Page 1 of 1

PDF library

Posted: Thu Sep 23 2021 10:54 am
by seasoned_geek
All,

This message popped up on the Qt-interest mailing list.

I've not tried the library myself, but with all of the current kerfuffle going on with PDF this was bound to happen.

=====
I would like to inform you about my project, PDF4QT. I began this project in year 2018 as my private project, and now, I think, it is ready to be released for public beta testing.

I am aware, that some other projects also implements this functionality, but they are very often using viral licenses such as GPL/AGPL. I want to be more benevolent, so PDF4QT project uses LGPL license, version 3, so it is usable also in commercial applications. I do not want to restrict people from using my library.

Project can be found at this website:
https://github.com/JakubMelka/PDF4QT
=====

Re: PDF library

Posted: Fri Sep 24 2021 11:18 pm
by barbara
. . . they are very often using viral licenses such as GPL/AGPL. I want to be more benevolent, so PDF4QT project uses LGPL license, version 3, so it is usable also in commercial applications. I do not want to restrict people from using my library.
We value knowing about other third party libraries. However, his statement indicates the author is unaware of the actual impact of choosing LGPL 3. This choice adds a major limitation to GPL and LGPL applications, which is a restriction for the Open Source community.

Selecting LGPL 2 or LGPL 3 has zero impact on commercial desktop applications. You can legally use an LGPL 2 licensed library in proprietary software.

Here is the problem many developers misunderstand. Let's look at our Diamond application which is released under GPL 2. If we linked Diamond with his PDF library then legally we would be forced to change Diamond to GPL 3. This would impact existing users and we chose this exact license to be as open as possible for everyone. If a developer wants to clone or create derivative work of Diamond, they are *not* legally allowed to change the license or add a new license without our written permission.

The bottom line remains creating a library using LGPL 3 is restrictive to Open Source applications. If you feel so inspired you might want to contact the author and ask them to reconsider their choices. It would be nice to see this library released under "LGPL 2 or later".

Barbara

Re: PDF library

Posted: Sat Sep 25 2021 1:48 pm
by seasoned_geek
barbara wrote:
Fri Sep 24 2021 11:18 pm
It would be nice to see this library released under "LGPL 2 or later".
I would consider it, but this line in your reply made everything you said seem invalid.

To me and the wall LGPL 3 is "later" because 3 comes after 2.

Re: PDF library

Posted: Sat Sep 25 2021 5:20 pm
by ansel
seasoned_geek wrote:
Sat Sep 25 2021 1:48 pm
barbara wrote:
Fri Sep 24 2021 11:18 pm
It would be nice to see this library released under "LGPL 2 or later".
I would consider it, but this line in your reply made everything you said seem invalid.

To me and the wall LGPL 3 is "later" because 3 comes after 2.
If the author wants a single license there are four distinct possibilities. The code could be licensed under LGPL 2 only, LGPL2 or later, LGPL 3 only, or LGPL3 or later. So "LGPL2 or later" refers to a specific license which contains a clause saying the original author gives you the right to use the code under LGPL2 or any later version of the LGPL license. This would be perfect for use with projects such as CopperSpice and Diamond.

Re: PDF library

Posted: Mon Sep 27 2021 10:35 am
by seasoned_geek
The author responded.
====
Hello Roland,

I would like to use version 3 of LGPL, because older versions have issues, for example, with tivoization. I do not think, that LGPLv3 is very restrictive, it is actually more benevolent than GPL itself.

Best regards
Jakub Melka
====

Yeah, I never understood the Tivoization rantings in the OpenSource community. The last thing any manufacturer wants is you messing up their unit then demanding their tech support fix it.