Hello Matthew, On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 at 23:36, Matthew Brincke <ma...@mailbox.org> wrote: > > 2) Decision on license of PoDoFo Tools: > PoDoFo Tools are currently GPL whereas the library itself is LGPL. This e.g. > makes it hard to copy from tools to the library. From my point of view, we > should align the license so that the tools have the same license as the > library (currently LGPL, for the future see separate discussion). > > I always understood this difference as having a purpose > (in my view, warning people off taking PoDoFo tools and making something > non-free out of them). >
As I stated, separate licenses makes harder for all to possibly refactor tools functionalities into APIs, which should be always doable. This is the most convincing argument to me for having a single consistent license for tools and library. I add that tests and example code should be always extremely permissive. > >> 3) Merging back pdfmm in podofo / replacing podofo with pdfmm: >[...] there are some patches still outstanding which I'd like to test (using >some "poor man's CI/test automation" locally most likely) > and then apply to SVN trunk, which fix security issues/crashers, so that I'd > be grateful for considering them > necessary for the next release [...] As I mentioned before, my intention is to merge all latest PoDoFo patches into pdfmm (atm I am just lagging behind few ones) before pushing for a merge back to PoDoFo, with few exceptions for unnecessary ones. Nothing useful should be lost. > > 5) relicensing to MPL: > I am in general open to that, but let's keep discussion in separate mail > thread. > > I think I'd like to think/discuss more about that (at least it's copyleft?), > in its mail thread. > Yes, MPL 2.0 is still copyleft, but it's more permissive with regard to static linking. The thread is still there for discussions, and I invite you to add your opinion as well. I add that the challenge for PoDoFo is to stay relevant in a world where C++ libraries in general are less and less required, and I believe the license issue is also a key factor to keep its relevance in the years coming. Since a relicensing is going to be costly (few details on this coming very soon: I am almost finished with a complete list of all PoDoFo contributors), I asked Dominik if he would consider even more permissive licenses such as Apache/MIT. I'm waiting for his opinions on this on the thread, and I ask you to share your thoughts as well. Cheers, Francesco _______________________________________________ Podofo-users mailing list Podofo-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/podofo-users
