On Fri, 25.04.2008 at 22:16:48 +, Miod Vallat m...@online.fr 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 be modified by
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 does
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 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
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
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
. (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
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
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
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
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 your
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, principles
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 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.
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
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 those
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 follow.
While
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
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's purpose is
* 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 people follow.
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.
Works for
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 that
Xpdf is
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 source and
* 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.
Read section 2
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 need to.
2008/4/25 Travers Buda [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This part?
Troll.
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 wishes. Show
* 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]:
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
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 users
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 ahead,
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 logic implies
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).
Go ahead,
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. How did
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 modified by
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 all linux
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 distributions
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
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 file
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 the
* 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, and can be
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
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
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
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'
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.
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
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
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
There's some DRM code left in xpdf that prevents me from copying
text.
This kills it. ok?
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/textproc/xpdf/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.61
diff -u -p -r1.61 Makefile
--- Makefile19 Apr
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. And
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
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's purpose is
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
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
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.
This kills it.
* 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. And a
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?
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, fork
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 in xpdf that
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 they
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 you getting
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 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.
Apply your patches
73 matches
Mail list logo
