<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Marc Delisle <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marc@infomarc.info">marc@infomarc.info</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Le <a href="tel:2012-01-29%2006" value="+12012012906">2012-01-29 06</a>:41, Madhura Jayaratne a écrit :<br>
<div><div class="h5">> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Isaac Bennetch<<a href="mailto:bennetch@gmail.com">bennetch@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 12/16/2011 10:26 AM, Marc Delisle wrote:<br>
>>> Isaac Bennetch a écrit :<br>
>>>> Greetings,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi Isaac,<br>
>>> see the reply from Nicola Asuni (TCPDF) in our bug tracker:<br>
>>><br>
>> <a href="https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=377408&aid=3460857&group_id=23067" target="_blank">https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=377408&aid=3460857&group_id=23067</a><br>
>><br>
>> Thanks, sorry for the noise here, then. Apparently jimmik posted the bug<br>
>> around the same time ChrisWi came to IRC; since the tracker has more<br>
>> existing discussion let's continue the conversion there.<br>
>><br>
>>>> As you might recall from the PHPExcel licensing discussion<br>
>>>> (<a href="https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=27884122" target="_blank">https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=27884122</a>) the<br>
>>>> Fedora people were investigating a possible licensing concern with the<br>
>>>> tcpdf library we bundle. Nothing has come of that with Fedora, but<br>
>>>> apparently the SuSE people have found something they don't like. The<br>
>>>> user ChrisWi asked about it in the IRC channel and provided a link to<br>
>>>> their bugtracker: <a href="https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736698" target="_blank">https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736698</a> --<br>
>>>> which requires a login, so he also provided the following text summary:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> ** begin paste **<br>
>>>> phpMyAdmin 3.4.7.1 (and presumably many earlier versions as well)<br>
>> contains<br>
>>>> tcpdf. This package claims to be LGPL-3.0+ licensed but contains the<br>
>>>> following<br>
>>>> clause:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Additionally,<br>
>>>> YOU CAN'T REMOVE ANY TCPDF COPYRIGHT NOTICE OR LINK FROM THE<br>
>>>> GENERATED PDF DOCUMENTS.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> As the LGPL-3.0+ incorporates by reference the GPL-3.0+, sections 7 and<br>
>>>> 10 of<br>
>>>> the GPL-3.0+ are relevant:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further<br>
>>>> restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you<br>
>>>> received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is<br>
>>>> governed by this License along with a term that is a further<br>
>>>> restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains<br>
>>>> a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this<br>
>>>> License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms<br>
>>>> of that license document, provided that the further restriction does<br>
>>>> not survive such relicensing or conveying.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Accordingly, it may be possible to point out to tcpdf upstream that the<br>
>>>> additional term that they apply may be viewed as a 'non-permissive<br>
>>>> restriction'<br>
>>>> and that you wish to exercise your rights under the GPL-3.0+ to remove<br>
>> that<br>
>>>> term from downstream distributions.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> If upstream are unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion or take the<br>
>>>> view<br>
>>>> that the additional restriction is per se not part of the license<br>
>>>> because it is<br>
>>>> above the license and not incorporated into it, tcpdf should be dropped.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> ** end paste **<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Now again, as I'm sure you're aware, we're not responsible for making<br>
>>>> the distributions happy, but it's also in our best interest to try to<br>
>>>> resolve these things. Looks to my non-lawyer eye like this is something<br>
>>>> to push back on the tcpdf folks. Again, if I'm understanding correctly,<br>
>>>> the problem is the additional line added that "YOU CAN'T REMOVE ANY<br>
>>>> TCPDF COPYRIGHT NOTICE OR LINK FROM THE GENERATED PDF DOCUMENTS."<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Additionally, Google provides a lot of results of people questioning<br>
>>>> this.<br>
>>>><br>
>> <a href="https://sourceforge.net/projects/tcpdf/forums/forum/435311/topic/3757478" target="_blank">https://sourceforge.net/projects/tcpdf/forums/forum/435311/topic/3757478</a><br>
>>>> seems to be the best discussion. A discussion regarding the inclusion in<br>
>>>> Tiki Wiki<br>
>>>> (<br>
>> <a href="http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2011-November/000028.html" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2011-November/000028.html</a><br>
>> )<br>
>>>> went so far as to bring up the dubious legal position of putting a<br>
>>>> (tcpdf) copyright notice on the work of others.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> From the tcpdf forums link, it appears the author has no interest in<br>
>>>> changing this. To be fair to tcpdf, the only place I see his notice in<br>
>>>> the generated PDF is the "PDF Producer" field of the file properties. I<br>
>>>> think that's reasonable, but I think the part that concerns the SuSE<br>
>>>> folks is the having a non-OSI-endorsed clause appended to a license; if<br>
>>>> every project would do that it would be a nightmare to maintain. But<br>
>>>> that's just my interpretation.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I've signed up for a Novell account, but I'm still not authorized to<br>
>>>> view the bug report directly. At the moment, aside from the gentleman in<br>
>>>> IRC, we have no line of communication to them or way of getting updates<br>
>>>> on their internal discussion.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Thanks for your thoughts on this...<br>
>>>> ~isaac<br>
>><br>
>><br>
> As mentioned in the tracker [1] TCPDF in its latest version(5.9.145) has<br>
> removed the additional clause in its licence. Shall we update QA_3_5 to<br>
> use the latest version? Or only the master should be updated?<br>
<br>
</div></div>I was even thinking appropriate to update MAINT_3_4_10 and QA_3_4 !<br>
<div class="im"><br>
--<br>
Marc Delisle<br>
<a href="http://infomarc.info" target="_blank">http://infomarc.info</a></div></blockquote><div> </div></div><span style="color:rgb(85,85,85);font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:19px;text-align:left;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Updated to TCPDF version 5.9.145.</span><br clear="all">
<div><br></div>-- <br>Thanks and Regards,<div><br></div><div>Madhura Jayaratne<br><div><br></div></div><br>