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."
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
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
They don't provide us with any information about their color management or dither algorithms, which seems fair to me -- that's their real "secret sauce" over their competition. We don't need that; we have bright people who can come up with clever dither algorithms, and we also have people interested in color management. It's probably better for everyone if we do things differently from Epson in that regard; it gives us opportunities to devise better algorithms.
The Sane backends are GPL'ed, but provide one exception: "it is permissible to link against such a library without affecting the licensing status of the program that uses the libraries." - this is a quote from the LICENSE file that is part of the Sane distribution.
EPSON KOWA did actually release the source code for their backend - even though they were not required to do so, they would still be allowed to link against the backends if their software were closed source. They did however make one exception: The image manipulation routines that they use to in their Windows and Mac drivers is delivered as a library without sources. They do provide the sources (under the GPL) for the rest.
My opinion is that they are the owner and the copyright holders of their frontend code, so they should be allowed to do anything with it - e.g. link agains a closed source library, but this is probably just my naive common sense interpretation, everybody with a law degree probably has a different opinion.
So EPSON did not try to sneak some GPL code into their closed source applications, they did not relabel GPL code, they wanted to do the right thing and provide us with their source code.
EPSON is very pro open source, they provide programming information for their scanners (and printers for the gimp-print project) and if I run into problems they even provide hardware to debug problems.
I don't get payed for saying this, but if you are in the market for a scanner (or a printer) then please consider an EPSON device. Not only are these pretty good scanners and probably the best inkjet printers around, they are very nice to us Linux users. :-)