Hi,
On Sun, 27.04.2008 at 11:10:49 -0700, Matthew Dempsky matt...@dempsky.org
wrote:
His use case for PDF's DRM was simply to protect students from
accidentally printing the animated slides instead of the still 4-up
slides.
yes, but this is a weak use case. I, for one, would expect students
On 26 Apr 2008, at 9:30 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
We're talking about stupid, evil, legal DRM here.
The pdf document basically says `oh, you're not supposed to do things
with this document, because I say so'. There's nothing that prevents
anyone
from doing anything with the document.
If
On 26 Apr 2008, at 1:34 PM, Iruata Souza wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Ian McWilliam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephan Andre' wrote:
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
On 26 Apr 2008, at 2:30 PM, Nick Holland wrote:
Ian McWilliam wrote:
...
Can anybody explain why is it acceptable to modify a standard for
ports but not not for base?
I think Standards is a bogus argument here. That's not what
this is about.
Try this way of looking at it:
The author of
Ian McWilliam [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The real issue for me at least is the fact that one is
prepared to modify (in this case xpdf) away for what ever
standard it is written against, modified away from the
original software distribution without documenting the change,
informing the end
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 08:43:36PM +1000, Ian McWilliam wrote:
Finally, some sense, thanks. The real issue for me at least is the fact
that one is prepared to modify (in this case xpdf) away for what ever
standard it is written against, modified away from the original software
distribution
Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
On Apr 26, 2008, at 7:30 AM, Marc Espie wrote:
If anything, our xpdf should probably display a notice that says `the
author of the document thought you should not be able to print it...
or whatever'.
I didn't mean to get into this discussion because it really doesn't
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Predrag Punosevac
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hate to disagree with somebody who sounds like my fellow countryman but
DRM has NO use. I also teach at the University and I some time prepare
slides too which use over layers and even more fancy stuff. Any decant
On Apr 27, 2008, at 12:20 AM, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
In lieu of that, a simpler solution would seem to be to title your
links to the slides as Printer-friendly sides (no animation) and
Screen-friendly slides (animation). Hopefully university students
can read, and if not, they should learn
--- Predrag Punosevac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
So, in my opinion this DRM has its use cases.
I hate to disagree with somebody who sounds like my fellow countryman
but DRM has NO use.
Actually, he stated a use for it. Just because there are alternatives
doesn't mean
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Ian McWilliam wrote:
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.
Confirmed.
And we are happy about it!
DRM is in the PDF standard.
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Ian McWilliam wrote:
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.
http://www.mail-archive.com/ports@openbsd.org/msg16457.html
The reason those checks are in
We're talking about stupid, evil, legal DRM here.
The pdf document basically says `oh, you're not supposed to do things
with this document, because I say so'. There's nothing that prevents anyone
from doing anything with the document.
If anything, our xpdf should probably display a notice that
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Floor Terra wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Ian McWilliam wrote:
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.
http://www.mail-archive.com/ports@openbsd.org/msg16457.html
On Apr 26, 2008, at 7:30 AM, Marc Espie wrote:
If anything, our xpdf should probably display a notice that says
`the author of the document thought you should not be able to print
it... or whatever'.
I didn't mean to get into this discussion because it really doesn't
concern me at all.
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Zvezdan Petkovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Replacing a protection with a message of intent of the author is probably a
good idea.
Maybe for the xpdf maintainer (e.g., a --soft-drm configure option),
but that definitely seems way too intrusive a patch for
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
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
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Ian McWilliam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anybody explain why is it acceptable to modify a standard for ports
but not not for base?
I'm going to guess that the core reason is what helps more users?:
- A pdf spec that's written to sell the illusion that you
On Friday, April 25, Chris Kuethe wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Ian McWilliam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anybody explain why is it acceptable to modify a standard for ports
but not not for base?
I'm going to guess that the core reason is what helps more users?:
Nah, it'
Stephan Andre' wrote:
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.
On Saturday, April 26, Ian McWilliam wrote:
Why has the 100 character limit filenames stored in a tar archive not
been modified away from its documented standard. (We all know it's 100
character limit is arcane in modern terms.
Please use google and find out what gnu tar has done in this
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Ian McWilliam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephan Andre' wrote:
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
Ian McWilliam wrote:
...
Can anybody explain why is it acceptable to modify a standard for
ports but not not for base?
I think Standards is a bogus argument here. That's not what
this is about.
Try this way of looking at it:
The author of xpdf wants DRM in the source code. That is his
24 matches
Mail list logo
