On Friday 25 April 2008 20:49:00 Ian McWilliam wrote: > Ok, Not really wanting to comment on this.... call me a troll, call me > want you want but.... > > The following rant in NOT about GPL licensing......... > I am neither supporting or denying the the said change to xdpf. > This is a discussion about modifying "standards".. > > What is hypocrytical here is the not one person has said the have looked > at the "standard" for PDF to determine the "correct behaviour". Whether > it is for or against peoples wishes, there is a standard somewhere and > even the author of xpdf hints that there is one and what you are > removing is against the "standard". > > http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/cracking.html > > "... I distribute source code (for Xpdf) under a particular license (the > GPL) which depends entirely on users' goodwill for its effectiveness. If > any of my users ever decided to violate the license, I would probably > never even know about it, much less be able to do anything about it. The > only thing I can do is trust the users. > > In light of this, it would be very hypocritical of me to, on one hand, > ask people to honor my licensing restrictions, and, on the other hand, > bypass (or assist others in bypassing) another author's requested > restrictions. > > In addition to all of this, Adobe requires that implementors of the PDF > spec adhere to the document permissions. > ..." > > I haven't read the Adobe PDF sepc or "standard" and have no intention > to. It looks like no body here wants to either. I find that puzzling > seeing..... > > According to a recent thread on tech@ recently, > > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=120890031123301&w=2 > > "This patch is a joke. It will never go into OpenSSH since it is > completely incorrect. The standard is clear -- > > The version string for an SSH client or server is supposed to be > disclosed. It is the standard behaviour, and is done for very good > reasons." > > Can anybody explain why is it acceptable to modify a "standard" for > "ports" but not not for "base"? > > <flame away> > > Ian McWilliam > > P.S I hate DRM as much as the next person.
Because the two are completely different concepts. The SSH "patch" was clueless, both in terms of how OpenSSH works, and the protection it would(n't) give. The removal of the DRM code is has actual benefit, the GPL permits this, and Adobe *knows* this. This is useless laywer gobble. PDF's are now an ISO standard. Apples and oranges. --STeve Andre'
