Quote:
Originally Posted by =X=
No we are not in agreement. What you need to understand is the intent of GPL is not so much to make the software "free" as in beer for the end user, but to make the source "free" as in liberated for everyone. For more than you care to know refer to GNU or in particular an article written by the father of FSF ( Why Open source misses the point of "Free Software") |
I have worked as a software developer and I understand the GPL.
What I don't understand is this:
My original link is to Glyph and Cog's page. In it they provide developers with additional rights above those provided under GPL. They specifically say that it is OK to distribute in binary form as long as you include the original xpdf readme and documentation. They go on to say that if you make useful changes to xpdf that you should make the code available by (among other options) sending a copy to G&C.
What you quoted above is from the POPPLER license... they direct you to G&C for commercial licensing. PDFLRFWIN is not commercial, and seems comply with the guidelines spelled out in the page I linked. So here is the question... Do you want permission from G&C or poppler? If the answer is G&C, why aren't the additional rights granted on the page I originally linked enough?
I'll contact whoever I need to. Just tell me what you need and I'll get it.
edit: I've sent emails to both G&C and poppler. We'll see what happens.