On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Ulrik Sverdrup wrote:
> Can GPLv3+ applications written in Python exist in Debian main? The
> applications in question do not use an openssl exception.
>
> Python uses OpenSSL so the moment the application starts, it is linking
> against it too:
>
> $ objdump -p /us
Can GPLv3+ applications written in Python exist in Debian main? The
applications in question do not use an openssl exception.
Python uses OpenSSL so the moment the application starts, it is linking
against it too:
$ objdump -p /usr/bin/python2.6 | grep NEEDED
NEEDED libpthread.so.
Op 7/03/2011 13:26, Simon McVittie schreef:
In this particular situation I'd suggest making the extra term a
non-binding request, something like:
The author of this software requests that you retain the iText producer
line in every PDF that is created or manipulated using iText.
or ev
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 at 11:04:11 +0100, Bruno Lowagie wrote:
> This is what the end consumer wants,
> and this is what 1T3XT wants, regardless of the opinion of any other
> party in-between.
I think there's an important distinction between "I believe that it's
beneficial for everyone that this is d
On 3/7/11, Andrew Ross wrote:
> "The AGPL and the extra term ensure the consumer's RIGHT to know
> that the PDF was produced by iText. Denying this right is IMO
> exactly the abuse of Free Software the AGPL wants to avoid."
"Exaggerating a bit" with the cookie metaphore, I see. ;-) Sure,
maybe
Op 7/03/2011 11:12, Charles Plessy schreef:
Le Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 11:06:22AM +0100, Bruno Lowagie a écrit :
Op 7/03/2011 11:02, Charles Plessy schreef:
Regardless of the purpose and the intentions behind requiring to ‘retain the
producer line in every PDF that is created or manipulated using
Le Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 11:06:22AM +0100, Bruno Lowagie a écrit :
> Op 7/03/2011 11:02, Charles Plessy schreef:
> >
> >Regardless of the purpose and the intentions behind requiring to ‘retain the
> >producer line in every PDF that is created or manipulated using iText’, if
> >this
> >addition to t
Andrew Ross wrote:
> The full license can be found at http://itextpdf.com/terms-of-use/agpl.php
[...]
> I don't want to mis-represent what Bruno has said, so hopefully he'll
> chime in and expand further if I get anything wrong here. I think the
> following paragraph from Bruno sums up his viewpoin
Op 7/03/2011 11:02, Charles Plessy schreef:
Regardless of the purpose and the intentions behind requiring to ‘retain the
producer line in every PDF that is created or manipulated using iText’, if this
addition to the AGPL does not fall under Section 7(b), this makes iText
potentially
incompatib
For some reason, my latest answers weren't sent to the list, but to
individual people.
Sorry for that. This is my latest response:
Andrew Ross wrote:
My reasoning goes that if I write some software which uses iText to
produce a pdf, then if I use some other piece of software to modify
that pdf
>
> "In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU Affero General Public
> License, you must retain the producer line in every PDF that is created
> or manipulated using iText."
Hello,
in my understanding of section 7 of the AGPL, the supplemental terms are there
to ensure compatibility with other
On 07/03/11 08:00, Bruno Lowagie wrote:
> A library such as iText is already shipped with Debian, and different
> other projects depend on it. Other projects aren't part of the
> distribution, for instance because of their poor quality (e.g. the iText
> Toolbox which was never meant as a real produ
Op 7/03/2011 2:17, MJ Ray schreef:
Bruno Lowagie wrote:
Please don't avoid the question: does the freedom to hide information
prevail over the freedom to get information?
You mean like you avoided the question: what is the actual case here?
No problem. Let me describe the context. I've been pro
13 matches
Mail list logo
