On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Ian McWilliam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stephan Andre' wrote: > > > On Friday 25 April 2008 20:49:00 Ian McWilliam wrote: > > > > > > > Ok, Not really wanting to comment on this.... call me a troll, call me > > > want you want but.... > > > > > > The following rant in NOT about GPL licensing......... > > > I am neither supporting or denying the the said change to xdpf. > > > This is a discussion about modifying "standards".. > > > > > > What is hypocrytical here is the not one person has said the have looked > > > at the "standard" for PDF to determine the "correct behaviour". Whether > > > it is for or against peoples wishes, there is a standard somewhere and > > > even the author of xpdf hints that there is one and what you are > > > removing is against the "standard". > > > > > > http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/cracking.html > > > > > > "... I distribute source code (for Xpdf) under a particular license (the > > > GPL) which depends entirely on users' goodwill for its effectiveness. If > > > any of my users ever decided to violate the license, I would probably > > > never even know about it, much less be able to do anything about it. The > > > only thing I can do is trust the users. > > > > > > In light of this, it would be very hypocritical of me to, on one hand, > > > ask people to honor my licensing restrictions, and, on the other hand, > > > bypass (or assist others in bypassing) another author's requested > > > restrictions. > > > > > > In addition to all of this, Adobe requires that implementors of the PDF > > > spec adhere to the document permissions. > > > ..." > > > > > > I haven't read the Adobe PDF sepc or "standard" and have no intention > > > to. It looks like no body here wants to either. I find that puzzling > > > seeing..... > > > > > > According to a recent thread on tech@ recently, > > > > > > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=120890031123301&w=2 > > > > > > "This patch is a joke. It will never go into OpenSSH since it is > > > completely incorrect. The standard is clear -- > > > > > > The version string for an SSH client or server is supposed to be > > > disclosed. It is the standard behaviour, and is done for very good > > > reasons." > > > > > > Can anybody explain why is it acceptable to modify a "standard" for > > > "ports" but not not for "base"? > > > > > > <flame away> > > > > > > Ian McWilliam > > > > > > P.S I hate DRM as much as the next person. > > > > > > > > > > Because the two are completely different concepts. The SSH "patch" > > was clueless, both in terms of how OpenSSH works, and the protection > > it would(n't) give. > > > > > > > Sorry STeve but we are not talking directly about the SSH patch in > question. It's the concept of modifying software away from it's documented > behaviour / standard. > > > > > The removal of the DRM code is has actual benefit, the GPL permits this, > > and Adobe *knows* this. This is useless laywer gobble. PDF's are now > > an ISO standard. > > > > > > > So if PDF is now an ISO standrard then what does the standard say about > what being modified? > > This still dosn't answer why it is acceptable to modify a piece of software > away from it's standards definition >
maybe you are a little confuse about design versus implementation? iru
