| Summary: | GPL violation... | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | poppler | Reporter: | Martin Schröder <martin> |
| Component: | general | Assignee: | poppler-bugs <poppler-bugs> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | blocker | ||
| Priority: | highest | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | Other | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| i915 platform: | i915 features: | ||
How should we modify Dict.h to make, oh you great Paladin of the GPL, happy? (In reply to comment #1) > How should we modify Dict.h to make, oh you great Paladin of the GPL, happy? I don't see how sarcasm is in place here. Is your version of Dict.h still (c) G&C? For an example of complying with 2a, see http://foundry.supelec.fr/plugins/scmsvn/viewcvs.php/trunk/source/src/libs/xpdf/xpdf/PDFDoc.h?view=markup&root=pdftex&pathrev=423 BTDT. Sarcasm is, in my opinion, in place because this is probably one of the smallest GPL violations ever and still you found it interesting to pursue it. Of course we are happy to comply with the GPL license and i thank you for making us note that we are in such violation. About your suggestion, you mean GPL mandates me to duplicate inside the file what i do have in the VCS? Just out of curiosity why did you pick Dict and not other class since we've modified lots of classes? (In reply to comment #3) > Sarcasm is, in my opinion, in place because this is probably one of the > smallest GPL violations ever and still you found it interesting to pursue it. As I said: BTDT. :-) > About your suggestion, you mean GPL mandates me to duplicate inside the file > what i do have in the VCS? As I read it: Yes. Ask the FSF. :-) > Just out of curiosity why did you pick Dict and not other class since we've > modified lots of classes? I looked for a method to set a key. XPDF doesn't have it, poppler has. Will ask the FSF. BTW are you planning to join us? Another head that has hacked through XPDF codebase would be more than welcome. FYI: GPLv3 (not an option here) removed the need for a changelog. (In reply to comment #5) > Will ask the FSF. Any answer yet? Yeah i got two, one from FSFE that says "Not legal advice: There should be a note stating there was a change. In practice I have noticed that many source files tell people to look at a changelog, and the changelog lists the changes (name, brief note on change, date)." while the FSF says "In order not to make this overly burdensome, you need only add a one line, simple notice. So if you modified a file in 2008, you can add something like this (you can add any extra information you wish): Copyright (C) 2008, Albert Astals Cid <aacid@kde.org>" I'm going to do either one or the other for poppler 0.10 (next major version) not for minor versions as i need quite time to dig all the appropiate people that sent contributions. Is that OK for you? (In reply to comment #8) > Is that OK for you? Yes. :-) But IMHO these interpretations are curious, as the wording is quite clear. Should be "fixed" on trunk master/poppler 0.9.0 release as per FSF/FSFE suggestions. |
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.
poppler contains modified XPDF code (which is GPL), but doesn't comply to the GPL: ------- 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. ------- E.g. Dict.h has nothing of a, but is clearly changed. You haven't even changed the copyright notice... :-)