Hello everybody, I just want to share a few notes. Overall I have no real stakes here, so I don't hold much of an opinion on the proposal.
On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 07:17:13PM +0100, Francesco Pretto wrote: > I make one > example: let's suppose a Fortune 500 company is now using and > redistributing PoDoFo in a program of theirs, or a shared library: we > all have now the right to ask this company to release the object code > that was generated and linked in the final executables or libraries. > What is the value of having this right in the "real" world? I answer for > my self only: for me the value is less than zero in the case of a Library > such PoDoFo, and exercise this right would sounds more like a > coercitive move attempting to damage/jeopardize the company business. Just as a data point, there is currently a lawsuit running in California against Vizio, Inc. that includes their refusal (by staying silent) to provide said object code linked against LGPL-2.1 libraries. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/docs/software-freedom-conservancy-v-vizio-complaint-2021-10-19.pdf But yes, honestly I also agree that that particular LGPL provision is useless in real world scenarios, however nice it is when told during an idealistic speech. > I suggest he should name the people that contributed most to PoDoFo > and that should take part in this decision. I'll defer to who better knows Copyright laws and stuff, but from what I concerned, the people that needs contacted are those who actually wrote copyright claims, that for the LGPL parts of PoDoFo (src/* and some tests/*, the rest is GPL-2+) it means: 2000-2016 Dominik Seichter 2008 Craig Ringer Well... since you seems to be taking some care on the licensing and copyright matters, I hope that going forward some more care is put in keeping those headers relevant. That would help a ton in these cases... FTR, the committers (which are not the authors, but SVN doesn't distinguish between authors and committers, and for sure it's not an indication of copyright ownership): 1 ulricharnold001 2 hashimsaleem 2 oleksa 3 mrdocs 4 ceztko 27 pzent 35 pierre_marchand 51 mabri 55 lrosenthol 83 mc-zyx 195 aja_ 269 ringerc 1010 domseichter > I think in many of these cases we can take for granted that posting of > small "trivial" patches into PoDoFo mailing list automatically makes > these patches "public domain". Depending how small, such patches may very well not even be copyrightable, so you can easily get away from those. > Also we should think what do if some people, but not > the majority, disagree with the re-licensing, especially in case of > non-trivial contributors. There is not much to think about. If somebody doesn't agree, that part they own copyright own can't be relicensed, that simple. Your only choices are to either keep those files with the previous license (which would be a legal annoyance), or get rid of those files altogether and reimplement whatever was in it (paying attention to not copy too much from the previous implementation otherwise it becomes a derivative work). Actually, that's the same if somebody doesn't answer. > Currently the license of pdfmm is LGPL 2.1 fixed[5], which it would make > it incompatible to merge new files from pdfmm into PoDoFo I don't think it would. PoDoFo is LGPL-2.0+, if you merge LGPL-2.1 stuff into it, the whole final work becomes LGPL-2.1, and that is not considered a relicensing due to the way the "+" in the LGPL-2.0+ works, afaik. > With one exception (libidn), all the dependencies have permissive (non > coercitive) licenses: > - libidn: LGPL -> FAIL > > I believe at some point we can just take a more permissive stringprep > implementation written in another language/framework and port it to C++. Why is this not a blocker for going forward? Wouldn't linking against libidn make the resulting library effectively be under LGPL too? -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Podofo-users mailing list Podofo-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/podofo-users
