On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 09:48:13AM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote:
> It does, actually (if you want to flame me, please take it off-list),
> but I'm pretty sure that Martin was talking about the DRM shit that you
> (we) should respect, in his opinion.
>
>
Or maybe he just don't want to be the one str
Hi,
On Sun, 27.04.2008 at 11:10:49 -0700, Matthew Dempsky
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 tro
On Fri, 25.04.2008 at 22:16:48 +, Miod Vallat wrote:
> > > "For those who would argue that important content might get
> > > irretrievably locked away in PDF format, I'll remind you that
> > > Xpdf is open source, and can be modified by end users (the GPL
> > > even allows this)."
> >
> >
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
> distributi
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 e
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 autho
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 b
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 anythi
Am Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:52:47 +0200
schrieb Paul de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Again, please note that the OpenBSD project does not distribute the
> patched files.
Just thinking that it would be saner of the original author if he woul
have a configuration switch for disabling. Now everybody do
Am Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:25:13 +0200
schrieb "Martin Schröder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/4/25 Deanna Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > "For those who would argue that important content might get
> > irretrievably locked away in PDF format, I'll remind you that
> > Xpdf is open source, and can b
--- 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
doe
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 q
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 deca
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
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 main
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. Wh
On 4/26/08 2:56 AM, Travers Buda wrote:
The GPL is being followed. DRM is stupid. Oh wait, as a matter
of fact, the two are ideologically opposed to each other!
No no no, GPL is BSD with DRM.
+++chefren
On 4/26/08 1:23 AM, Martin Schröder wrote:
2008/4/26 Tobias Ulmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2.
a) Yup, there it is, complete with dates:
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ports/textproc/xpdf/patches/
The modified file?
But I rest my case; 4 lines are not worth the trouble.
Ah, principle
On 4/26/08 12:25 AM, Miod Vallat wrote:
"For those who would argue that important content might get
irretrievably locked away in PDF format, I'll remind you that
Xpdf is open source, and can be modified by end users (the GPL
even allows this)."
Go ahead, ignore the authors wishes. Show you
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/msg16
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 sa
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
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. (Wh
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
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
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 thi
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.
Thi
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?"
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
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
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 th
* Martin Schr?der <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-25 23:33:05]:
> 2008/4/25 Deanna Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > You mean this part?
> >
> > "For those who would argue that important content might get
> > irretrievably locked away in PDF format, I'll remind you that
> > Xpdf is open source, a
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 01:26:53AM +0200, Martin Schr?der wrote:
| 2008/4/26 Paul de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| > golden. If you disagree (which I fear), could you please state what
| > part of section 2 you are actually referring to ? What is the problem
| > according to you ?
|
| a) wants t
2008/4/26 Paul de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> golden. If you disagree (which I fear), could you please state what
> part of section 2 you are actually referring to ? What is the problem
> according to you ?
a) wants the notion in the modified file, i.e. the patch should also
add a note to the
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:43:42AM +0200, Martin Schr?der wrote:
| 2008/4/26 Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| > Huh? The wishes are gpl; the patch is available so all gpl requirements
| > have been met. Why in the world is this being debated?
| >
| > If your logic was true all linux distr
2008/4/26 Tobias Ulmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2.
> a) Yup, there it is, complete with dates:
> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ports/textproc/xpdf/patches/
The modified file?
But I rest my case; 4 lines are not worth the trouble.
Best
Martin
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:43:42AM +0200, Martin Schr?der wrote:
> 2008/4/26 Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Huh? The wishes are gpl; the patch is available so all gpl requirements
> > have been met. Why in the world is this being debated?
> >
> > If your logic was true all linux distr
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Martin Schröder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/4/26 Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Huh? The wishes are gpl; the patch is available so all gpl requirements
> > have been met. Why in the world is this being debated?
> >
> > If your logic was true
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Martin Schröder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/4/25 Deanna Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > "For those who would argue that important content might get
> > irretrievably locked away in PDF format, I'll remind you that
> > Xpdf is open source, and can be m
2008/4/26 Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Huh? The wishes are gpl; the patch is available so all gpl requirements
> have been met. Why in the world is this being debated?
>
> If your logic was true all linux distributions would be breaking the
> rules because everyone patches stuff. Ho
Huh? The wishes are gpl; the patch is available so all gpl requirements
have been met. Why in the world is this being debated?
If your logic was true all linux distributions would be breaking the
rules because everyone patches stuff. How did you even come up with
this?
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:16:48PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
> > > "For those who would argue that important content might get
> > > irretrievably locked away in PDF format, I'll remind you that
> > > Xpdf is open source, and can be modified by end users (the GPL
> > > even allows this)."
> >
> > "For those who would argue that important content might get
> > irretrievably locked away in PDF format, I'll remind you that
> > Xpdf is open source, and can be modified by end users (the GPL
> > even allows this)."
>
> Go ahead, ignore the authors wishes. Show your disrespect.
Your logi
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:25:13PM +0200, Martin Schröder wrote:
> > "For those who would argue that important content might get
> > irretrievably locked away in PDF format, I'll remind you that
> > Xpdf is open source, and can be modified by end users (the GPL
> > even allows this)."
>
> Go a
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:25:13PM +0200, Martin Schr?der wrote:
> 2008/4/25 Deanna Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > "For those who would argue that important content might get
> > irretrievably locked away in PDF format, I'll remind you that
> > Xpdf is open source, and can be modified by end
> 2008/4/25 Deanna Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > You mean this part?
> >
> > "For those who would argue that important content might get
> > irretrievably locked away in PDF format, I'll remind you that
> > Xpdf is open source, and can be modified by end users (the GPL
> > even allows this
2008/4/25 Deanna Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You mean this part?
>
> "For those who would argue that important content might get
> irretrievably locked away in PDF format, I'll remind you that
> Xpdf is open source, and can be modified by end users (the GPL
> even allows this)."
While an
* Martin Schr?der <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-25 23:23:17]:
> 2008/4/25 Travers Buda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > This part?
>
> Troll.
>
>
Wow.
--
Travers Buda
2008/4/25 Deanna Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "For those who would argue that important content might get
> irretrievably locked away in PDF format, I'll remind you that
> Xpdf is open source, and can be modified by end users (the GPL
> even allows this)."
Go ahead, ignore the authors wishe
2008/4/25 Travers Buda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This part?
Troll.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Deanna Phillips
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Floor Terra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > There are similar checks to prevent printing for example. You
> > only need to put "return 1;" in OkToPrint()[1]. It's trivial
> > to change the source and recompile if you
* Martin Schr?der <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-25 17:32:26]:
> 2008/4/25 Travers Buda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > There is plenty of precedent for this sort of thing. Plus, xpdf
> > is GPL 2, so we're not dealing with some sort of Iceweasel or Apache
> > type malarkey. It's not an issue.
>
> Re
Kill the DRM! DIE DIE DIE
In theory, around Friday 25 April 2008 10:22:42 Deanna Phillips wrote:
> Floor Terra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > There are similar checks to prevent printing for example. You
> > only need to put "return 1;" in OkToPrint()[1]. It's trivial
> > to change the s
"Martin Schröder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/4/25 Deanna Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> anyone, ok?
>
> http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/cracking.html
You mean this part?
"For those who would argue that important content might get
irretrievably locked away in PDF format, I'll remind you th
2008/4/25 Travers Buda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There is plenty of precedent for this sort of thing. Plus, xpdf
> is GPL 2, so we're not dealing with some sort of Iceweasel or Apache
> type malarkey. It's not an issue.
Read section 2 of the GPL2 please.
Best
Martin
2008/4/25 Deanna Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> anyone, ok?
http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/cracking.html
Best
Martin
Floor Terra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are similar checks to prevent printing for example. You
> only need to put "return 1;" in OkToPrint()[1]. It's trivial
> to change the source and recompile if you need to.
That is much nicer. Here's a new diff from brad that uses your
method.
Work
* Martin Schr?der <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-25 10:00:22]:
> 2008/4/25 Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Thank you very much for your opinion, but it is clear you come
> > with an agenda.
> >
> > The OpenBSD project people do not follow the "bend to Adobe" agenda
> > that some xpdf peop
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, [ISO-8859-1] Andrés wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Deanna Phillips
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There's some DRM code left in xpdf that prevents me from copying
> > text.
> >
> > This kills it. ok?
>
> Please, don't add things like this to the ports tree. It'
> 2008/4/25 Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Thank you very much for your opinion, but it is clear you come
> > with an agenda.
> >
> > The OpenBSD project people do not follow the "bend to Adobe" agenda
> > that some xpdf people follow.
>
> While it's always nice to blame Adobe, please
On Friday 25 April 2008 04:00:22 Martin Schröder wrote:
> 2008/4/25 Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Thank you very much for your opinion, but it is clear you come
> > with an agenda.
> >
> > The OpenBSD project people do not follow the "bend to Adobe" agenda
> > that some xpdf people fol
2008/4/25 Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Thank you very much for your opinion, but it is clear you come
> with an agenda.
>
> The OpenBSD project people do not follow the "bend to Adobe" agenda
> that some xpdf people follow.
While it's always nice to blame Adobe, please first discuss th
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Chris Kuethe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot=
> e:
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Andr=E9s <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because ports is about getting things done, and code that gets in the
> > way of you getting things done must die.
>
> Appl
On Fri, 24 Apr 2008, Unix Fan wrote:
I'd support the removal of DRM in xpdf, it's mostly a nuisance then a feature...
One could even classify it as a security problem (on PDF protocol level),
since the user of a PDF document is vulnerable to a denial-of-service attack
from a mischevious author.
On Thursday 24 April 2008 20:21:30 Andrés wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Chris Kuethe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Andrés <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because ports is about getting things done, and code that gets in the
> > way of
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Andrés <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apply your patches locally, fork it, whatever; just don't make the
> port tree a place to get your favorite patches in.It is for
> _installing_ stuff.
1) Too late. We already have some extra patches for various ports
because th
On Thursday 24 April 2008 19:46:04 Andrés wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 24 April 2008 18:41:44 Andrés wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Deanna Phillips
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > There's some DRM code left i
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Chris Kuethe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Andrés <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why?
>
> Because ports is about getting things done, and code that gets in the
> way of you getting things done must die.
Apply your patches locally
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Andrés <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why?
Because ports is about getting things done, and code that gets in the
way of you getting things done must die.
--
GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?
* Andr?s <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080424 19:55]:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2008/04/24 19:41, Andr?s wrote:
> > > Please, don't add things like this to the ports tree. It's purpose is
> > > to easy installation, no to add customized programs.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 24 April 2008 18:41:44 Andrés wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Deanna Phillips
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > There's some DRM code left in xpdf that prevents me from copying
> > > text.
> > >
>
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008/04/24 19:41, Andrés wrote:
> > Please, don't add things like this to the ports tree. It's purpose is
> > to easy installation, no to add customized programs. And a flavor
> > wouldn't count, as a flavor is a c
I'd support the removal of DRM in xpdf, it's mostly a nuisance then a
feature... several programming datasheets have it enabled, it's really rather
stupid to prevent user from coping the "sample" code blocks into a text editor.
Please remove stuff like that, it benefits no-one except those looni
On 2008/04/24 19:41, Andrés wrote:
> Please, don't add things like this to the ports tree. It's purpose is
> to easy installation, no to add customized programs. And a flavor
> wouldn't count, as a flavor is a customized _compiled_ program, not a
> program + third party patches. It even makes harde
On Thursday 24 April 2008 18:41:44 Andrés wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Deanna Phillips
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There's some DRM code left in xpdf that prevents me from copying
> > text.
> >
> > This kills it. ok?
>
> Please, don't add things like this to the ports tree. It
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Deanna Phillips wrote:
There's some DRM code left in xpdf that prevents me from copying
text.
This kills it. ok?
[snip]
There are similar checks to prevent printing for example. You only need
to put "return 1;" in OkToPrint()[1]. It's trivial to change the source
and re
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Deanna Phillips
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's some DRM code left in xpdf that prevents me from copying
> text.
>
> This kills it. ok?
Please, don't add things like this to the ports tree. It's purpose is
to easy installation, no to add customized programs
77 matches
Mail list logo
