Re: [Swftools-common] Licensing issue with GPL

[Chris]

On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 16:18:13 +0100
Mohamed El Morabity <address@hidden> wrote:

> $ tar -tf swftools-0.9.1.tar.gz | grep -i pdf2pdf
>    swftools-0.9.1/src/pdf2pdf.1
>    swftools-0.9.1/src/pdf2pdf.c

Once doesn't really need the grep to find that..
 
> Unless you mean that pdf2pdf is not supported by the dev team?

Probably. I forget now..
 
>> The other off-the-cuff thought is, does including pdflib support
>> actually fit in with the ethos of fedora itself?

( Rhetorical question actually ).

> In fact pdfib is part of a third-party repository for Fedora, RPM
> Fusion, which provides packages that Fedora can't officially
> distribute because of license issues (MP3 support is concerned
> also, because it is patented in the US). This is by the way why > I submit my 
> package to RPM Fusion, I hope it's not a kind of
> "pedantism" to bring at least MP3 support in swftools ^^.

mp3 is one of the formats the flash-plugin plays..
 
> Anyway pdflib is free for non-commercial use only...

http://www.pdflib.com/products/pdflib-family/prices-licensing/

http://www.pdflib.com/download/free-software/

> And I just realize that enabling it in swftools is stupid:
> swftools has no reason to be restricted to non-commercial
> usages, by legacy, too, after all.

I don't think anyone said it should be. One is free to do what
one pleases as long as one keeps within the remit of the GPL.
Your issue was with license incompatibility and wanting to include
every possible feature just because it's there.  Not necessarily a
good thing.  pdf2pdf converts through pdf2swf and back again. There
are other manipulation tools that don't involve that extra step.
 
> It confirms the inanity to compile swftools with pdflib for a
> wide distribution. Sorry again for all this trouble ^^'

Matthias has already stated that packaging the binaries should not
give cause for concern.  As to trouble? ( scratches head )  Well,
I'm not sure there was any, was there?


Chris.