Re: [License-discuss] TCPDF license: LGPLv3 + a special clause: is this still considered Open Source?
Does the GPL v3 give you the permission to drop legitimate copyright notices from software or accompanying documentation? I know as a software developer I would most certainly NOT drop such attributions for both legal and other reasons. I would add further that the requirement for attribution/copyright notice seems entirely in line with the 7b attribution terms. I don't see why you have to see this as a new license. Best Wishes, Chris Travers ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] TCPDF license: LGPLv3 + a special clause: is this still considered Open Source?
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012, at 01:55 AM, Chris Travers wrote: Does the GPL v3 give you the permission to drop legitimate copyright notices from software or accompanying documentation? As you note, the GPLv3 7b provides the right to require the preservation of legal notices and author attributions in the material that an author has copyright for; and any derivative works of that material. I would add further that the requirement for attribution/copyright notice seems entirely in line with the 7b attribution terms. I don't see why you have to see this as a new license. This requirement was completely different. It was an attribution in dynamically generated content, the generated PDF, which is not their copyrighted material but instead the output of their program. That said, programs that include boilerplate copyrighted material in their output (Bison) might require that the output itself be released under the GPLv3. However, it is traditional for the FSF to provide an exception for this case. Even in this case though, if the output might be considered a work based on the processor itself, it not be an interactive user interface, so I'm not sure if 7b would apply. Best, Clark ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] TCPDF license: LGPLv3 + a special clause: is this still considered Open Source?
Marc Laporte m...@marclaporte.com writes: Hi everyone! The license has changed to vanilla LGPL: http://tcpdf.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=tcpdf/tcpdf;a=blobdiff;f=LICENSE.TXT;h=daf21f7d3eb8748eed5ff70c23ed24729175bce5;hp=26adda0b39f000d80f0dbeff438a91caeafba77f;hb=HEAD;hpb=a39c64ba22843519eb0b6bd114b22a3dd2ef4847 Thanks! Very glad to hear it, and congratulations! :-) Best, -Karl On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com wrote: Marc Laporte m...@marclaporte.com writes: Hi Karl and all! I hope you are well and I am looking for advice, again :-) We are discussing which PDF library to include in Tiki Wiki CMS Groupware (http://tiki.org) TCPDF is an option but there is a special clause It is LGPL v3 + Additionally, YOU CAN'T REMOVE ANY TCPDF COPYRIGHT NOTICE OR LINK FROM THE GENERATED PDF DOCUMENTS. http://www.tcpdf.org/license.php What do you think? I'd stay away from that. If your publishing software places requirements on the *content* of the material you're publishing, something is wrong. In my opinion, as long as they have this clause, TCPDF is not free software, despite their claim that it is. The clause is also unclear: who exactly is the YOU? The first downstream licensee? What about the second - Nth downstream licensees? And can a redistributor of TCPDF remove that clause from the license on their redistributions? (Possibly; after all, the clause doesn't say anything about itself, and it's part of a license notice, not of the license itself.) The whole thing is legally ill-crafted as well as unfree, IMHO. Stay a million miles away. Or, see if you can persuade them that this kind of enforced advertising in output is not the way to go. -Karl -- Forwarded message -- From: Xen Date: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [Tiki-devel] Slideshow gains pdf export ; ). Wiki next! + PDF Document Data Merger To: Tiki developers On 11/23/2011 09:48 AM, Robert Plummer wrote: Also, my first choice was TCPDF, but it is HUGE! 11.5 meg. I couldn't justify making tiki that much larger for simple pdf export. I would also eliminate use of TCPDF for my current needs due to this statement in their license: YOU CAN'T REMOVE ANY TCPDF COPYRIGHT NOTICE OR LINK FROM THE GENERATED PDF DOCUMENTS. http://www.tcpdf.org/license.php On the TCPDF examples, I see a large red logo on the top of every pdf ___ TikiWiki-devel mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tikiwiki-devel ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] TCPDF license: LGPLv3 + a special clause: is this still considered Open Source?
Here is discussion on the topic: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detailaid=3460857group_id=23067atid=377408 On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Marc Laporte m...@marclaporte.com wrote: Hi everyone! The license has changed to vanilla LGPL: http://tcpdf.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=tcpdf/tcpdf;a=blobdiff;f=LICENSE.TXT;h=daf21f7d3eb8748eed5ff70c23ed24729175bce5;hp=26adda0b39f000d80f0dbeff438a91caeafba77f;hb=HEAD;hpb=a39c64ba22843519eb0b6bd114b22a3dd2ef4847 Thanks! M ;-) On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Karl Fogel kfo...@red-bean.com wrote: Marc Laporte m...@marclaporte.com writes: Hi Karl and all! I hope you are well and I am looking for advice, again :-) We are discussing which PDF library to include in Tiki Wiki CMS Groupware (http://tiki.org) TCPDF is an option but there is a special clause It is LGPL v3 + Additionally, YOU CAN'T REMOVE ANY TCPDF COPYRIGHT NOTICE OR LINK FROM THE GENERATED PDF DOCUMENTS. http://www.tcpdf.org/license.php What do you think? I'd stay away from that. If your publishing software places requirements on the *content* of the material you're publishing, something is wrong. In my opinion, as long as they have this clause, TCPDF is not free software, despite their claim that it is. The clause is also unclear: who exactly is the YOU? The first downstream licensee? What about the second - Nth downstream licensees? And can a redistributor of TCPDF remove that clause from the license on their redistributions? (Possibly; after all, the clause doesn't say anything about itself, and it's part of a license notice, not of the license itself.) The whole thing is legally ill-crafted as well as unfree, IMHO. Stay a million miles away. Or, see if you can persuade them that this kind of enforced advertising in output is not the way to go. -Karl -- Forwarded message -- From: Xen Date: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [Tiki-devel] Slideshow gains pdf export ; ). Wiki next! + PDF Document Data Merger To: Tiki developers On 11/23/2011 09:48 AM, Robert Plummer wrote: Also, my first choice was TCPDF, but it is HUGE! 11.5 meg. I couldn't justify making tiki that much larger for simple pdf export. I would also eliminate use of TCPDF for my current needs due to this statement in their license: YOU CAN'T REMOVE ANY TCPDF COPYRIGHT NOTICE OR LINK FROM THE GENERATED PDF DOCUMENTS. http://www.tcpdf.org/license.php On the TCPDF examples, I see a large red logo on the top of every pdf ___ TikiWiki-devel mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tikiwiki-devel ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss -- Marc Laporte http://MarcLaporte.com http://Tiki.org/MarcLaporte http://AvanTech.net -- Marc Laporte http://MarcLaporte.com http://Tiki.org/MarcLaporte http://AvanTech.net ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] TCPDF license: LGPLv3 + a special clause: is this still considered Open Source?
David Woolley scripsit: It is LGPL v3 + Additionally, YOU CAN'T REMOVE ANY TCPDF COPYRIGHT NOTICE OR LINK FROM THE GENERATED PDF DOCUMENTS. http://www.tcpdf.org/license.php What do you think? I'd say the licence was void as it attempts to impose an additional restriction. I would not use it. The further restriction rule in Section 10 of GPL3 applies only to licensees: the licensor, as always, may construct any license he chooses, even things like GPLv3, unless your name is Jones, in which case BSD. (This is a fine illustration of how a license may be open source even though not -- and not likely ever to be -- OSI-approved.) In any case, further restrictions are only voidable, not void ab initio. More seriously, however, this product seems to generate copyright notices in documents written by others, which may well be copyright fraud. I'd stay a million miles away from that. IANAL; TINLA; YYY. -- John Cowan co...@ccil.orghttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan Is it not written, That which is written, is written? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] TCPDF license: LGPLv3 + a special clause: is this still considered Open Source?
Marc Laporte m...@marclaporte.com writes: Hi Karl and all! I hope you are well and I am looking for advice, again :-) We are discussing which PDF library to include in Tiki Wiki CMS Groupware (http://tiki.org) TCPDF is an option but there is a special clause It is LGPL v3 + Additionally, YOU CAN'T REMOVE ANY TCPDF COPYRIGHT NOTICE OR LINK FROM THE GENERATED PDF DOCUMENTS. http://www.tcpdf.org/license.php What do you think? I'd stay away from that. If your publishing software places requirements on the *content* of the material you're publishing, something is wrong. In my opinion, as long as they have this clause, TCPDF is not free software, despite their claim that it is. The clause is also unclear: who exactly is the YOU? The first downstream licensee? What about the second - Nth downstream licensees? And can a redistributor of TCPDF remove that clause from the license on their redistributions? (Possibly; after all, the clause doesn't say anything about itself, and it's part of a license notice, not of the license itself.) The whole thing is legally ill-crafted as well as unfree, IMHO. Stay a million miles away. Or, see if you can persuade them that this kind of enforced advertising in output is not the way to go. -Karl -- Forwarded message -- From: Xen Date: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [Tiki-devel] Slideshow gains pdf export ; ). Wiki next! + PDF Document Data Merger To: Tiki developers On 11/23/2011 09:48 AM, Robert Plummer wrote: Also, my first choice was TCPDF, but it is HUGE! 11.5 meg. I couldn't justify making tiki that much larger for simple pdf export. I would also eliminate use of TCPDF for my current needs due to this statement in their license: YOU CAN'T REMOVE ANY TCPDF COPYRIGHT NOTICE OR LINK FROM THE GENERATED PDF DOCUMENTS. http://www.tcpdf.org/license.php On the TCPDF examples, I see a large red logo on the top of every pdf ___ TikiWiki-devel mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tikiwiki-devel ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] TCPDF license: LGPLv3 + a special clause: is this still considered Open Source?
Marc Laporte wrote: It is LGPL v3 + Additionally, YOU CAN'T REMOVE ANY TCPDF COPYRIGHT NOTICE OR LINK FROM THE GENERATED PDF DOCUMENTS. http://www.tcpdf.org/license.php What do you think? I'd say the licence was void as it attempts to impose an additional restriction. I would not use it. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
