In response to your concerns:
1. PWG Process 3.0 (http://www.pwg.org/chair/membership_docs/pwg-process30.pdf) does not specify that a PWG standard must be an original creation of the PWG or that it cannot be based on an existing vendor, industry, or group standard. In fact, most PWG standards are necessarily based on existing standards from different sources. That said, if you have an alternative existing format you would like to propose as an alternative to CUPS Raster, please do so now.
2. The reference implementation of CUPS Raster is provided under version 2 of the GNU LGPL and nothing would prevent a vendor from doing an independent implementation under alternative terms. Also, since CUPS Raster has not been formally included in any PWG standard to date, Apple naturally has not provided a LOA for that IP (yet).
Hope this clears things up!
On Feb 1, 2011, at 6:24 AM, Petrie, Glen wrote:
> I have reviewed the new proposed standard and have two concerns with respect to the "IPP Subset of CUPS Raster"
>> 1. It was my understand that a IEEE ISTO PWG Standard must not be the standardization of product or a specific company's implementation
> a. Thus, there is a great need for a PWG IPP Image format or PWG IPP Raster format; however, I believe that specifying it as a subset of the specific open-source or vendor product is not in line with PWG standards practices. This is not to say that is could not have a normative or informative reference to a specific open-source or vendor product but it should stand on its own with ties to a specific open-source or vendor product. Also, it should not use attribute names or variables that are identified with a specific open-source or vendor product.
> b. I am aware of other entities that wish to use an established format (i.e. CUPS Raster 2); but if PWG is going to standardize it, it should be PWG entity.
> 2. The specific open-source or vendor product that is being discussed is CUPS. So, the other concern with a standard that directly references CUPS is that CUPS is licensed by/under Apple and GPL.
> a. I have not heard or know that Apple has provided a Letter of Assurance on the use by others for the use a subset of CUPS definition. While, I believe that Apple would provide LOA upon request.
> b. On the other, if any or part of the content PWG is proposing to use from CUPS was/is part of CUPS that was/is under GPL before Apple’s ownership; then there is the question if GPL license applies. Major print vendors may be at risk of either having to release their source code that is associated with CUPS content or even being sued by GPL proponents.
>>>> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipp-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:ipp-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Michael Sweet
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:10 PM
> To: ipp at pwg.org> Cc: cloud at pwg.org> Subject: [IPP] New draft of IPP Subset of CUPS Raster (IPP Raster)specification posted
>> I have posted a new version of the IPP Raster specification at:
>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippraster10-20110126.docx>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippraster10-20110126.pdf>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ippraster10-20110126-rev.pdf>> This version incorporates all of the feedback from the IPP telecon including the rename from PWG to IPP...
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...