Re: is the license of gsview okay?
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
>I am interested in gsview which is famous in Windows users
>and a kind of ghostview or gv. But I am not sure if its license
>permits us to upload to Debian or not.
>(You can get the original source from
>It says as follows:
>GSview is copyright by Ghostgum Software Pty Ltd.
>GSview is distributed with the Aladdin Free Public Licence.
>This licence is contained in the file /usr/share/doc/gsview/LICENCE
>GSview uses pstotext in an external DLL. pstotext was written by
>Andrew Birrell and Paul McJones. It is
> Copyright (C) 1995-1996, Digital Equipment Corporation.
>See the licence in pstotext.txt or pstotext.zip for more details.
locutus:/var/log/snort# apt-cache search pstotext
pstotext - Extract text from PostScript and PDF files.
looks like this part's going to be redundant anyway
>pstoedit is Copyright by Wolfgang Glunz and is licensed with
>the GNU Public Licence (GPL). Binaries are included in
>GSview with the permission of Wolfgang Glunz.
locutus:/usr/src# apt-cache search pstoedit
pstoedit - PostScript and PDF files to editable vector graphics converter.
>I think the first paragraph is okay for non-free because
>it is the same with gs-aladdin.
>The second paragraph mentioned pstotext.txt and it is a bit
>long so I attatched it after the question on the third paragraph.
Looks like the pstotext is the same in the debianized source of pstotext.
In fact, I'd wager they were the same.
>I guess the third paragraph seems problematic. pstoedit is
>under GPL and gsview itself is under AFPL so, generally,
>they contradict each other. Is it okay because there is the
>permission of Wolfgang Glunz?
Why repackage it?
>Now the main part of pstotext.txt.
<snip--apt-get source pstotext and read it yourself>