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

Re: is the license of gsview okay?

From: John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu>
Subject: Re: is the license of gsview okay?
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:26:20 -0700 (MST)

> >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

Ah yes, you are right.  I just installed pstotext 1.8g-1.

> >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 also installed this one just now.

> >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?

No, no, I do not repackage it ;-)  Rather only I did not notice that
these were already packaged.

Thanks for your clarification and sorry for my lack of investigation.

I found that gsview contains only pstotext and it assumes that a system 
provides pstoedit.  So if one removes redundant pstotext then gsview 
is under AFPL, completely same with gs-aladdin.

Thanks again.  Regards.

 Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
 Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>
 Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.

Reply to: