Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
Hi, On Sun, 27.04.2008 at 11:10:49 -0700, Matthew Dempsky matt...@dempsky.org wrote: His use case for PDF's DRM was simply to protect students from accidentally printing the animated slides instead of the still 4-up slides. yes, but this is a weak use case. I, for one, would expect students to have no trouble to read simple notices about appropriate usage of their learning material, and make an informed decision thereafter. But maybe I'm just expecting too much when I hear people say that (University) students need a calculator to compute 6 x 4 these days (no kidding!). -- Kind regards, --Toni++
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
On 26 Apr 2008, at 9:30 PM, Marc Espie wrote: We're talking about stupid, evil, legal DRM here. The pdf document basically says `oh, you're not supposed to do things with this document, because I say so'. There's nothing that prevents anyone from doing anything with the document. If anything, our xpdf should probably display a notice that says `the author of the document thought you should not be able to print it... or whatever'. Finally, some sense, thanks. The real issue for me at least is the fact that one is prepared to modify (in this case xpdf) away for what ever standard it is written against, modified away from the original software distribution without documenting the change, informing the end user who installs the modified software so they can make an informed decision as to whether they still want to use the modified version or go off and install the unmodified version. In the case of xpdf, everyone just wanted to shout we can modify the software because we can. If the modification is some where documented, then I and others don't sit scratching our heads as to why this no longer works the way it should according to the standard or whatever. But there is no actual protection in the document. It's all stupid shackles in software. This is a case where I strongly believe in freedom: the end user should be able to decide what they can do with the document. And equality: knowledgeable technical users shouldn't have an edge. It's completely hypocritical to say `oh, you can recompile the software to remove the restriction', because it shuts down some users. As far as I'm concerned, you've got two levels of protection: legal and technical. This `drm' part of pdf is purely legal: you get a document, you are informed you're not supposed to do such and such, and THAT'S IT. There's no technical protection to speak of. For me, the legal barrier is quite enough. As adult, you can make an ethical choice whether or not to obey the spirit of the document author. Ian McWilliam
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
On 26 Apr 2008, at 1:34 PM, Iruata Souza wrote: 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-techm=120890031123301w=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 Not really, I have no issue with design vs implementation as long as it is documented somehow. The issue is that we want to modify software away from the original implementation but not document that fact. Ian McWilliam
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
On 26 Apr 2008, at 2:30 PM, Nick Holland wrote: Ian McWilliam wrote: ... Can anybody explain why is it acceptable to modify a standard for ports but not not for base? I think Standards is a bogus argument here. That's not what this is about. Try this way of looking at it: The author of xpdf wants DRM in the source code. That is his right. Many users find it more useful without it. That is their right. We distribute patches to build a version that disables the DRM that will never be incorporated into the main package. That is our right. The author distributes it the way they wish to, and OpenBSD distributes a patch. Everyone's rights are respected. Author has freedom, users have freedom, OpenBSD has freedom. The authors of OpenSSH don't want to hide the version. That is their right. A few users think there is benefit in hiding the version. That is their right (you have the right to remain wrong...) Someone distributes a patch that will never go into the OpenSSH code. That is their right. The authors distribute the code they wish to and users can distribute a patch. Everyone's rights are respected. Authors have freedom, users have freedom, patchers have freedom. You see a difference. I see remarkable parallels. This is real freedom in action. What you seem to think is that you get a vote or claim on someone else's work. No, you don't. Not here, at least. OpenBSD decides what is in OpenBSD, The xpdf authors get to decide what is in xpdf, The OpenSSH authors get to decide what is in OpenSSH. And that is how it should be, and that is how it is. YOU get to decide what you wish to use, too. Not if you modify that software away from it's original intention and not tell me about it. Then I don't get to decide. You may use OpenBSD or not. You may use xpdf in patched or unpatched form. Only if I know it's changed. No body seems prepared to tell me you modified it at point of installation. You may or may not respect the wishes of the author of documents you look at with xpdf. wow, you got freedom too. Amazing how this works. :) Think about this: I suspect most developers and users of OpenBSD think the DRM features of xpdf are stupid and annoying..but I bet virtually all of them would fight for the RIGHT of the author to decide to be stupid and annoying, and put whatever they darned well please into their own code. There is a difference between wishing and attempting to persuade someone to do something differently, and demanding or expecting them to do something differently. A very large difference, which is often missed by many. I WISH xpdf didn't have silly DRM stuff in it. I WISH people didn't distribute silly patches for OpenSSH I am glad they can. Nick. -- By reading this note, you agree to not think of a big red bird with fuzzy pink feet. Ian McWilliam
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
Ian McWilliam [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The real issue for me at least is the fact that one is prepared to modify (in this case xpdf) away for what ever standard it is written against, modified away from the original software distribution without documenting the change, informing the end user who installs the modified software so they can make an informed decision as to whether they still want to use the modified version or go off and install the unmodified version. I'd call it a sane default. If we made an xpdf-drm FLAVOR of this port, how many people do you think would choose it? Would you?
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 08:43:36PM +1000, Ian McWilliam wrote: Finally, some sense, thanks. The real issue for me at least is the fact that one is prepared to modify (in this case xpdf) away for what ever standard it is written against, modified away from the original software distribution without documenting the change, informing the end user who installs the modified software so they can make an informed decision as to whether they still want to use the modified version or go off and install the unmodified version. I don't see any actual reason to have flavors for xpdf. As far as I'm concerned, the drm part is just some bits in the document. This is information, we should display it, let's say add a menu that tells you what protection the document has, possibly add a notice requester that tells you the author didn't intend for you to print the document, asking you for confirmation and... that's it. I only see reasons to tell people they're about to do something that the original author of the document didn't intend them to, and to let them choose what they will do, based on technical possibilities.
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
Zvezdan Petkovic wrote: On Apr 26, 2008, at 7:30 AM, Marc Espie wrote: If anything, our xpdf should probably display a notice that says `the author of the document thought you should not be able to print it... or whatever'. I didn't mean to get into this discussion because it really doesn't concern me at all. Whatever the port maintainer decides I'm fine with it. However, I agree with this comment above from Marc Espie. I am guilty of using DRM in PDF in the past. Here's my use case. I used to teach at the university. My slides usually had figures with animations in it, resulting in multiple pages for each step of animation. If a student presses a print button in a public lab they may pay a lot of money for 200 pages of slides in huge letters and page-by-page animation. To prevent an unnecessary expense to a student, I always switched ON do not allow printing in PDFs of these lecture slides. I also always posted a 4 up version of the slides with *no* protection -- 4 slides per page with animations turned into a final picture after the last step. Students than could print 10 to 20 pages of this document as opposed to 200. They could also watch original slides on screen if they needed to see steps in the particular figure for better understanding of a process. I also alway explained to students in class why there are two copies of the same slides and why is only one of them printable. So, in my opinion this DRM has its use cases. I hate to disagree with somebody who sounds like my fellow countryman but DRM has NO use. I also teach at the University and I some time prepare slides too which use over layers and even more fancy stuff. Any decant software for preparing slides (in my case I use Powerdot Latex class of presentation) has so called note mode. In note mode you can choose to put up to 4 slides on the single sheet of the paper for purposes of printing hand outs for your students. You may also include additional rule lines for taking the notes. Note mode will ignore over layers (which are in essence separate slides) or any other additional stuff. To stay on the same note I think that scientific publishing is in sorry state and is ripe for a Theo De Raadt of open publishing. I am so sick to see my students spending hundreds of dollars for books that should not cost mode than $10. In an era when the role of publisher is in essence reduced to printing already prepared manuscript (yes TeX and computers have revolutionized publishing almost as much as Gutenberg printing press) and maybe market it little bit I see no reasons for their existence in present form. I am sick of cheap tricks like having new editions every two years or so. I am sick of extra software that comes with the textbooks that nobody uses. I am sadden by a use of high quality paper for books that kids are not going to keep more than a single school year. Most Kind Regards, Predrag Punosevac Replacing a protection with a message of intent of the author is probably a good idea.
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Predrag Punosevac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hate to disagree with somebody who sounds like my fellow countryman but DRM has NO use. I also teach at the University and I some time prepare slides too which use over layers and even more fancy stuff. Any decant software for preparing slides (in my case I use Powerdot Latex class of presentation) has so called note mode. In note mode you can choose to put up to 4 slides on the single sheet of the paper for purposes of printing hand outs for your students. You may also include additional rule lines for taking the notes. Note mode will ignore over layers (which are in essence separate slides) or any other additional stuff. Zvezdan did say I also always posted a 4 up version of the slides with *no* protection -- 4 slides per page with animations turned into a final picture after the last step. His use case for PDF's DRM was simply to protect students from accidentally printing the animated slides instead of the still 4-up slides.
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
On Apr 27, 2008, at 12:20 AM, Matthew Dempsky wrote: In lieu of that, a simpler solution would seem to be to title your links to the slides as Printer-friendly sides (no animation) and Screen-friendly slides (animation). Hopefully university students can read, and if not, they should learn quickly after paying for a 200 page printout. :-) Thank you for the comment Matthew. That is exactly what I did. The lecture table on the class web site looked something like this. Lecture title Slides Printable 4 up slides I also agree with you that the message could be too intrusive. I knew that more advanced students who use Linux or BSDs can go around the protection on the slides and I didn't worry about that at all. I simply knew that they know enough to take care of themselves. Best regards, Zvezdan
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
--- Predrag Punosevac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Zvezdan Petkovic wrote: So, in my opinion this DRM has its use cases. I hate to disagree with somebody who sounds like my fellow countryman but DRM has NO use. Actually, he stated a use for it. Just because there are alternatives doesn't mean that his use isn't valid. To stay on the same note I think that scientific publishing is in sorry state and is ripe for a Theo De Raadt of open publishing. Considering that many researchers post there papers on there own web pages, there is the arXiv, a second (at least) free textbook publisher announced on slashdot a few days ago, department made texts at many Universities (several of my classes had them at my old U) and the existence of places like lulu.com, I don't think that we are in such dire straights as you seem to imply that we are in. All that I think needs to happen is that Profs take advantage of the resources that are already out there. As in, it's one thing for these texts to exist, but quite another for them to be used. But, it does also take man power to create these texts in the first place... I am so sick to see my students spending hundreds of dollars for books that should not cost mode than $10. In an era when the role of publisher is in essence reduced to printing already prepared manuscript (yes TeX and computers have revolutionized publishing almost as much as Gutenberg printing press) and maybe market it little bit I see no reasons for their existence in present form. I am sick of cheap tricks like having new editions every two years or so. In general I agree, but there are some exceptions. For instance, there is Dudley's Elementary Number Theory and Nering's Linear Algebra and Matrix Theory among others (some by Lang and Rudin). All of those worth there high price tag. Let's not ignore corner cases. But, even then, Profs should start to apply pressure to publishing houses to lower the prices of (at least) the older texts. It's not like they haven't recouped the expenses. I am sick of extra software that comes with the textbooks that nobody uses. I am sadden by a use of high quality paper for books that kids are not going to keep more than a single school year. Not to mention the glare that comes off that paper that makes it difficult to read... at least for my older eyes ;) At any rate, so as to not have this mail completely off topic, if the maintainer would include a patch to get rid of the DRM in xpdf, I'd greatly appreciate it. best regards, Reid Nichol President Bush says: War Is Peace Freedom Is Slavery Ignorance Is Strength Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Ian McWilliam wrote: 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. Confirmed. And we are happy about it! DRM is in the PDF standard. (Which is bad, but I won't waste time trying to fix that...) OpenBSD is now removing DRM from xpdf. (Which is good.) So instead of being compliant to the full PDF standard, the new OpenBSD version of xpdf will be compliant to the PDF standard, excluding the DRM stuff. (Which is better than full compliance, since we are avoiding a denial-of-service vulnerability in the standard.) This could be worth meantioning in the man page... /Johan
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Ian McWilliam wrote: 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. http://www.mail-archive.com/ports@openbsd.org/msg16457.html The reason those checks are in there are simple: You need to implement these functions to comply to the PDF specs. -- Floor Terra [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://brobding.mine.nu/
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
We're talking about stupid, evil, legal DRM here. The pdf document basically says `oh, you're not supposed to do things with this document, because I say so'. There's nothing that prevents anyone from doing anything with the document. If anything, our xpdf should probably display a notice that says `the author of the document thought you should not be able to print it... or whatever'. But there is no actual protection in the document. It's all stupid shackles in software. This is a case where I strongly believe in freedom: the end user should be able to decide what they can do with the document. And equality: knowledgeable technical users shouldn't have an edge. It's completely hypocritical to say `oh, you can recompile the software to remove the restriction', because it shuts down some users. As far as I'm concerned, you've got two levels of protection: legal and technical. This `drm' part of pdf is purely legal: you get a document, you are informed you're not supposed to do such and such, and THAT'S IT. There's no technical protection to speak of. For me, the legal barrier is quite enough. As adult, you can make an ethical choice whether or not to obey the spirit of the document author.
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Floor Terra wrote: On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Ian McWilliam wrote: 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. http://www.mail-archive.com/ports@openbsd.org/msg16457.html The reason those checks are in there are simple: You need to implement these functions to comply to the PDF specs. Since when does this crowd interpret closed, DRM-embodying legal notice crap as an official spec? DRM has no place in free software. As others pointed out, the legal disclaimers are totally sufficient. Lee == Leland V. Lammert[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chief ScientistOmnitec Corporation Network/Internet Consultants www.omnitec.net ==
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
On Apr 26, 2008, at 7:30 AM, Marc Espie wrote: If anything, our xpdf should probably display a notice that says `the author of the document thought you should not be able to print it... or whatever'. I didn't mean to get into this discussion because it really doesn't concern me at all. Whatever the port maintainer decides I'm fine with it. However, I agree with this comment above from Marc Espie. I am guilty of using DRM in PDF in the past. Here's my use case. I used to teach at the university. My slides usually had figures with animations in it, resulting in multiple pages for each step of animation. If a student presses a print button in a public lab they may pay a lot of money for 200 pages of slides in huge letters and page-by-page animation. To prevent an unnecessary expense to a student, I always switched ON do not allow printing in PDFs of these lecture slides. I also always posted a 4 up version of the slides with *no* protection -- 4 slides per page with animations turned into a final picture after the last step. Students than could print 10 to 20 pages of this document as opposed to 200. They could also watch original slides on screen if they needed to see steps in the particular figure for better understanding of a process. I also alway explained to students in class why there are two copies of the same slides and why is only one of them printable. So, in my opinion this DRM has its use cases. Replacing a protection with a message of intent of the author is probably a good idea.
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Zvezdan Petkovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Replacing a protection with a message of intent of the author is probably a good idea. Maybe for the xpdf maintainer (e.g., a --soft-drm configure option), but that definitely seems way too intrusive a patch for maintainence within the ports tree. In lieu of that, a simpler solution would seem to be to title your links to the slides as Printer-friendly sides (no animation) and Screen-friendly slides (animation). Hopefully university students can read, and if not, they should learn quickly after paying for a 200 page printout. :-)
Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
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-techm=120890031123301w=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.
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
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-techm=120890031123301w=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. 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. Apples and oranges. --STeve Andre'
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Ian McWilliam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anybody explain why is it acceptable to modify a standard for ports but not not for base? I'm going to guess that the core reason is what helps more users?: - A pdf spec that's written to sell the illusion that you still have control over data that you've given to someone else? That's not helpful, may even be harmful. Insert bad-crypto vs. no-crypto argument... - A pdf reader that gets in the way of you accessing content or a pdf reader that lets you get your job done with the minimum of hassle? The latter. I'm going to assume that if you're looking at a PDF you have at least some license to access it. At least the password protected pdfs make you work for it if you're trying to read a pdf without permission. A non-printable pdf can be trivially screencapped and printed... more illusions for sale. And what if i'm writing a driver based on something in a de-permitted pdf? How is the magic 0x8000 I typed any different from the 0x8000 I could've just copied from the datasheet? - An ssh implementation that tries to avoid known (possibly security-related) bugs or an ssh implementation that just hopes the other guy got it right too. The former is more helpful. Maybe you'll be lucky and negotiate secure settings, maybe you'll be slightly unlucky and fail to connect or maybe you'll be very unlucky and negotiate cipher none. Also, (and this may seem a little shallow) the original implementers (ssh, xpdf, whatever else) probably try to adhere to the spec as closely as they can. They produce a program with predictable behaviour - that's helpful. Then they give away the source in hopes that someone finds it useful... after that, there's nothing stopping their users who've legitimately acquired the source from saying this is 99.% of what i need, i just need one more tweak and hacking it up to suit their own ends. CK -- GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
On Friday, April 25, Chris Kuethe wrote: On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Ian McWilliam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anybody explain why is it acceptable to modify a standard for ports but not not for base? I'm going to guess that the core reason is what helps more users?: Nah, it' because it's right. There are other places where openbsd does not follow the letter of the standard/spec in order to enhance security, or interoperability, or user experience. If a user disagrees, they are welcome to use other software. I certainly won't stop them. :) --Toby.
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
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-techm=120890031123301w=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 Apples and oranges. --STeve Andre' Another example. Why has the 100 character limit filenames stored in a tar archive not been modified away from its documented standard. (We all know it's 100 character limit is arcane in modern terms. So far no one is coming up with well documented valid arguments for modifying away from documented standards. Ian McWilliam
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
On Saturday, April 26, Ian McWilliam wrote: Why has the 100 character limit filenames stored in a tar archive not been modified away from its documented standard. (We all know it's 100 character limit is arcane in modern terms. Please use google and find out what gnu tar has done in this area. --Toby.
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
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-techm=120890031123301w=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
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
Ian McWilliam wrote: ... Can anybody explain why is it acceptable to modify a standard for ports but not not for base? I think Standards is a bogus argument here. That's not what this is about. Try this way of looking at it: The author of xpdf wants DRM in the source code. That is his right. Many users find it more useful without it. That is their right. We distribute patches to build a version that disables the DRM that will never be incorporated into the main package. That is our right. The author distributes it the way they wish to, and OpenBSD distributes a patch. Everyone's rights are respected. Author has freedom, users have freedom, OpenBSD has freedom. The authors of OpenSSH don't want to hide the version. That is their right. A few users think there is benefit in hiding the version. That is their right (you have the right to remain wrong...) Someone distributes a patch that will never go into the OpenSSH code. That is their right. The authors distribute the code they wish to and users can distribute a patch. Everyone's rights are respected. Authors have freedom, users have freedom, patchers have freedom. You see a difference. I see remarkable parallels. This is real freedom in action. What you seem to think is that you get a vote or claim on someone else's work. No, you don't. Not here, at least. OpenBSD decides what is in OpenBSD, The xpdf authors get to decide what is in xpdf, The OpenSSH authors get to decide what is in OpenSSH. And that is how it should be, and that is how it is. YOU get to decide what you wish to use, too. You may use OpenBSD or not. You may use xpdf in patched or unpatched form. You may or may not respect the wishes of the author of documents you look at with xpdf. wow, you got freedom too. Amazing how this works. :) Think about this: I suspect most developers and users of OpenBSD think the DRM features of xpdf are stupid and annoying..but I bet virtually all of them would fight for the RIGHT of the author to decide to be stupid and annoying, and put whatever they darned well please into their own code. There is a difference between wishing and attempting to persuade someone to do something differently, and demanding or expecting them to do something differently. A very large difference, which is often missed by many. I WISH xpdf didn't have silly DRM stuff in it. I WISH people didn't distribute silly patches for OpenSSH I am glad they can. Nick. -- By reading this note, you agree to not think of a big red bird with fuzzy pink feet.
