Bruno,
thanks for your answers.
Am 17.02.2010 00:53, schrieb Bruno Lowagie:
The license change was announced on different occasions, at least 6
months before the actual change.
Still I think, a prominent news item on the website or a prominent
README_LICENSE_CHANGE.TXT in the tarballs
Am 17.02.2010 01:16, schrieb Mark Storer:
Efforts were made to make this change more prominent, though those
efforts may have fallen short (license.txt? whoops). In particular,
the move from com.lowagie to com.itextpdf coincided with the
license change, as did a jump in version number (from
Markus Meyer wrote:
When I
asked for the email address of Bruno I got the answer that I should
contact a person named Andrew to reach Bruno (!?!?). I contacted Andrew
but he replied Bruno wouldn't have time to do it. Although both Mark and
Andrew were very friendly and helpful, the whole
Am 17.02.2010 01:31, schrieb mister bean:
iText PDF AGPL Java-PDF library If you go to lowagie.com and click on
iText Home Page, you see the same thing. For most users, having the AGPL
aspect highlighted and bold as the first line of text on the project's home
page is pretty clear. Nothing
Bruno,
Am 17.02.2010 10:25, schrieb Bruno Lowagie:
You were asked to contact Andrew because I was at the film festival in
Ghent at that time (October 6-17): I only went online to check my mail,
giving priority to Andrew's mail. His answer was correct: I don't have
the time to accept
Markus Meyer wrote:
Changing the license from MPL/LGPL to AGPL is a big change for the user.
It needs direct response from any project, be it open or closed source.
For example no open source project which currently uses iText 2.1.7 will
be able to use iText 5.0.0 without completely
Markus Meyer wrote:
I did miss the license change, then again, I would never have envisioned
that the iText project even would consider such a change.
Our mails crossed each other. People who were following the iText
project knew the circumstances that led to the license change.
Am 17.02.2010 11:19, schrieb Bruno Lowagie:
That's not true. The Free Software Foundation has been discouraging the
use of the LGPL a long time ago:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
The AGPL is compatible with GPLv3 and other AGPL libraries. The LGPL for
iText was
I saw this email some time ago (converted to bottom-posting to provide
better context):
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Paulo Soares psoa...@glintt.com wrote:
From: Anders Thomsen [mailto:j...@andersthomsen.dk]
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 1:41 PM
I'm a bit confused about with license
Brett Neumeier wrote:
I am not sure that this statement is accurate.
It is. You can't write closed source software on top of an AGPL
software. If you use iText in a web application, your application is
linked with iText; therefore your code should also be AGPL.
See for instance the FAQ at
Brett Neumeier wrote:
If I'm wrong about what the AGPL means, I hope someone will clarify
exactly what I'm missing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
The GNU AGPL is similar to the GNU General Public License, except that
it additionally covers the use of the software
Hello 1T3XT BVBA!
Thanks for your quick reply. I don't think I expressed my question
clearly, though; so I'll try again.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:37 AM, 1T3XT info i...@1t3xt.info wrote:
Brett Neumeier wrote:
It is. You can't write closed source software on top of an AGPL
software. If you
Am 16.02.2010 20:04, schrieb Brett Neumeier:
Yes, absolutely!! My question, in my previous email and in this one,
is: what is the text in the AGPL that causes it to operate in the way
that you assert that it does?
Moreover, there are some more points to consider.
First, it seems that the
Markus Meyer wrote:
Moreover, there are some more points to consider.
First, it seems that the license switch to AGPL (i.e. a viral license)
was made very silent.
The license change was announced on different occasions, at least 6
months before the actual change.
Second, I had tried to
First, it seems that the license switch to AGPL (i.e. a viral license)
was made very silent.
I disagree. On the mailing list, while it wasn't trumpets and marching bands,
It Was Discussed. At some length IIRC. But that's my perspective on the
change. Yours (just grab the jar from time to
Markus:
Thanks for your note. To respond:
1) The change in license was posted on this list. In fact, several messages
warned of its upcoming change. And the license change has been discussed
several times since it was made in December. If you go to the 1t3xt.com
website, where iText has been
Brett Neumeier wrote:
A couple of points. First, there is certainly some application code
that is linked with iText, but that is not necessarily the entire
application system.
Suppose that you use a proprietary application server, then that
application server doesn't count as covered work.
Or you can stick with the old Version 2.1.7 since this one still has
the old license...
ToM
2010/1/14 Anders Thomsen j...@andersthomsen.dk:
I'm a bit confused about with license change to AGPL.
Is a commercial company allowed to, while keeping its own software closed:
1) Use the IText
I'm a bit confused about with license change to AGPL.
Is a commercial company allowed to, while keeping its own software closed:
1) Use the IText library within the company in internally developed
applications ( this should be no problem, right? ).
2) Use the IText library on a company website
, January 14, 2010 1:41 PM
To: itext-questions@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [iText-questions] Licensing questions
I'm a bit confused about with license change to AGPL.
Is a commercial company allowed to, while keeping its own
software closed:
1) Use the IText library within the company
Title: RE: [iText-questions] licensing questions
Here's the text that comes with the AFM files:
This file and the 14 PostScript(R) AFM files it accompanies may be used, copied, and distributed for any purpose and without charge, with or without modification, provided that all copyright
Title: RE: [iText-questions] licensing questions
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruno
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 18:44
To: Derrick Corda
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [iText-questions] licensing questions
3
My company is planning to use iText in our product. (By the way, thanks for
all the GREAT WORK on this product). I have several questions about
licensing and the source. We had initially planned to use the library as
is, but found that for our particular situation we needed to make one small
Quoting Derrick Corda [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
1. While your site and the source indicate that you can choose either the
MPL or LGPL or combination MPL/LGPL license, an item in the newsgroup from
Bruno Lowagie dated 15 May 2003 indicates that the source can not be
licensed under the LGPL only
At 7:43 PM +0100 1/19/04, Bruno wrote:
2. There are several files with the extension .afm where the source is
copyrighted by Adobe. These files have no indication that Adobe has put
this source under LGPL or MPL or put it in the public domain. Is there
somewhere on Adobes site where I can
25 matches
Mail list logo
