Sorry to bug all the guys here. Chris, Dont seem to know how to reach Matthias. It would be great if you/Matthias can help establish a dialogue on how and what I can do to further the development through time/donation.
Once again sorry for posting here but I really want to contribute. Regards Akshat On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Chris Pugh <[email protected]> wrote: > On 21 April 2010 01:04, Akshat Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > Pardon poking my nose in but I could not refrain from raising my concern > > against burdening generous Open Source Community with commercial motives > and > > expectations. > > Hear, hear! > > > I would appreciate if we could ask politely for a feature if we need it > and > > offer our assistance or support upfront. > > Very well put Sir. if I may say so. ;o) > > > Hi Chris: > > On a different note, I am not very proeficient myself on PDF/Flash > formats > > but should be ok with c/c++ (a bit rusty though). Please let me know > (feel > > free to email me directly) if I can contribute somehow. > > I am but a humble subscriber to this list Akshat, also brushing off > many years of rust! > Matthias is the main project man, and would welcome your input in > whatever form you > feel it should take. > > > SWFTools as well as PDF2SWF are amazing effort ts and more than good > enough to > > encourage (??) many people to cross the boundary and initiate > commercial offering > > based on it. > > .. and what would be even nicer, is, if they publicly acknowledged that > fact, > rather than claiming otherwise! > > > My respect and appreciation to everyone involved. > > Can not thank enough! > > Quite! > > Regards, > > > > Chris. > > > Akshat > > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Chris Pugh <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> One might also try to be somewhat honest with the ( prospective ) > >> customers! As in.. > >> > >> - 'This we are able to do. However, there a few features that are > >> not yet fully implemented due to the limitations of our current systems. > >> We are working hard to improve this situation, and will keep you fully > >> updated as to our progress.' -. > >> .. ' - > >> > >> As to the subject of donating time, well same also goes for myself. > >> I do not ( as yet ) have a thorough knowledge of c/c++, nor am I > properly > >> familiar with PDF/Flash formats, or even for that matter Actionscript > >> 2/3. Maybe with a spot of effort wedged in here and there, this will > >> all come. Who knows? ;o) > >> > >> That said, just maybe a proper division of labour on the various > >> components would help matters along a little, rather than this all > >> falling on a just a few heads? In addition, further documentation > >> on the existing code, and how it operates on the two formats would > >> be beneficial. > >> > >> For some reason, the use of pdf2swf seems to be quite widespread, > >> I'm really not sure why - personally I can't stand all these irritating > >> animations such as 'flipping' ( literally ) books! However, since > >> this component srrms to be the main topic of interest, maybe it > >> should be seperated out from the other tools? Just a thought. > >> > >> Chris. > >> > >> On 20 April 2010 20:16, Matthew Richer <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > It is a pretty common issue amongst FOSS software. I always make a > >> > point of > >> > telling management, "Hey, if you want X feature done now (say multiply > >> > blended transparency groups), then donate some money or contact the > lead > >> > developers and get a price for the custom work. If you aren't willing > >> > to > >> > put money on it, then you'll have to wait for the developers to get > >> > around > >> > to it. There are doing this in their spare time and most likely > cannot > >> > and > >> > do not make a living off of this." If I had enough knowledge on the > >> > language at hand and the area (PDF/Flash manipulations) I would donate > >> > some > >> > time myself, but alas I do not have the skill set. > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > Matt > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: swftools-common-bounces+matthew.richer=conceptshare.com@ > nongnu.org > >> > > >> > [mailto:swftools-common-bounces+matthew.richer<swftools-common-bounces%2Bmatthew.richer> > [email protected]] > >> > On Behalf Of Chris Pugh > >> > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 2:24 PM > >> > To: Michael Haufler (scireum) > >> > Cc: [email protected] > >> > Subject: Re: [Swftools-common] version 1.0? > >> > > >> > On 20 April 2010 16:09, Michael Haufler (scireum) <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> Yeah this is true, > >> > > >> > What's all the fuss about having a One point Zero? > >> > > >> > > >> > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/swftools-common/2010-01/msg00037.html > >> > > >> >> we are also waiting for the next release, and we are also willing to > >> >> test > >> >> the release candidate (with about 220k PDF pages). > >> > > >> > That's a good enough incentive? Wow!! ;o) Now.. if you were to say > >> > donate > >> > x Euros per PDF page tested. maybe that'd be a way better one! ( Why > is > >> > it > >> > that web sites with a commercial bias/angle still expect to be given > >> > stuff > >> > foc, > >> > and invariably want it yesterday? Or am I being a little unfair?) > >> > > >> > Chris. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> Greetings > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Mike > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Von: [email protected] > >> >> [mailto:swftools-common-bounces+mha <swftools-common-bounces%2Bmha>= > [email protected]] Im Auftrag > >> >> von > >> >> filip sound > >> >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. April 2010 16:48 > >> >> An: SWF Tools > >> >> Betreff: [Swftools-common] version 1.0? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> hi, > >> >> > >> >> i'm wondering if the development of pdf2swf is dead or still going > on. > >> >> i > >> > can > >> >> see minor fixes for single pdfs but not a new mayor release for a > long > >> > time. > >> >> will there be anything happening? will there be a version 1.0 some > day? > >> >> > >> >> please let me know, > >> >> filip > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
