| 1 |
On Monday 16 October 2006 02:29, "Duncan" <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote |
| 2 |
about '[gentoo-amd64] Re: Printer Setup': |
| 3 |
> Are |
| 4 |
> those drivers closed source (in which case no way, I prefer FLOSS |
| 5 |
> drivers, thanks, and certainly won't be putting any of my money into |
| 6 |
> anything without them, "Linux" non-support that closed source ultimately |
| 7 |
> is), or open but simply not ported to amd64/x86_64 yet? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
IIRC, they do have one GPL'd "driver" but I believe it's just a cups->lpd |
| 10 |
or lpd->cups "gateway driver"... If you can find their linux pages, they |
| 11 |
do have some documentation about the licensing, but I don't believe their |
| 12 |
licenses pass the DSFG -- I seem to remember pulling their drivers from |
| 13 |
the non-free repository when I was trying to get them to work on my |
| 14 |
laptop. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Of course, if they simply open the specs |
| 17 |
> sufficiently, the community will often provide drivers without company |
| 18 |
> effort |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
No doubt. I'd prefer open specifications over open drivers anyday; it |
| 21 |
makes whatever driver exist much more maintainable and portable. Usually, |
| 22 |
open drivers mean we can reverse-engineer a specification, but that's |
| 23 |
tricky at best. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
"If there's one thing we've established over the years, |
| 27 |
it's that the vast majority of our users don't have the slightest |
| 28 |
clue what's best for them in terms of package stability." |
| 29 |
-- Gentoo Developer Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives