On 11 December 2014 at 10:59, Jon Ingason <jon.ingason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Den 2014-12-11 05:08, Paul Allen Newell skrev: >> >> On 12/10/2014 08:02 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote: >>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:49:55 -0800 Paul Allen Newell >>> <pnewell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/10/2014 04:07 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:55:10 -0500 Matthew Miller >>>>> <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 05:51:59PM -0600, Ranjan Maitra wrote: >>>>>>>>> It would be good if someone who could pick it up w/o the issues >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> Fedora had would do it -- pdftk was a good package and will be >>>>>>>>> missed. Given that Fedora isn't going to continue, I understand it >>>>>>>>> is a bit useless to make the comment here. But hopefully senior >>>>>>>>> folk >>>>>>>>> in Fedora can give a push for pdftk to be "somewhere" within the >>>>>>>>> Linux world that Fedora users can pick up (and also Centos). >>>>>>>> We'd love to have it in Fedora. The itext5 author is really the >>>>>>>> person >>>>>>>> to talk to here. >>>>>>> Who would that be? Can this go to RPMfusion? >>>>>> That's up to the RPMfusion people. But really, that's a lot less >>>>>> ideal than having the software licensed in a truly open way so >>>>>> everyone >>>>>> can benefit. >>>>> Completely agree with this sentiment! But we can not do much here, I >>>>> guess, except hope! >>>>> >>>>> Ranjan >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Okay, I will hope (and in a positive manner as opposed to sarcastic) ... >>>> but part of that will be in the spirit of my original use of the word >>>> "hopeful" that someone with a "voice that matters" can give a push to >>>> either itext5 author or rpmfusion group that it would be a good thing. >>>> >>>> Thanks for giving this thread a "let's hope" flavor rather than a "ain't >>>> gonna happen so forget it" brick wall >>> Well, yes it is a fond hope because as I said, it is a fond hope. But >>> I can't make it happen because I do not know the issues that this >>> entails. >>> >>> Ranjan >>> >> >> I probably know less of the issues involved and understand that I am >> walking a fine line to avoid sounding like a Pollyanna >> >>>> Paul > > Well, if you look at ITEXT website the software license is AGPL for > itext5, (see http://itextpdf.com/agpl), which is "Software Licenses that > are OK for Fedora", (see > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing). > > So it should be OK to use in Fedora or am I missing something? Regrettably it's a slightly modified AGPL and, though IANAL, it looks like the problematic additional restriction is still there: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-June/001656.html Which is a pity, because I used to like pdftk and have been missing it since it was dropped. Didn't know about mcpdu which Raman Gupta mentioned and will check it out. Would be cool if ITEXT could be brought back (think it does all the heavy lifting for pdftk), but would be to be approached diplomatically as ITEXT do have a business they're trying to run. -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
