Hello Julien,
Julien Cristau [2011-01-25 13:00 +0100]:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:49:38 +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > As I see no way to sensibly untangle this for squeeze, I propose to
> > upload a version to t-p-u which removes the pdfreflow plugin. I still
> > need to build it, as otherwise t
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:49:38 +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello Julien,
>
> Julien Cristau [2011-01-18 12:01 +0100]:
> > That doesn't address Riddell's point. You're mixing GPL 2 (poppler)
> > with GPL 2+ (PDF reflow plugin) with GPL 3 (calibre). I don't think
> > that works.
>
> As I see n
Hello Julien,
Julien Cristau [2011-01-18 12:01 +0100]:
> That doesn't address Riddell's point. You're mixing GPL 2 (poppler)
> with GPL 2+ (PDF reflow plugin) with GPL 3 (calibre). I don't think
> that works.
As I see no way to sensibly untangle this for squeeze, I propose to
upload a version t
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 07:58:26 -0600, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Julien Cristau [2011-01-14 11:05 +0100]:
> > It doesn't sound like this has been addressed?
>
> How do you mean in particular? The PDF reflow plugin now is GPL 2 or
> later, so it should be compatible with poppler again?
>
That doesn't
Julien Cristau [2011-01-14 11:05 +0100]:
> It doesn't sound like this has been addressed?
How do you mean in particular? The PDF reflow plugin now is GPL 2 or
later, so it should be compatible with poppler again?
It hasn't been addressed in testing yet. While I have you here, what
do you think ab
Hello Adam,
Adam D. Barratt [2011-01-13 22:46 +]:
> Does this change apply retrospectively, or just to the new upstream
> release?
Formally only to the new upstream release, so I'll try my luck first
with asking for a freeze exception.
Martin
--
Martin Pitt| http://w
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 21:17:33 +, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
>
> The question is if the plugin is a derived work of both the GPL 2 only
> libpoppler and the GPL 3 only application. Since it can't exist
> without either then it almost certainly is. And since the licences
> are incompatible th
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 18:29 -0600, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello Karsten,
>
> debbug609581.609581.iri...@recursor.net [2011-01-11 18:54 +0100]:
> > The current source from http://calibre-ebook.com/download_linux
> > at http://status.calibre-ebook.com/dist/src (tarball) has an updated
> > COPYING file
Hello Karsten,
debbug609581.609581.iri...@recursor.net [2011-01-11 18:54 +0100]:
> The current source from http://calibre-ebook.com/download_linux
> at http://status.calibre-ebook.com/dist/src (tarball) has an updated
> COPYING file, which contains:
>
> =COPYING=
> Fil
The question is if the plugin is a derived work of both the GPL 2 only
libpoppler and the GPL 3 only application. Since it can't exist
without either then it almost certainly is. And since the licences
are incompatible that makes it illegal to distribute.
Jonathan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
The current source from http://calibre-ebook.com/download_linux
at http://status.calibre-ebook.com/dist/src (tarball) has an updated
COPYING file, which contains:
=COPYING=
Files: src/calibre/ebooks/pdf/*.h,*.cpp
License: GPL-2 or later
The full text of the GPL is dist
Package: calibre
calibre is licenced as GPL 3 only. It links to Poppler which is GPL 2
only. These two licences are incompatible, see
http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses#GPLv3-incompatible_licenses
so the poppler plugin for calibre needs to be removed.
Jonathan
--
To UNS
12 matches
Mail list logo
