iscan, should I install it?
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
iscan (image scan) is a driver for epson scanners. I have the Epson Stylus CX5600 (compatible with free software), but Trisquel includes only the printer drivers. I´m doubtful when thinking on installing. It´s free software (GPL) but in one article says some binary code is copyrighted (propietary) read this links:
https://download3.ebz.epson.net/dsc/f/03/00/04/20/15/9fd313b91bbcb77781f3722df6d314a6992c0d2e/iscan_man_e.pdf
http://ftp.uni-stuttgart.de/gentoo-distfiles/distfiles/userg_revQ_e.pdf
Thanks in advance
It does not look free software. Read those paragraphs of the AVASYS Public License:
4. You shall treat those parts of the Program that were provided to you in executable or object code only as the proprietary and confidential information of AVASYS Corporation and its Licensor(s).
5. You may neither reverse engineer, reverse compile, reverse assemble nor otherwise attempt to analyse those parts of the Program that were provided to you in executable or object code only. However, as a special exception AVASYS Corporation and its Licensor(s) give permission to reverse engineer the Program in those cases, and only those cases, where this is required by the terms stipulated in the GNU Library General Public License or GNU Lesser General Public License, both as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the former license, version 2.1 of the latter license, or (at your option) any later version
What I understand up to now is that this drivers are "propietary software" which some parts you can apply reverse engineering and by doing that you must us a GPL based license (LGPL or GPL). Right?
Quickly looking at the PDF you sent us, it is not clear what is under the GNU GPL, the GNU LGPL and the AVASYS Public License. Maybe looking at the source code to download makes it clearer.
The mentions of the GNU GPL and LGPL in the fifth clause of the AVASYS Public License do not make much sense, as far as I know (but I am not a lawyer):
- If the code is statically linked with GPL or LGPL code, then it *must* be under this license (what implies the source code must be available);
- If the code is dynamically linked with GPL code, then it *must* be under this license (what implies the source code must be available);
- If the code is dynamically linked with LGPL code, then the GPL does not impose any no constraint on it;
- If the code is not linked in any way with GPL or LGPL code (independent programs), there is no constraint on it either.
Now ,trying to prohibit users from doing "reverse engineer, reverse compile, reverse assemble" is so evil that some legislations may even make such a clause illegal.
It´s kind of confusing
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios