[Bug 219013] Review Request: pdflib-lite - Portable C library for dynamically generating PDF files

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Dec 10 10:44:09 UTC 2006


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: pdflib-lite - Portable C library for dynamically generating PDF files
Alias: pdflib-lite

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219013


pertusus at free.fr changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pertusus at free.fr




------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr  2006-12-10 05:44 EST -------
I am not convinced that the license is really OSI compatible,
although I am not sure that it isn't OSI compatible.

* about the 'GPL like' part, there is a restriction that the
  code must be on the web. So it may not be compatible with the
  GPL, and I don't now if this doesn't put too much obligation
  on somebody redistributing the code.

* There is also this which doesn't seems to me to be right:

PDF files generated with the program must include the same Producer entry in the
document info
field as those generated with the original (unmodified) program. Changing the
Producer entry renders
this license invalid.

* also there is the "don't remove files clause". It may not be problematic
  if they don't need to be compiled in, still it is a strange condition.

3.2 Source Code Redistribution
Redistributions of source code must include all files which are part of the
original distribution. Omitting one or more files would result in a distribution
which is not compliant with this license.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list