Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pdflib-lite - Portable C library for dynamically generating PDF files Alias: pdflib-lite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219013 pertusus@xxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus@xxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2006-12-10 05:44 EST ------- I am not convinced that the license is really OSI compatible, although I am not sure that it isn't OSI compatible. * about the 'GPL like' part, there is a restriction that the code must be on the web. So it may not be compatible with the GPL, and I don't now if this doesn't put too much obligation on somebody redistributing the code. * There is also this which doesn't seems to me to be right: PDF files generated with the program must include the same Producer entry in the document info field as those generated with the original (unmodified) program. Changing the Producer entry renders this license invalid. * also there is the "don't remove files clause". It may not be problematic if they don't need to be compiled in, still it is a strange condition. 3.2 Source Code Redistribution Redistributions of source code must include all files which are part of the original distribution. Omitting one or more files would result in a distribution which is not compliant with this license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review