I insisted a lot on the benefits of being copyleft without being subjected to source/object code disclosure. In general the purpose is making PoDoFo more business friendly and fight for still being relevant. Ty to search google for "podofo" and look at first page of results: it's depressing.
About libidn, there are specific multiple reasons to move away from it: - The LGPL license still doesn't allow a fully integrated static PoDoFo (once it will be MPL2) to not being subjected to LGPL requirements; - PoDoFo requires libidn 1.x, and can't upgrade to 2.x because the latter explicitly doesn't have stringprep (which is somehow an outdated protocol, for what I understood); - Libidn 1.x has an outdated build system which makes it harder to compiler under Windows; - Some package managers doesn't have libidn 1.x; - OpenSSL is now a requirement of PoDoFo: It would be way better if PoDoFo just supported AES3 without supplying an additional dependency. I hope to have been convincing enough. Regards, Francesco On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 at 11:43, zyx <z...@gmx.us> wrote: > On Sat, 2023-01-21 at 11:24 +0100, Francesco Pretto wrote: > > There are also licensing problems with libidn being only LGPL, and we > > are trying to get away from LGPL only. > > Hi, > as far as I know, LGPL can be used also for commercial or closed > sources projects. Why would there be any licensing problem when linking > against any LGPL library in the PoDoFo? Not talking that libidn is an > optional dependency. > Bye, > zyx > > > _______________________________________________ > Podofo-users mailing list > Podofo-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/podofo-users >
_______________________________________________ Podofo-users mailing list Podofo-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/podofo-users
