2008/6/11 Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 04:10:32PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: >> >So they're not used internally, but externally. IOW, it provides >> >a helper framework to facilitate implementation of restriction >> >management in an upper layer. >> It's nothing wrong with that, as long as you are free _not_to_ use the >> framework. > > In practice, it tends to generate confusion. For example, the implementor of > a libpoppler-based program might naively think that access to the data is > disallowed by cryptography instead of restriction management, and make her > program disallow access to the document in good faith.
And so what? You want to disallow people to write such programs? Or you want to disallow people to write DRM programs at all? And what about their freedoms? > Or one could be writing a program that lists files and their properties, and > mistakenly tell the user that a PDF file cannot be printed. This happened to > the KDE developers in fact: > > http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=162089 > > (although they didn't want to recognize it) Well, on other hand I completely agree with their reasons and same reasons apply here. These functions doesn't restrict you, they just inform you about flags used in PDF. > If you don't want to remove the functions, please consider at least renaming > them and clearly documenting in the code that they're purely informative. Try asking upstream. I don't see any reason to mangle with API/ABI just because of your holy war. Ondrej. -- Ondřej Surý <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
