Hi,
Thanks for the more detailed explanation. Based on that I would want to
stick to the current release time line, but address the problem immediately
after the release.
Together with this, we can also replace the lena.jpg.
Best regards,
Dominik
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Mattia Rizzolo <mat...@mapreri.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:22:14PM +0100, Dominik Seichter wrote:
> > Thanks for pointing out that very important issue. I fear we have to
> remove
> > this code before the release, which would require a second release
> > candidate and will delay the release currently planned for February 2nd.
>
> Well, I don't know much you value this problem; also it has been here
> for quite a lot of time, so I think it's ok to also postpone this issue
> to 0.9.6 targetting ~end 2017.
>
> > The best option seems to be to replace our current implementation with
> this
> > BSD licensed code:
> > http://www.bsdua.org/files/unicode.tar.gz (Linked from
> > http://unicode.org/resources/utf8.html)
>
> Sounds like a great option for me.
>
> > Another option would be to replace it with the original file without
> > modifications (as done in Ghostscript or taglib):
> > https://ghostscript.com/doc/base/ConvertUTF.c
> > http://developer.kde.org/~wheeler/files/src/taglib-0.95/
> > taglib/toolkit/unicode.cpp
>
> While this is true that it would be ok for you, then it doesn't fix the
> root problem that you're shipping what is non-free code.
>
> To give some background to my original email: I spotted this issue
> thanks to an automated check done in Debian, see:
> https://lintian.debian.org/tags/license-problem-convert-utf-code.html
> While nobody have made an effort of going to file a bug against all of
> those (currently) 50 apparently affected packages yet, I expect this to
> happen at some point; note that the check is very recent, it has been
> implemented not even a month ago.
> You quote ghostscript, but according to it's Debian's copyright file,
> the maintainer is already stripping the code copy before uploading the
> source, which is IMHO an unnecessary burden if it can be fixed at the
> root by using a different implementation (or some other solution).
>
> > I will have to take a deeper look into this issue!
>
> Thank you very much for caring about what to somebody might seem like a
> petty detail…
>
>
> PS: you also have another small thing that is not totally free, which
> is the test file lena.jpg; see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lenna.png#Licensing
> The fact that no real license exists is a problem on itself, as without
> license people whom are not the copyright holder have no rights at all
> over the product, including redistribution. For people still
> considering that file free, I find the unclearness of the situation as
> althoughter annoying by itself and worth calming just for it :)
>
> --
> regards,
> Mattia Rizzolo
>
> GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
> more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
> Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
> Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Podofo-users mailing list
> Podofo-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/podofo-users
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Podofo-users mailing list
Podofo-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/podofo-users
