Yet another PDF to LRF converter

[amramsey]

Well, in case post 435 stops working, I've also archived this program here:

[Link Deleted]

[xanlexian]

Astra, thank you -- that's where I got my copy.

Amramsey -- fantastic work!!!

[muttsreads]

i have the old sony reader (500), i also have a lot pdf files of books which i like to read
on the sony reader but discover the print to small to read when transfer over.
i did a search looking for a solution, and found this forum. It's just as confusing here
trying come up with a work around to convert pdf files,but there is a simple solution
in program called nitro pdf professional v5.4.0.21 google it up to find the program
it sells for $99.00, maybe you can find a better deal if you look in the right places.
It was so simple to convert a pdf file, you choose the file in gui window, pick the type of conversion you want, press the convert button, and thats it. Its done in a few seconds
i converted my pdf document into a rich word document, open that word document
high lighted each page of the book and pick the font size i wanted, as big or as small
as i wanted, and saved the changes,when transfer it over to my sony reader. ( i choose the size 20) perfect size
for the sony reader just like the e-books that came with the reader. a 185 page book
was now 544 pages, after conversion. this is beautiful, i don't have to purchase a new reader and i can pick whatever typt size i want,and i don't have to choose between
small or medium with the 500 model , or limit between 1-5 on the 505 model and i save hundreds of dollars from buying a new reader

[=X=]

Originally Posted by epiphany

Personally, I think the spirit of open source is to encourage development of free software.

You are interpreting the wrong meaning of the word "free". That's the problem with the word "Free" it is ambiguous.

GPL and open source believe software should be "free" as in "liberated" not as in beer. Open source has always been okay with charging for software but the source code MUST always be provided.


=X=

[RobbieClarken]

Originally Posted by =X=

You are interpreting the wrong meaning of the word "free". That's the problem with the word "Free" it is ambiguous.

GPL and open source believe software should be "free" as in "liberated" not as in beer. Open source has always been okay with charging for software but the source code MUST always be provided.


=X=

So advocates of GPL want software to be liberated as long as you abide by their rules? Seems a bit of a contradiction. I want software to be truly liberated so that anyone can do whatever they like with it: sell it, give it away, copy it, modify it - no strings attached.

[Japher]

I think that someone misunderstood the Xpdf licensing. While the information about GPL is correct, if you look here:

http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/about.html

You will see that the author has given additional rights to developers.

Quoting from the author's own page:

Emphasis added by me.

Xpdf is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2. In my opinion, the GPL is a convoluted, confusing, ambiguous mess. But it's also pervasive, and I'm sick of arguing. And even if it is confusing, the basic idea is good.

In order to cut down on the confusion a little bit, here are some informal clarifications:

I don't mind if you redistribute xpdf in source and/or binary form, as long as you include all of the documentation: README, man pages (or help files), and COPYING. (Note that the README file contains a pointer to a web page with the source code.)
Selling a CD-ROM that contains xpdf is fine with me, as long as it includes the documentation. I wouldn't mind receiving a sample copy, but it's not necessary.
If you make useful changes to xpdf, please make the source code available -- post it on a web site, email it to me, whatever.
If you're interested in commercial licensing, please see the Glyph & Cog web site.

He says in no uncertain terms that you may redistribute xpdf in BINARY FORM and only asks that if you make USEFUL CHANGES TO XPDF that you send the author, not you Ashkulz, a copy of the code.

If someone wants to argue about pdflrfwin not having copies of the README, help files and COPYING files, then someone can simply zip them up with the .exe and be in full compliance.

[=X=]

Originally Posted by epiphany

So advocates of GPL want software to be liberated as long as you abide by their rules? Seems a bit of a contradiction. I want software to be truly liberated so that anyone can do whatever they like with it: sell it, give it away, copy it, modify it - no strings attached.

Yes that is the paradox here, they had to use a copyright to overcome copyright limitations. Of course they call that "copyleft". But keep in mind the only thing they ask is to keep the "source" free so that others can build upon what exists.

Unfortunately this author chose not to share his work. If you go back on this thread you will see he was asked several times to share his source and he agreed to do so, but never did.

I think it's a real shame this was the best PDF to LRF software to date. Of course there is other software like soPDF and PDFCroper that show more promis than PDFLRF and they have provided the source.


=X=

[=X=]

Originally Posted by Japher

I think that someone misunderstood the Xpdf licensing. While the information about GPL is correct, if you look here:

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.

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.

[Japher]

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.

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?

[=X=]

Originally Posted by Japher

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.

What I underlined above is the curx of the whole licensing problem.

What you need to understand is free(as in beer) does not equal GPL . Because PDFLRF does not provide the code and only binaries it is considered a "closed source product", the author has chosen not to make it open source. Just because he does not charge for the software does not make him a GPL product

For a developer to use a third party software that is under the GPL v2 license a programmer must make his source GPL as well. This is what the author meant by "pervasive" (refer to your original quote). Mind you, this is by design.

The FSF foundation realized this was a limitation with open source since folks who wanted to keep their source closed are FORCED to open their source. So GPL v3 (also referred to as LGPL) was created to give folks the option to use a GPL product without being forced into a GPL model.

What Xpdf has given permission is to distribute xpdf via by source or executable. What they have NOT given permission is for somebody to include their code in somebody's else executable.

Originally Posted by Japher

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.

It would be awesome if you can get Glyph and Cog to give special permission to PDFLRF you would be doing the mobiread community a service. The contact info can be found on the poppler web site.

Originally Posted by Japher

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?

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")

[Japher]

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.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by =X=

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")

Wow... that is the most circular article I have ever read. I certainly respect the goal of 'free (libre) software' but free vs open source vs free in the end results in the same thing.

BOb

[Japher]

The issue is settled. Glyph and Cog will not permit PDFLRFWIN to use Xpdf code unless it honors the GPL license. We can stop arguing about it now.

To the people who posted links to the application, please take them down. It's the right thing to do.

Here is a copy of the reply:

If the PDFLRFWIN software includes any Xpdf code, then PDFLRFWIN must be
released under the GPL. The GPL does not make any distinction between
"commercial" and "non-commercial" use.

The text on the xpdf/about.html page is meant to apply to distribution
of unmodified copies of Xpdf. It wasn't entirely clear (sorry), so I
just updated it.

- Derek

[zjyssjsf]

new one, newidea

[cooltony4uall]

Thanks