On Monday 07 Oct 2013 10:35:26 David Boddie wrote: > On Sun Oct 6 20:51:40 CEST 2013, Lars Knoll wrote:
> > I think this is fully correct, and doesn't assert any copyright over the > > generated PDF. It states that the PDF got produced by the PDF generator of > > Qt 5.1.1, which is (C) Digia. > > While this interpretation may be valid, it is unusual to put the copyright > of the creation tool in the Producer string. I can find documents with the > following Producer strings on my disk: > > (AFPL Ghostscript 8.54) > (Acrobat 5.0 Image Conversion Plug-in for Macintosh) > (Adobe PDF library 4.800) > (Aladdin Ghostscript 6.01) > (GNU Ghostscript 7.07) > (GPL Ghostscript 9.05) > (ImageMagick 6.3.8 01 > (Inkscape inkscape 0.44.1) > (LaTeX with hyperref) > (Mac OS X 10.5.8 Quartz PDFContext) > (MiKTeX pdfTeX-1.40.9) > (Microsoft� Publisher 2010) > (cairo 1.9.5 (http: > (pdfTeX-2.00.0) > (pdfeTeX-1.403) > (xdvipdfmx \(0.7.5\)) > > The only two that I found that included a copyright symbol were Qt and > Microsoft Word. The above Microsoft Publisher string presumably includes a > registered trademark symbol, which is more common. > > I suggest removing the Producer copyright string to avoid confusion since it > is clear that Digia doesn't seek to claim copyright on user-generated > content. Along the same lines, it might be useful to add a setProducer() > function to QPrinter for applications that create PDFs as a key part of > their functionality. Good analysis David, makes it clear this is not normal practice. I've raised change https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,70182 to remove the copyright statement for 5.2 (which will need to be back-ported to 4.8). I'll leave the Producer api for 5.3. Cheers! John. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development