Re: [Swftools-common] Licensing issue with GPL

[Chris]

On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 20:23:18 +0100
Mohamed El Morabity <address@hidden> wrote:

> 2011/1/6 Chris <address@hidden>:
>> pdflib is not a mandatory dependency for building/using >pdf2swf. Linking 
>> against it is OPTIONAL, and a choice made at >compile time. If the installer 
>> finds it, it links against it.

> I'd never deny it.

It wasn't an accusation Mohamed. ;o)

> I've just pointed above that pdflib is only needed to build
> the pdf2pdf binary. Without pdflib, it is not built. 

Yes you did. Apologies are in order there, because I misread that
bit. However, pdf2pdf is ( ttbomlk ), not part of swftools dist.

>That was what I meant by enabling "as many features as possible",
> unless pdf2pdf is a completely useless tool and so it clutters
> up the sources
> ^^.

Isn't this sort of thing better handled by something like,

   http://www.pdflabs.com/tools/pdftk-the-pdf-toolkit ?


>> Maybe a conscious decision should be made, not to link swftools
>> against any software or library that isn't covered by the GPL? >> There are 
>> several suitable alternatives out there.  Maybe they
>> should be given due consideration instead?

> Of course it would be the best way.

That comment was an indirect aside aimed at Matthias Mohamed!
Linking against pdflib for the sake of enabling one command,
pdf2pdf, seems rather remiss.  Especially, when there are
suitable alternatives.

> And I will build swftools without pdflib, as well as by wisdom
> than by spite. And so without pdf2pdf, the apple of discord of
> this thread ^^

I do not see discord.  I was merely attempting to understand why
you were so keen to include pdflib.  As stated above, I misread
your comment.
 
> > With all due respect, isn't this simply a case of unnecessary
> > pedantism? ;o)

> Well... About what?

Another jest Mohamed ( unfortunately I'm prone to them ). While I
sort of understand your wish to include all the possible bells and
whistles, sometimes actually having all those bells and whistles is
a bit unnecessary. Especially when it causes licensing issues ( to a total 
value of 1095 USD ) which can easily be circumvented.

The other off-the-cuff thought is, does including pdflib support
actually fit in with the ethos of fedora itself?

   http://fedoraproject.org/en/about-fedora


Regards,


Chris.