Roberto C. Sánchez dijo [Sun, May 31, 2009 at 07:27:56AM -0400]:
Here is behavior that I consider to be equally sane:
$ su -
Password:
# echo ciao /tmp/foo
# chmod -w /tmp/foo
# exit
logout
$ vim /tmp/foo
:w - E45: 'readonly' option is set (add ! to override)
:w! - /tmp/foo E212: Can't
John Goerzen dijo [Sun, May 31, 2009 at 08:24:17AM -0500]:
Actually an advisory dialog (which could be turned off) would make some
sense.
(The author of this PDF document didn't mean to allow you $foo, do you want
to continue anyway? Abort Continue)
Then a) you are aware that there
Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org writes:
Has this suggestion been pushed upstream? Don't you think we would do
a greater service to the KDE users if we convinced the authors instead
of just the Debian maintainers? (or at least, if we listened at their
arguments as well)
My understanding of the
On Sun, 31 May 2009 14:19:12 +0200
Michael Banck mba...@debian.org wrote:
I like the advisory note somebody else proposed, i.e. The author said
you shouldn't do this, do you want to do this anyway?. Whether or
not that dialog could get permanently ignored by the user could be
configurable.
I
Harald Braumann wrote:
[1 text/plain; US-ASCII (quoted-printable)]
On Sun, 31 May 2009 14:19:12 +0200
Michael Banck mba...@debian.org wrote:
I like the advisory note somebody else proposed, i.e. The author said
you shouldn't do this, do you want to do this anyway?. Whether or
not that
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 06:59:03 -0300
David Bremner brem...@unb.ca wrote:
Harald Braumann wrote:
[1 text/plain; US-ASCII (quoted-printable)]
On Sun, 31 May 2009 14:19:12 +0200
Michael Banck mba...@debian.org wrote:
I like the advisory note somebody else proposed, i.e. The author
said
Le mardi 02 juin 2009 à 06:59 -0300, David Bremner a écrit :
I can't think of many dialogs that would be more useless than asking the
user if he wants the software to forbid him to do what he asks it to do.
Like the following, you mean?
dulcinea:~/tmp % rm *
zsh: sure you want
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 06:59:03AM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
Like the following, you mean?
dulcinea:~/tmp % rm *
zsh: sure you want to delete all the files in /home/bremner/tmp [yn]?
Just for the record, this is widely regarded as having been a poor
design decision, and is only
Clint Adams wrote:
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 06:59:03AM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
Like the following, you mean?
dulcinea:~/tmp % rm *
zsh: sure you want to delete all the files in /home/bremner/tmp [yn]?
Just for the record, this is widely regarded as having been a poor
design
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 01:59:15AM +0200, Sjors Gielen wrote:
May I ask why this is seen as a poor design decision? (Assuming that zsh
only asks this if the shell is interactive)
Because it gives a false sense of security, trains people to be less
careful, and doesn't handle all similar use
Quoting Sune Vuorela (s...@vuorela.dk):
4) Patch the text to tell people where to go to turn it off
It's a deviation from upstream that we would have to maintain for eternity.
This issue is not important enough for me to put the extra required work into
it.
Getting the prompt options
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 22:29 +0200, Michelle Konzack a écrit :
In the USA... Not in Germany and France.
Ignoring DRM let you run into touble here. :-/
The French DRM legislation is so stupidly thought-off, badly worded and
unsuitable for real life, that it’s not likely to be ever applied
[Michael Banck]
If copying is indeed the only thing which is mediated via DRM, I agree
with you, but maybe the situation should get analyzed a bit and anyway,
we should make it easy for large organisations (public administration,
companies) to set a default for their users how this should
Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Michael Banck]
If copying is indeed the only thing which is mediated via DRM, I agree
with you, but maybe the situation should get analyzed a bit and anyway,
we should make it easy for large organisations (public administration,
companies) to set a default for their
Am 2009-06-01 10:17:23, schrieb Josselin Mouette:
The French DRM legislation is so stupidly thought-off, badly worded and
unsuitable for real life, that it’s not likely to be ever applied to any
real case.
But currently they are trying exactly the contrary...
If the french advocats would have
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 8:09 AM, John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org wrote:
I'm CCing this to Debian-devel because I think it speaks to a larger
issue.
I just downloaded a PDF, and tried to copy and paste a bit of text
from it. I used the selection tool, and Okular offered to speak it to
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 09:40:20PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Luis Felipe Tabera wrote:
On Sábado, 30 de Mayo de 2009 18:38:40 Marco d'Itri escribió:
On May 31, Pino Toscano p...@kde.org wrote:
This means the author of the PDF set that users shouldn't (in their will)
copy the text from
Le samedi 30 mai 2009 à 21:40 -0500, John Goerzen a écrit :
If this feature is there, it should:
a) be disabled by default, so people can copy maximally without issue;
FWIW, this is what is done in evince, and the setting is hidden.
b) the error message should clearly state how to disable
On 2009-05-31, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
Both these propositions make the feature pointless. The only sensible
options is to dump it entirely, as you are suggesting below.
Actually an advisory dialog (which could be turned off) would make some sense.
(The author of this PDF document
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 09:40:20PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I would go so far as to propose patching it out of Okular entirely.
Debian should not be a tool to support software restrictions like this.
If Debian should not be a tool to support software restrictions like
this, then against
Hi,
This means the author of the PDF set that users shouldn't (in their will)
copy the text from their PDF.
You can disable the usage of document permissions by disabling the
related option from the preferences.
I checked, and do see that option. But why is it on by default? Or
even
Roberto C. Sánchez robe...@connexer.com writes:
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 09:40:20PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I would go so far as to propose patching it out of Okular entirely.
Debian should not be a tool to support software restrictions like this.
If Debian should not be a tool to
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 06:00 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez a écrit :
If Debian should not be a tool to support software restrictions like
this, then against which package should I file a bug to have all unix
user/group permissions ignored?
debian-devel is not the right place to ask for the
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 11:47 +0200, Pino Toscano a écrit :
If tomorrow a corporate person complains that Okular does not respect the PDF
format in that sense and that they cannot make use of it because of that,
what
should I tell them? They would be right.
You tell them to enable the
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:25:05PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 06:00 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez a écrit :
If Debian should not be a tool to support software restrictions like
this, then against which package should I file a bug to have all unix
user/group
Pino Toscano p...@kde.org writes:
Because Okular by default respect the PDF format.
Why it is there? Exactly to give you the freedom to choose, to respect
both the ideas of people who just shiver at listening the DRM word,
and people who make a use of that PDF feature.
Note, though, that
In article 20090531062429.ga18...@glandium.org you wrote:
Let's be realistic, from the moment the functionality exists, it doesn't
make _any_ sense to either of those, as everybody would end up disabling
it somewhen.
Well, if a person is acrobat user and unaware of free defaults and thinks if
tag 531221 wontfix
thanks
On Sunday 31 May 2009 02:09:11 John Goerzen wrote:
Package: okular
Version: 4:4.2.2-2
Severity: normal
I'm CCing this to Debian-devel because I think it speaks to a larger
issue.
I just downloaded a PDF, and tried to copy and paste a bit of text
from it. I used
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 06:00:36AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 09:40:20PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I would go so far as to propose patching it out of Okular entirely.
Debian should not be a tool to support software restrictions like this.
If Debian
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:11:07PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
Allow me to use your analogy[1] to look at an example of a behaviour
that I consider sane:
$ echo ciao /tmp/foo
$ chmod -w /tmp/foo
$ vim /tmp/foo
:w - E45: 'readonly' option is set (add ! to override)
:w! -
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 09:40:20PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
a) be disabled by default, so people can copy maximally without issue;
What about annotations? PDFs are becoming a collaborative document
format (like it or not), it might make sense to restrict annotations to
internally publically
Roberto C. Sánchez robe...@connexer.com writes:
In reality, what I am having trouble with is, how these two
scenarios are different:
1. Someone produces a PDF with certain DRM restrictions. The user
decides that he does not like the restrictions and so looks to
circumvent them.
2. A
Michael Banck mba...@debian.org writes:
I like the advisory note somebody else proposed, i.e. The author said
you shouldn't do this, do you want to do this anyway?. Whether or not
that dialog could get permanently ignored by the user could be
configurable.
Yes, I find this (including the
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 02:30:58AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
I see it's been pointed out in a comment in your blog post already,
but I'll mention it here for the benefit of those reading along:
obeying DRM is a configurable runtime option in Okular, so it's just
a matter of going to the
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 14:19 +0200, Michael Banck a écrit :
I like the advisory note somebody else proposed, i.e. The author said
you shouldn't do this, do you want to do this anyway?. Whether or not
that dialog could get permanently ignored by the user could be
configurable.
No
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 03:02:18PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 14:19 +0200, Michael Banck a écrit :
I like the advisory note somebody else proposed, i.e. The author said
you shouldn't do this, do you want to do this anyway?. Whether or not
that dialog could get
On 2009-05-31, Michael Banck mba...@debian.org wrote:
If you prefer, we can use compiz to cube-scroll to another desktop where
we play a video of you explaining how bad DRM is.
No need to mix compiz in. The kde window manager already have such
desktop effects.
/Sune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Philipp Kern wrote:
On 2009-05-31, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
Both these propositions make the feature pointless. The only sensible
options is to dump it entirely, as you are suggesting below.
Actually an advisory dialog (which could be turned off) would make some sense.
(The
Hello,
On 2009 m. May 31 d., Sunday 15:42:33 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
- If okular has a system-wide setting Obey DRM which acts as a
default for user choices, we have already won: the Debian package
maintainer is fully in charge of making the choice of what that
default should be.
-
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
FWIW If I were the package maintainer, my choice would be not to Obey
DRM by default, but I'm not.
Interestingly enough, we patch this stuff out of xpdf already, for
presumably the same reasons. evince either never had it, or it is
patched out in Debian. I would be
On May 31, Sune Vuorela s...@vuorela.dk wrote:
So. you want Okular to by default help you with violating conditions of use
of
the document you downloaded?
Correct, this is what I would like it to do (but I use evince instead,
which by default does not bother users with this sillyness).
Users
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 08:32:25AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
In any case, I think it was very premature to tag this wontfix.
...
Why are you tagging it wontfix, Sune?
I do not see this as premature at all. We, KDE maintainers, have talked
about it and we all have decided we are ok as it
Ana Guerrero wrote:
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 08:32:25AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
In any case, I think it was very premature to tag this wontfix.
...
Why are you tagging it wontfix, Sune?
I do not see this as premature at all. We, KDE maintainers, have talked
about it and we all have
Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 31, Sune Vuorela s...@vuorela.dk wrote:
So. you want Okular to by default help you with violating conditions of use
of
the document you downloaded?
Correct, this is what I would like it to do (but I use evince instead,
which by default does not bother users
On Sunday 31 May 2009 15:32:25 John Goerzen wrote:
#2 and #4 especially should be exceptionally trivial patches.
Why are you tagging it wontfix, Sune?
I see no reason to deviate from upstream's choices here, no matter how trivial
the patches are.
Here is no bug, so here is nothing to fix.
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 03:54:29PM +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On Sunday 31 May 2009 15:32:25 John Goerzen wrote:
#2 and #4 especially should be exceptionally trivial patches.
Why are you tagging it wontfix, Sune?
I see no reason to deviate from upstream's choices here, no matter how
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 09:05:10AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Ana Guerrero wrote:
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 08:32:25AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
In any case, I think it was very premature to tag this wontfix.
...
Why are you tagging it wontfix, Sune?
I do not see this as
John Goerzen writes:
1) Remove the DRM feature entirely
Please don't call it DRM. It's just advisory locking. IMHO not enabling
it or omitting it entirely has no legal implications.
(I think it should be off by default with an option to turn it on but
that's just my irrelevant opinion. I
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 03:54:29PM +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
I see no reason to deviate from upstream's choices here, no matter
how trivial the patches are.
snip
There is a design decision you don't like, well.
Thanks for the clarity. As hinted in my previous post, I consider
that you (KDE
On May 31, John Hasler jhas...@debian.org wrote:
Please don't call it DRM. It's just advisory locking. IMHO not enabling
it or omitting it entirely has no legal implications.
It clearly has no legal implication (in jurisdictions having such a
clause, like the USA) because it is not an
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 08:32:25AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
presumably the same reasons. evince either never had it, or it is
patched out in Debian. I would be happy with us patching okular to
http://bugs.debian.org/413953
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
Hi,
1) Remove the DRM feature entirely
This will not be done until ISO 32000 changes in that regard.
2) Patch the default to have it disabled
Nope.
3) Patch the prompt to have an allow/deny option
Which prompt are you speaking about?
4) Patch the text to tell people where to go to turn
On Sunday 31 May 2009 16:47:26 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
While I see as reasonable that you took this choice, I see similarly
reasonable that you give the choice to sysadms to make a different
choice easily. If this thread has shown something, is that the choice
is a debatable one, hence it
On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 16:59 +0200, Pino Toscano wrote:
A final remark; John Hasler (and other people) wrote:
(I think it should be off by default with an option to turn it on but
that's just my irrelevant opinion. I don't use the package.)
I'm just curious to know: if you don't use the
On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 12:13 +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
I just downloaded a PDF, and tried to copy and paste a bit of text
from it. I used the selection tool, and Okular offered to speak it to
me, but said Copy forbidden by DRM.
So. you want Okular to by default help you with violating
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 13:02 -0300, Gustavo Noronha a écrit :
On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 12:13 +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
If you download files with license issues that you don't like, I'm not sure
you
should blame it on the software use to view the files.
Then take out the option to
Pino Toscano writes:
I'm just curious to know: if you don't use the package, how can you express
an
opinion on it?
I commented on the misuse of the term DRM to describe the advisory locking
that is the subject of this discussion. I added the parenthetical to make
it clear that I was not
(Please everybody: I read debian devel, I am maintainer of the package so I
get a copy of emails to the bug report. That's already 2 copies. I don't need
a 3rd one put directly in my mailbox)
On Sunday 31 May 2009 16:05:10 John Goerzen wrote:
Could you share your reasoning with us,
John Hasler wrote:
Pino Toscano writes:
I'm just curious to know: if you don't use the package, how can you express
an
opinion on it?
I commented on the misuse of the term DRM to describe the advisory locking
that is the subject of this discussion. I added the parenthetical to make
it
tags 531221 patch
thanks
Sune Vuorela wrote:
2) Patch the default to have it disabled
It's a deviation from upstream that we would have to maintain for eternity.
This issue is not important enough for me to put the extra required work into
it
Here's the patch:
Am 2009-05-31 09:05:10, schrieb John Goerzen:
Could you share your reasoning with us, specifically why you don't like
each of the four options I mentioned? (Reproduced below)
1) Remove the DRM feature entirely
And IF proples want o knoiw, whether a PDF was DRM'ed?
2) Patch the default to
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2009-05-31 09:05:10, schrieb John Goerzen:
Could you share your reasoning with us, specifically why you don't like
each of the four options I mentioned? (Reproduced below)
1) Remove the DRM feature entirely
And IF proples want o knoiw, whether a PDF was DRM'ed?
Am 2009-05-31 15:19:01, schrieb John Goerzen:
This has nothing to do with that. This is a bit flag, and has nothing
to do with the legality of copying some or all of the PDF. It is
*always* legal, in the United States at least, to excerpt small parts of
a document. This holds whether or not
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 10:29:14PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
In the USA... Not in Germany and France.
No, sorry, that's FUD. For instance, you can always copy small part of
materials that aren't even copyrightable, for instance a sequence of
two letters. Please stop using this kind of
Am 2009-05-31 22:43:18, schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
No, sorry, that's FUD. For instance, you can always copy small part of
materials that aren't even copyrightable, for instance a sequence of
two letters. Please stop using this kind of arguments, as they are
worth nothing.
No one is copying
Michelle Konzack writes:
In the USA... Not in Germany and France. Ignoring DRM let you run into
touble here.
This is _not_ DRM. It is just advisory locking. It has no more legal
significance than X-please-do-not-copy: yes in the header of an email
message.
--
John Hasler
--
To
On 2009-05-31 22:29, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2009-05-31 15:19:01, schrieb John Goerzen:
This has nothing to do with that. This is a bit flag, and has nothing
to do with the legality of copying some or all of the PDF. It is
*always* legal, in the United States at least, to excerpt small
Am 2009-06-01 00:39:07, schrieb Olof Johnasson:
This is not correct. In Europe similar laws exist. In Sweden you have
the right to quote any published work, and after a quick search i
found the same goes for at least France.
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 03:54:29PM +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On Sunday 31 May 2009 15:32:25 John Goerzen wrote:
#2 and #4 especially should be exceptionally trivial patches.
Why are you tagging it wontfix, Sune?
I see no reason to deviate from
In article 20090531223907.ga16...@jericho.bsnet.se you wrote:
This is not correct. In Europe similar laws exist. In Sweden you have
the right to quote any published work, and after a quick search i
found the same goes for at least France.
Same for germany. But circumventing DRM is another
Johan Henriksson wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 03:54:29PM +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
On Sunday 31 May 2009 15:32:25 John Goerzen wrote:
#2 and #4 especially should be exceptionally trivial patches.
Why are you tagging it wontfix, Sune?
I see no
John Goerzen wrote:
In any case, two of the three, at least (xpdf and evince) have a similar
core. It would be something if all three could standardize on poppler, eh?
Actually, it appears that okular also uses poppler. But then I also
forgot the Ghostscript-based ones: gv, gs, etc.
-- John
Package: okular
Version: 4:4.2.2-2
Severity: normal
I'm CCing this to Debian-devel because I think it speaks to a larger
issue.
I just downloaded a PDF, and tried to copy and paste a bit of text
from it. I used the selection tool, and Okular offered to speak it to
me, but said Copy forbidden by
+ John Goerzen (Sat, 30 May 2009 19:09:11 -0500):
I'm CCing this to Debian-devel because I think it speaks to a larger
issue.
I just downloaded a PDF, and tried to copy and paste a bit of text
from it. I used the selection tool, and Okular offered to speak it to
me, but said Copy forbidden
On Sábado, 30 de Mayo de 2009 18:38:40 Marco d'Itri escribió:
On May 31, Pino Toscano p...@kde.org wrote:
This means the author of the PDF set that users shouldn't (in their will)
copy the text from their PDF.
You can disable the usage of document permissions by disabling the
related
On May 31, Luis Felipe Tabera lftab...@yahoo.es wrote:
Well, the default should always be to follow the specification of PDF, even
if
there are parts of it that we do not like.
Do you have a rationale to justify this or are you just in the mood for
unsubstantiated statements?
--
ciao,
Luis Felipe Tabera lftab...@yahoo.es writes:
On Sábado, 30 de Mayo de 2009 18:38:40 Marco d'Itri escribió:
It's not clear to me why [turning off DRM] should not be the
default, but anyway I think that the interface could be improved by
mentioning this in the error dialog.
Well, the
On Sat, 30 May 2009, Luis Felipe Tabera wrote:
On Sábado, 30 de Mayo de 2009 18:38:40 Marco d'Itri escribió:
On May 31, Pino Toscano p...@kde.org wrote:
This means the author of the PDF set that users shouldn't (in their will)
copy the text from their PDF.
You can disable the usage of
Luis Felipe Tabera wrote:
On Sábado, 30 de Mayo de 2009 18:38:40 Marco d'Itri escribió:
On May 31, Pino Toscano p...@kde.org wrote:
This means the author of the PDF set that users shouldn't (in their will)
copy the text from their PDF.
You can disable the usage of document permissions by
79 matches
Mail list logo
