[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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>

Reply to: