Subject: RE: [IPP] New draft of IPP Subset of CUPS Raster (IPP Raster)specification posted

From: "Petrie, Glen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 08:24:59 -0800

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.   

Glen

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Michael Sweet
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:10 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [IPP] New draft of IPP Subset of CUPS Raster (IPP
Raster)specification posted

All,

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

[email-masked]

https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

_______________________________________________
ipp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp

---

From: Ira McDonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:16:55 -0500

Hi Glen,

I respectfully disagree with your whole premise.

The PWG collaborated very successfully with Adobe
to develop PWG PDF/is - a subset and a profile of
Adobe PDF.

While PDF/1.7 later became the ISO 32000 standard,
in 2004 the PWG was delighted to collaborate with our
lead editor Rick Seeler from Adobe on PDF/is.

I see no reason to treat PWG CUPS Raster any
differently.

Names of attributes (prefixes) are probably suitable
discussion topics.

But the idea that PWG should only specify a PWG raster
format from scratch would set a bad precedent.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Hardcopy WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:[email-masked]
Christmas through April:
  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176
  734-944-0094
May to Christmas:
  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
  906-494-2434

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Petrie, Glen <[email-masked]>wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Glen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>

---

From: "Petrie, Glen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:29:34 -0800

I would like to add this to the agenda as a discussion item during the
IPP F2F session.  If the group decides, it should not be discussed, I
will retract my request.

Thanks, Glen

________________________________

From: Ira McDonald [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 9:17 AM
To: Petrie, Glen; Ira McDonald
Cc: Michael Sweet; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [IPP] New draft of IPP Subset of CUPS Raster (IPP
Raster)specification posted

Hi Glen,

Cheers,
- Ira

<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc> 

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Petrie, Glen
<[email-masked]> wrote:

Glen

-----Original Message-----

All,

 

-- 

believed to be clean.

ipp mailing list

[email-masked]

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean.

---

From: Michael Sweet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 08:48:41 -1000

Glen,

I'll add it at lunch today for tomorrow's meeting...

On Feb 1, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Petrie, Glen wrote:

> I would like to add this to the agenda as a discussion item during the IPP F2F session.  If the group decides, it should not be discussed, I will retract my request.
>  
> Thanks, Glen
>  
>  
> Subject: Re: [IPP] New draft of IPP Subset of CUPS Raster (IPP Raster)specification posted
>  
> Hi Glen,
> 
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Petrie, Glen <[email-masked]> 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.   
> 
>  
> 
> Glen
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Michael Sweet
> Subject: [IPP] New draft of IPP Subset of CUPS Raster (IPP Raster)specification posted
> 
>  
> 
> All,
> 
>  
> 
> This version incorporates all of the feedback from the IPP telecon including the rename from PWG to IPP...
> 
>  
>

---

From: Michael Sweet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 22:15:56 -1000

Glen,

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!

---

From: "Petrie, Glen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 06:46:17 -0800

It does not really clear things up for me, sorry.  I guess I still see a
PWG standard being based on an element (headers and code) of vendor
product that has origins as GPL code.

Alternatives: While I do not know of "vendor, industry or group
standard" with an acceptable job/"raster" (really, job/image (really,
job/content)) format that is similar to CUPS raster, I would suggest
something like the following.

Format: Job Ticket, <Page Overrides, Page content (image or maybe
something else) ........ n-number of pages>

Job Ticket content == JTAPI from OpenPrinting  (CPL License and
completely available to all to use without GPL "hooks" or concerns).   

                                    Note JTAPI was derived to be
consistent with IPP!!!

Page overrides      == only those JTAPI elements that need individual
page override

Page content        == Byte-wise Run-Length compressed "sRGB" or other
image/color-space data format(s).  In future, this is extensible to
other data formats that could include vector, jpeg, etc

This has the same objective as CUPS raster but is based on public
standards and code elements that have free licenses.  There already
exist CPL based header file for JTAPI job elements and an approved
public standard.  The standard provides compliance for mobile, SOHO,
office and production printing domains/applications. This approach could
reduce the 1800 bytes / page overhead of CUPS Raster 2 to a few bytes if
no page override needed (the most likely use case) along with alignment
of other small details in CUPS raster.

Glen

From: Michael Sweet [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 12:16 AM
To: Petrie, Glen
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [IPP] New draft of IPP Subset of CUPS Raster (IPP
Raster)specification posted

Glen,

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).

 

	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.   

	Glen

	-----Original Message-----
	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Michael Sweet
	Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:10 PM
	To: [email-masked]
	Cc: [email-masked]
	Subject: [IPP] New draft of IPP Subset of CUPS Raster (IPP
Raster)specification posted

	All,

	

	This version incorporates all of the feedback from the IPP
telecon including the rename from PWG to IPP...

	 

	--

	believed to be clean.

	ipp mailing list

	[email-masked]