Quote:
Originally Posted by =X=
I was hoping to find a similar loophole so we can ask the moderators to re-enable the link. However when I dug into the license I found the following.
(Clarification PDFLRF uses poppler not (xpdf) so we have to look at poppler license.)
This is found on the readme.
Code:
Please note that xpdf, and thus poppler, is licensed under the GPL,
not the LGPL. Consequently, any application using poppler must also
be licensed under the GPL. If you want to incorporate Xpdf based PDF
rendering in a closed source product, please contact Glyph & Cog
(www.glyphandcog.com) for commercial licensing options.
Kristian Høgsberg, Feb. 27, 2005
Since PLDFLRF is not GPL it is violating the license agreement. Had the authors of poppler used (LGPL) there would not have been an issue. |
I still don't see a problem. The poppler license is predicated on xpdf's license. The way it reads, the REASON that poppler is licensed this way is because it must follow the Xpdf license. In fact, they go so far as to say that one should contact Glyph and Cog if you want to put the code into a closed source product. The link I posted shows that Glyph and Cog have given permission.
If this is not enough, tell me who you need an email from. I'll contact an author or project maintainer myself and get a release. I think that it's pretty clear that ALL of the licenses involved from xpdf to poppler to pdflrfwin indend for free non-comercial (even closed source) use. I don't like seeing one guy who can't get his way whine and try to ruin things for everyone.
Just for clarification, we're agreed that pdflrfwin is in compliance with the Glyph and Cog license so poppler is the only issue, yes?