, if other companies saw that playing nice got you more customers, they'd do it!
Slashdot is a waste of time. I enjoy wasting time.
I know, I might be off-topic, but I wish HP would be so friendly to open source as Epson. Today they stopped any support of HP 990 cse printer driver for gimp/lpd. HP ScanJet 4470c backend is even not listed in Sane. I found another day a feedback of another unlucky HP hardware user that HP doesn't see any business to support Linux platform. I'll never buy anything from HP.
You can pass this message to your friends in Epson - they should be proud of really great job they are doing.
Less is more !
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.
You have your cause and effect backwards.
The GPL didn't "create" the impression that it's anti-user. Companies that stand a great deal to lose if OSS and GPL succeed, created that link in peoples minds. Before you didn't hear that all that much, except from the BSD camp. Who BTW "feel" that they stand to lose as well.
Consult any dictionary, folks. Think about the application to IP and you should see that "proprietary" has a very simple meaning: not in the public domain. Someone owns exclusive rights in the software which allow him to tell others what they may or may not do with it. Any software under copyright is proprietary. Say "closed" or "non-copyleft" or even "non-free" if that's what you mean.
Folks, there is a reason some things are free. Usually it is because they are crap that no one wants, otherwise it would be a commodity. Linux doesn't have the backing of any one company, and most work is done over the internet. Because of this, viruses, software development errors are a common occurance. That is why Linux is constantly in the process of being patched. Anyone who used KDE on RedHat 7.1 knows what I'm talking about. The Apache Web Server literally stands for "A patchy Web Server". I am not making this up folks
I keep forgetting to ask about this, since it's not a particularly *high* priority item on my agenda -- but....
Has anyone actually had any luck getting an Epson ES-600C flatbed scanner working with SANE?
I own one of these old (circa 1996 or so?) beasts, and although it's a high quality unit - it uses a parallel port. Epson no longer supports it under Windows XP or 2000, but I noticed it shows up on the SANE scanner compatibility list.
Whenever I've fired up SANE in RedHat 7.2 or 7.3 though, it reports it can't detect any usable devices, even when I verify that it's attached to my LPT1 port and is powered up.
(Apparently, Epson actually sold an internal board for a short time that converted the ES-600C to SCSI. Sure wish I had that option board, but it's all but impossible to locate now. I even called the Epson parts supply house, but they said it has long since been discontinued. I hope the people adding the ES-600C to the SANE compat. list weren't just trying a SCSI version instead of the parallel port model?)
Epson is one of the few companies that are really pro-active in Linux support.
I know it for sure as far as printers go: Till is really happy with them, and until recently Epson inkjets were the only devices that produced photo-quality output under Linux.
I got really worried when I saw the title of this article, but I'm convinced that this is just an accident of the "ups, haven't thought of that" type. Guess it's really business as usual - their lawyers are chewing on this now, and some reasonable solution will pop up shortly.
Btw, HP is NOT a willan company either: on the contrary, they put a lot of effort and actually write their own GPL drivers for their printers. Don't know about scanners, but they also wrote Linux drivers (GPL) for their multifunctional devices...
It will have to be if they are unwilling to give away the source. Good job Free Software Foundation. Now the free software is gone.
Vote for Pedro
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
Commercial Closed-Source people who want to help Linux Users will now think twice before doing anything.
They can always refuse to accept the GPL, in whoich case it is a simple copyright violation. In that case, the worst that can happen is that they have to pay damages.
I don't know whose code they distributed, but the FSF never dues for damages if the violater stop distributing the code. It is unclear how much the damages for distributing gratis code would amount to anyway. Usually the court take the price per copy times number of copies to find the damages (at least here in Denmark), which is cheap when the price is zero.
The FSF probably have other ethical considerations than just promoting free software.
Specifically, I consider it unethical and an abuse to invoke the legal system in a civil dispute, without first doing a fair minded attempt to settle the issue privately.
While there are many aspects of the American society I admire, the fact that it as the only nation in the world feeds more lawyers than programmers is not one of them.
You might be better of asking this question on the sane mailinglist.
Well, don't worry about that. We can get you back before you leave. (Dr. Who)
I'm finding this a little hard to believe. It just doesn't pass the "modem light" test.
My wife and I have two computers that feed into a Linksys router that feed into a DSL modem, which is on my desk where I can see the data light.
She basically is a "magazine reader" Web user. She doesn't download files as such, she reads articles and Web-based bicycle forums and Yahoo and such. When she's logged on, I can easily see her activity; basically whenever she follows a link, I see the light light up in a few brief bursts for a second or so. I think most of the traffic is dozens of little images from the new page (and the banners and pop-behind ads).
On the othe hand, if she's off and I'm on and Limewire is running and I'm not "doing anything", I see little or no visible activity from the modem light. No visible evidence at all of all that P2P traffic the article says is taking place. I only see the light go on when a download is actually in progress, and the duration and duty cycle of the visible activity are a very close match for the size of the file and the average transfer speed.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Yes. I scanned from XP to a Slackware box with the ES-600C last night. It's dog slow, but doesn't seem any slower than when I had the scanner directly connected to a Windows box. The gotcha is the Epson backend has to run as root to get R/W privledges to the port directly. It doesn't use a driver. The rest of the set up is fairly well documented. I have saned started from inetd as root. The epson.conf file has to specify the port address.
The third solution for Epson (that nobody seems to have mentioned) would be to negotiate a private license with the project which released the GPLd code.
This would allow Epson to release their product as "closed source" and would provide funding to the original project.
The GPL (as I understand it) doesn't require that the only licence that the software be available under be the GPL. IIRC, Perl is released under both the GPL and BSD, the choice is up to the user which licence he wants to follow.
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
Does GPL allow the release, instead of the actual (original) source, an assembly-language version resulting from the disassembly of the compiled binaries? As long as one can build binaries for the end product via an assembler/compiler and linker, and those "sources", then it constitutes "source code", right? :-)
And since that is "source code" that anybody with the right tools can create, there's really no reason for every commercial company to not release "source" for their products in this manner -- they can then borrow freely from GPL but still abide by it, technically speaking!
What am I missing...
That would make sense, except that when companies decide to stop supporting a piece of hardware, they also stop MANUFACTURING and SELLING that piece of hardware.
And they don't make money off second-hand sales.. so..
the gpl is wonderful for commercial companies. if said company feels that the gpl is to restrictive, then they dont have to use gpl'ed software. they can build everything from scratch.
if being able to use the available gpl'ed codebase out weighs releasing the companies code under the gpl, then they can take advantage of a huge amout of code already written.
-- john
If it were astroturfing, the writer would attempt to convey the message that, hey, i'm just your average joe, and here's why i think GPL sucks and M$ rocks.
instead, the text of the posting says:
Because many businesses may not understand the GPL and its potential implications, Microsoft offers this document as a checklist and to provide important background information.
(italics mine.)
in any case, a google search shows this article to be M$'s GPL "FAQ", available at http://www.microsoft.com/korea/business/downloads/ licensing/Gpl_faq.doc
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
It wasn't free. That's why we're talking about this!
If they show us the same courtesy we show them by licensing their source, I'll buy an Epson to replace my crappy old HP. If they don't, they can write their own damn code and anyone who gives them money deserves what they get.
Once I license code under the GPL, the rights to use, modify, and redistribute it are no longer exclusive.
All I can do is stop anyone else from getting exclusive rights to it.
In fact, once I accept outside contributions, I no longer have any rights the other authors don't, so I no longer "own" it in any meaningful sense.
I knew I shouldn't have tried deadpan on /.
Oh well, live and learn.
They can always refuse to accept the GPL, in whoich case it is a simple copyright violation. In that case, the worst that can happen is that they have to pay damages.
I don't know whose code they distributed, but the FSF never dues for damages if the violater stop distributing the code. It is unclear how much the damages for distributing gratis code would amount to anyway. Usually the court take the price per copy times number of copies to find the damages (at least here in Denmark), which is cheap when the price is zero.
This is a very interesting question. If Epson were to refuse to release their proprietary code that was linked with GPL code, that would void the license grant in the GPL and make it a simple case of copyright violation (reproducing the GPL code without authorization of the copyright holder).
Now, it seems like an open-and-shut case to say that the court would find infringement had taken place -- after all, they were distributing binaries including that GPL code. (Supposing that Epson was intransigent instead of cooperative, and that the FSF took it to court.)
It seems clear that a flagrent GPL violation would result in an injunction against redistribution of the GPL code, but they could still rewrite their code to replace the GPL code with non-GPL code and distribute that later. (As Epson is doing now.)
So, the real question comes down to damages. Since damages are usually tied to economic loss, and the GPL code is (usually) freely available, there's a good argument to be made that there was no economic loss to the owner of the GPL code (since the people who received the infringing copies could have received the same GPL code for free through another means, and the GPL even grants those people a license even from the infringing copy!) -- perhaps the court would find that "actual" damages are therefore zero, no matter how flagrent the GPL violation? If so, perhaps the threat of court action over copyright infringement isn't as stong as it sounds?
Does the GPL really have enough teeth for enforcement if a straight copyright infringement case might not be costly enough to discourage misuse of GPL code? If Microsoft is willing to steal Stak's compression code outright (and they did), which caused actual damages, should they be so worried about the GPL? Or can they just say "we've never intended to apply the GPL to our products" to dodge the "viral" nature of the GPL and simply pay off the occasional copyright infringement case (and rewrite the code) in the few instances where they can be caught red-handed?
Of course, if there are statutory damages for the copyright infringement, those would apply even in the absence of actual damages. I think someone mentioned damages of $100,000 -- but only applicable if the copyright is registered with the Copyright Office? (Then again, even $100,000 is pocket change to a company like Microsoft...)
Disclaimer: I think Epson is doing the Right Thing, and I'm not a lawyer. Take the above with a grain of salt; this is just food for thought...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
I laugh (and "cry") when I see people echo Stallman's nonsensical use of the word proprietary as if GPL'd code isn't proprietary.
Only recently did I realize how completely Stallman has managed to frame the debate by twisting the meaning of words like "proprietary". As you say, the GPL is proprietary, but Stallman has so demonized the word that nobody wants to recognize the truth of the situation.
The GPL may be "less proprietary" than most closed-source licenses in some sense, since anyone can obtain the benefit of GPL code by agreeing to abide by its rules. However, the GPL is far more proprietary than BSD-style licenses, which are barely proprietary at all. The only truly non-proprietary software is public domain software. If someone owns the code (i.e. there's a copyright and a license), then it's proprietary, by definition -- even if anyone can redistribute it under its terms and conditions.
Stallman should be demonizing "closed" software, not "proprietary" software. (A bit late now, of course, he's already trained everyone to turn rabid at the word "proprietary" while pretending that the GPL isn't also proprietary...)
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Since the FSF always negotiate before suing, the issue of being forced to pay damages aren't that relevant. The risks are:
1) It may disrupt the distribution, and
2) the pr loss / embarrasesment of being caught in a copyright violation.
I suspect either of these are more important than damages, even when violating the copyright of proprietary softwere owned by sue-happy companies.
I'm glad they have a sense of humor; I wish rather than pulling the software that they would just release it under a legal license -- if it's better as you describe (though I've never been too unhappy with my scans from Xsane, maybe I just don't know what I'm missing), I'd like to try it.
Cheers,
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5