hi Hugo,
* Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org [2010-09-03 19:09:48 +0200]:
Can you forward that to pdfreaders people? http://view.samurajdata.se/
Feel free to send it directly to the pdfreaders team next time.
Can someone check the reader?
Regards, Matthias
Hi Nico,
* Matthias Kirschner kirschner@fsfeurope.org [2010-09-05 19:11:26 +0200]:
- Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org [2010-09-03 19:09:48 +0200]:
Can you forward that to pdfreaders people? http://view.samurajdata.se/
Feel free to send it directly to the pdfreaders team next time.
Can you please check the reader if it is completely Free Software (check for all parts) and if it is fine to put him on pdfreaders.org.
Regards, Matthias
On 04/10/2010 15:48, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
Hi Nico,
Can you please check the reader if it is completely Free Software (check for all parts) and if it is fine to put him on pdfreaders.org.
Yes, version 0.3 of the software can be downloaded online and is licensed under the GPL 2. This is said in the file named "GPL" in the root folder. However, separate script files do not contain the license text. Is it a problem?
Furthermore, dependencies seem to be okay. It can run (and runs on said website) using apache/php/mysql. It uses wget, wv and ghostscript, which are all GPLed. The bad one there could be ImageMagick, which is licensed under… the ImageMagick license! See http://www.imagemagick.org/script/license.php. It seems to be very similar to the GPL, however I can't assure compatibility. The main divergence point I see is: "It does not require you to […] include the source of the ImageMagick software itself, or of any modifications you may have made to it, in any redistribution you may assemble that includes it"
Please tell me if I can help further. Nicolas
hi Nico,
* Nicolas JEAN nicoulas@fsfe.org [2010-10-04 16:57:43 +0200]:
Yes, version 0.3 of the software can be downloaded online and is licensed under the GPL 2. This is said in the file named "GPL" in the root folder. However, separate script files do not contain the license text. Is it a problem?
Should be ok.
Furthermore, dependencies seem to be okay. It can run (and runs on said website) using apache/php/mysql. It uses wget, wv and ghostscript, which are all GPLed.
Good.
The bad one there could be ImageMagick, which is licensed under… the ImageMagick license! See http://www.imagemagick.org/script/license.php. It seems to be very similar to the GPL, however I can't assure compatibility. The main divergence point I see is: "It does not require you to […] include the source of the ImageMagick software itself, or of any modifications you may have made to it, in any redistribution you may assemble that includes it"
I am currently offline. GPL compatibility is not our criteria. Our criteria is if it is Free Software. If the imagemagick license it not a strong copyleft license it is not a problem.
Is the license listed on FSF's and OSI's websites? What do they say about it?
Regards, Matthias
On 05/10/2010 10:56, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
hi Nico,
- Nicolas JEAN nicoulas@fsfe.org [2010-10-04 16:57:43 +0200]:
Yes, version 0.3 of the software can be downloaded online and is licensed under the GPL 2. This is said in the file named "GPL" in the root folder. However, separate script files do not contain the license text. Is it a problem?
Should be ok.
Furthermore, dependencies seem to be okay. It can run (and runs on said website) using apache/php/mysql. It uses wget, wv and ghostscript, which are all GPLed.
Good.
The bad one there could be ImageMagick, which is licensed under… the ImageMagick license! See http://www.imagemagick.org/script/license.php. It seems to be very similar to the GPL, however I can't assure compatibility. The main divergence point I see is: "It does not require you to […] include the source of the ImageMagick software itself, or of any modifications you may have made to it, in any redistribution you may assemble that includes it"
I am currently offline. GPL compatibility is not our criteria. Our criteria is if it is Free Software. If the imagemagick license it not a strong copyleft license it is not a problem.
Does not _seem_ to be.
Is the license listed on FSF's and OSI's websites? What do they say about it?
I don't think so: research on their websites give no result about image magick… However, could you give me the links to these lists? I will look precisely into them.
Regards, Matthias
Regards, Nico
* Nicolas JEAN nicoulas@fsfe.org [2010-10-06 11:56:31 +0200]:
Is the license listed on FSF's and OSI's websites? What do they say about it?
I don't think so: research on their websites give no result about image magick… However, could you give me the links to these lists? I will look precisely into them.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html
Regards, Matthias
On 07/10/2010 14:29, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
- Nicolas JEAN nicoulas@fsfe.org [2010-10-06 11:56:31 +0200]:
Is the license listed on FSF's and OSI's websites? What do they say about it?
I don't think so: research on their websites give no result about image magick… However, could you give me the links to these lists? I will look precisely into them.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.htm
The image magick license is not referred to in both these lists…
On Saturday 09 October 2010 13:40:57 Nicolas JEAN wrote:
On 07/10/2010 14:29, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
- Nicolas JEAN nicoulas@fsfe.org [2010-10-06 11:56:31 +0200]:
Is the license listed on FSF's and OSI's websites? What do they say about it?
I don't think so: research on their websites give no result about image magick… However, could you give me the links to these lists? I will look precisely into them.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.htm
The image magick license is not referred to in both these lists…
ImageMagick is hosted at SourceForge. If it isn't Free Software by any definition they would be violating the terms of use @ Sourceforge.
I never heard that it was proprietary, but I would really appreciate if someone found out.
On 09/10/2010 17:59, Hannes Hauswedell wrote:
On Saturday 09 October 2010 13:40:57 Nicolas JEAN wrote:
On 07/10/2010 14:29, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html (FSF) http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.htm (OSI)
The image magick license is not referred to in both these lists…
ImageMagick is hosted at SourceForge. If it isn't Free Software by any definition they would be violating the terms of use @ Sourceforge.
Might be. The sourceforge project's page[1] indicates that imagemagick is licensed under the BSD license. According to a mailing list thread[2], the license was changed in 2003 from BSD to "the authoratitive ImageMagick license"[3]. And both source tarballs you can download on sf.net and imagemagick.org clearly state that the license is the ImageMagick license. I think it's because the project was registered in 2001 on sf.net that the project page still says BSD…
I never heard that it was proprietary, but I would really appreciate if someone found out.
I'm going to write to both sf.net to ask them to change license info, and imagemagick.org to ask them if they care about free software and/or being regarded as such. I'll keep you tuned!
Cheers, Nicolas
[1] http://sourceforge.net/projects/imagemagick/ [2] http://www.imagemagick.org/pipermail/magick-developers/2003-December/001801.... [3] http://www.imagemagick.org/script/license.php
On 13/10/2010 14:30, Nicolas JEAN wrote:
On 09/10/2010 17:59, Hannes Hauswedell wrote:
On Saturday 09 October 2010 13:40:57 Nicolas JEAN wrote:
On 07/10/2010 14:29, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html (FSF) http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.htm (OSI)
The image magick license is not referred to in both these lists…
ImageMagick is hosted at SourceForge. If it isn't Free Software by any definition they would be violating the terms of use @ Sourceforge.
Might be. The sourceforge project's page[1] indicates that imagemagick is licensed under the BSD license. According to a mailing list thread[2], the license was changed in 2003 from BSD to "the authoratitive ImageMagick license"[3]. And both source tarballs you can download on sf.net and imagemagick.org clearly state that the license is the ImageMagick license. I think it's because the project was registered in 2001 on sf.net that the project page still says BSD…
I never heard that it was proprietary, but I would really appreciate if someone found out.
I'm going to write to both sf.net to ask them to change license info, and imagemagick.org to ask them if they care about free software and/or being regarded as such. I'll keep you tuned!
I've talked with the ImageMagick guys. The discussion was somewhat surrealistic, because they did not (or did not want to) understand what the problems were with having a copy of the Apache2.0 license rather than linking to it. Sourceforge did not answer me.
I guess it's good to go with IM practically using the Apache2.0. I'm going to add the reader on PDFreaders.org. If anyone knows why http://view.samurajdata.se/ and Free Software should not wed, speak now or forever hold your peace.
Cheers, Nico
* Nicolas JEAN nicoulas@fsfe.org [2010-10-25 16:16:07 +0200]:
I guess it's good to go with IM practically using the Apache2.0. I'm going to add the reader on PDFreaders.org. If anyone knows why http://view.samurajdata.se/ and Free Software should not wed, speak now or forever hold your peace.
Ok, let's put it there. When people contact us later with good arguments, we can always change our decision.
Regards, Matthias