Am 14.01.2018 um 14:56 schrieb Eliot Jones:
Hi Andreas,
Many thanks for your response.
1. When I forked I took trunk, the commit was "01aa37bcc4" (unfortunately I
didn't realise there was a version 2.0 until much later).
The trunk targets a 3.0.0 version containing some major changes/additions. It is
still under development and therefore not as stable as the 2.0. branch w.r.t. to
the api.
2. Just to clarify what does "PMC" mean? And to include the PDFBox copyright in
the license which text should I use, I currently have "EXTERNAL COMPONENTS
PMC = project management committee, see [1] for further deatils
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#structure
PdfPig includes a number of components with separate copyright notices
and license terms. Your use of these components is subject to the terms and
conditions of the following licenses.
Contributions made to the original PDFBox and FontBox projects:
Copyright (c) 2002-2007, www.pdfbox.org
All rights reserved."
At the end of the license file, should I add a more up-to-date copyright
elsewhere in the file, or does this mean including the copyright comments at
the top of each class? Sorry, my understanding of how copyright should be used
and applied is not good! :)
The PDFBox and FontBox (www.pdfbox.org) are the predecessors of Apache PDFBox
(pdfbox.apache.org). It would be wrong to "update" the copyright years.
The same is true for the PaDaF entry.
You may omit the parts which you are not ported, most likely the OSXAdapter and
maybe PaDaF if you don't port preflight and xmpbox to .NET
3.
While it would be very helpful to be promoted, I worry that my rewriting of
parts will have caused many bugs and I wouldn't want to damage PDFBox by having
a buggy product associated with it. Possibly once I become stable enough to do
a full release. :)
:-) OK, give us a heads up once your port is good enough to be promoted.
4.
Because I got side-tracked by rewriting parts of the code in order to better
understand the specification I'm still quite far from having any kind of
feature parity, however I plan on watching for changes within PDFBox and
porting those as they are implemented.
The PDF spec is quite complex, so that we all know what you are fighting with.
Thanks again for your time (and the original PDFBox code :D ).
Thanks for letting us know what you are doing. Not everyone out there is
interested in doing it right when copying/forking/using the code of someone
else. :-)
Looking forward to hear from your progress
Andreas
Eliot
________________________________
From: Andreas Lehmkuehler <[email protected]>
Sent: 14 January 2018 13:26
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: License and naming for derivative works
Am 07.01.2018 um 16:54 schrieb Eliot Jones:
I have been migrating PDFBox to C# in order to provide an Apache 2.0 licensed
solution for working with PDFs in C#.
Cool, there a a lot of people asking for a .NET version.
Repository is here: https://github.com/UglyToad/Pdf
What PDFBox version is the base for your port, trunk or 2.0.x?
I am almost at the point where I intend to release an alpha version of the
software to NuGet (Maven equivalent).
I wanted to check what conditions were necessary/polite for releasing this
derivative work.
IANAL, but I try to answer your questions as good as possible
* I am keeping the Apache 2.0 license but should the copyright in my
license be the copyright from the PDFBox version of the license?
The PDFBox PMC still owns the copyright of the origin code. IMHO even ported
code is still copyrighted by us, as long as the ported code is similar to the
origin one. If you add some substantial changes to the code, you might *add*
your own copyright to that part of the code. All new classes are of course
yours. And the port as a whole (our code, your changes and your additions) is a
derivative work and you may the copyright for that as a whole.
* Additionally I assume I must redistribute the NOTICES.txt file present
in the PDFBox code?
That would be nice. You might remove those parts which are not ported to .NET
* On naming, I was intending to rename the project (not sure what name
yet) to indicate that much of the code has been rewritten and it’s not an
official port. This will prevent people filing bugs (of which my version will
have many) with PDFBox. Is this ok or would this be considered bad etiquette?
Good idea, it will make it easier to separate both projects. As you already did
so, IMHO there is no need for further changes.
Furthermore "PDFBox" is a registered trademark ;-)
* Are there any other steps I should take to release a work derived from
PDFBox and managed by the Apache Foundation?
You already mentioned the origin of your port (it is not necessary but highly
appreciated) so that we get the credits for the work of our community.
Are you interested in being "promoted" by us if someone asks for a .NET port,
e.g. we could mention the port somewhere at a more or less prominent place on
our website?
Are you planning to monitor our changes and port them as well to your codebase?
Andreas
Many thanks,
Eliot Jones
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
