Hi, and thanks for the effort of providing the complete information.
Le lundi 07 mars 2011 à 09:31 +, Andrew Ross a écrit :
The software itself is the current version of iText, which is licensed
under the AGPL with the following additional term:
In accordance with Section 7(b) of the
Op 8/03/2011 16:45, Josselin Mouette schreef:
Hi, and thanks for the effort of providing the complete information.
Le lundi 07 mars 2011 à 09:31 +, Andrew Ross a écrit :
The software itself is the current version of iText, which is licensed
under the AGPL with the following additional
* Andrew Ross:
In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU Affero General Public
License, you must retain the producer line in every PDF that is created
or manipulated using iText.
What is a producer line? Is this visible on the page, or is this
some information in the PDF header?
In any
On 08/03/11 15:53, Bruno Lowagie wrote:
Copy/paste from a previous answer.
If company B is using iText, Company B is bound by the license. This
doesn't mean the producer line can't be changed; there are different
options to add extra data:
- They can add data to the existing producer line
Op 7/03/2011 2:17, MJ Ray schreef:
Bruno Lowagie wrote:
Please don't avoid the question: does the freedom to hide information
prevail over the freedom to get information?
You mean like you avoided the question: what is the actual case here?
No problem. Let me describe the context. I've been
On 07/03/11 08:00, Bruno Lowagie wrote:
A library such as iText is already shipped with Debian, and different
other projects depend on it. Other projects aren't part of the
distribution, for instance because of their poor quality (e.g. the iText
Toolbox which was never meant as a real
In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU Affero General Public
License, you must retain the producer line in every PDF that is created
or manipulated using iText.
Hello,
in my understanding of section 7 of the AGPL, the supplemental terms are there
to ensure compatibility with other free
For some reason, my latest answers weren't sent to the list, but to
individual people.
Sorry for that. This is my latest response:
Andrew Ross wrote:
My reasoning goes that if I write some software which uses iText to
produce a pdf, then if I use some other piece of software to modify
that
Op 7/03/2011 11:02, Charles Plessy schreef:
Regardless of the purpose and the intentions behind requiring to ‘retain the
producer line in every PDF that is created or manipulated using iText’, if this
addition to the AGPL does not fall under Section 7(b), this makes iText
potentially
Andrew Ross wrote:
The full license can be found at http://itextpdf.com/terms-of-use/agpl.php
[...]
I don't want to mis-represent what Bruno has said, so hopefully he'll
chime in and expand further if I get anything wrong here. I think the
following paragraph from Bruno sums up his viewpoint:
Le Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 11:06:22AM +0100, Bruno Lowagie a écrit :
Op 7/03/2011 11:02, Charles Plessy schreef:
Regardless of the purpose and the intentions behind requiring to ‘retain the
producer line in every PDF that is created or manipulated using iText’, if
this
addition to the AGPL
Op 7/03/2011 11:12, Charles Plessy schreef:
Le Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 11:06:22AM +0100, Bruno Lowagie a écrit :
Op 7/03/2011 11:02, Charles Plessy schreef:
Regardless of the purpose and the intentions behind requiring to ‘retain the
producer line in every PDF that is created or manipulated using
On 3/7/11, Andrew Ross ubu...@rossfamily.co.uk wrote:
The AGPL and the extra term ensure the consumer's RIGHT to know
that the PDF was produced by iText. Denying this right is IMO
exactly the abuse of Free Software the AGPL wants to avoid.
Exaggerating a bit with the cookie metaphore, I see.
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 at 11:04:11 +0100, Bruno Lowagie wrote:
This is what the end consumer wants,
and this is what 1T3XT wants, regardless of the opinion of any other
party in-between.
I think there's an important distinction between I believe that it's
beneficial for everyone that this is
Op 7/03/2011 13:26, Simon McVittie schreef:
In this particular situation I'd suggest making the extra term a
non-binding request, something like:
The author of this software requests that you retain the iText producer
line in every PDF that is created or manipulated using iText.
or
Hello,
I'm confronted with a very special case for which I've written a
metaphor. I'd like your opinion on this case.
Imagine that using software is like baking cookies. A free/open source
cookie specialist, company A, distributes recipes that are free in the
sense of the AGPL: everybody is
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 12:43:02 +0100 Bruno Lowagie wrote:
Hello,
Hi!
I'm confronted with a very special case for which I've written a
metaphor. I'd like your opinion on this case.
Imagine that using software is like baking cookies.
[...]
I would like to hear your opinion on this case
Le dimanche 06 mars 2011 à 12:43 +0100, Bruno Lowagie a écrit :
I'm confronted with a very special case for which I've written a
metaphor. I'd like your opinion on this case.
This is not a metaphor. It is about something that is not software, for
which you try to apply software reasoning. I
Op 6/03/2011 18:00, Josselin Mouette schreef:
This is not a metaphor. It is about something that is not software,
for which you try to apply software reasoning. I fail to see where you
want to go with this.
*10 Q: Does the DFSG apply only to computer programs?
**A:* No, we apply our
Bruno Lowagie wrote:
Please don't avoid the question: does the freedom to hide information
prevail over the freedom to get information?
You mean like you avoided the question: what is the actual case here?
This list works better when it is discussing actual software which be
considered for
20 matches
Mail list logo
