pdfbox-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andreas Lehmkuehler <andr...@lehmi.de>
Subject Re: License and naming for derivative works
Date Sun, 14 Jan 2018 14:21:34 GMT
Am 14.01.2018 um 14:56 schrieb Eliot Jones:
> Hi Andreas,
> 
> 
> Many thanks for your response.
> 
> 
>    1.  When I forked I took trunk, the commit was "01aa37bcc4" (unfortunately I didn't
realise there was a version 2.0 until much later).
The trunk targets a 3.0.0 version containing some major changes/additions. It is 
still under development and therefore not as stable as the 2.0. branch w.r.t. to 
the api.

>    2.  Just to clarify what does "PMC" mean? And to include the PDFBox copyright in the
license which text should I use, I currently have "EXTERNAL COMPONENTS
PMC = project management committee, see [1] for further deatils

[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#structure


> PdfPig includes a number of components with separate copyright notices
> and license terms. Your use of these components is subject to the terms and
> conditions of the following licenses.
> 
> Contributions made to the original PDFBox and FontBox projects:
> 
>     Copyright (c) 2002-2007, www.pdfbox.org
>     All rights reserved."
> At the end of the license file, should I add a more up-to-date copyright elsewhere in
the file, or does this mean including the copyright comments at the top of each class? Sorry,
my understanding of how copyright should be used and applied is not good! :)
The PDFBox and FontBox (www.pdfbox.org) are the predecessors of Apache PDFBox 
(pdfbox.apache.org). It would be wrong to "update" the copyright years.
The same is true for the PaDaF entry.

You may omit the parts which you are not ported, most likely the OSXAdapter and 
maybe PaDaF if you don't port preflight and xmpbox to .NET


>    3.
> While it would be very helpful to be promoted, I worry that my rewriting of parts will
have caused many bugs and I wouldn't want to damage PDFBox by having a buggy product associated
with it. Possibly once I become stable enough to do a full release. :)
:-) OK, give us a heads up once your port is good enough to be promoted.

>    4.
> Because I got side-tracked by rewriting parts of the code in order to better understand
the specification I'm still quite far from having any kind of feature parity, however I plan
on watching for changes within PDFBox and porting those as they are implemented.
The PDF spec is quite complex, so that we all know what you are fighting with.

> Thanks again for your time (and the original PDFBox code :D ).
Thanks for letting us know what you are doing. Not everyone out there is 
interested in doing it right when copying/forking/using the code of someone 
else. :-)

Looking forward to hear from your progress

Andreas

> 
> Eliot
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Andreas Lehmkuehler <andreas@lehmi.de>
> Sent: 14 January 2018 13:26
> To: users@pdfbox.apache.org
> Subject: Re: License and naming for derivative works
> 
> Am 07.01.2018 um 16:54 schrieb Eliot Jones:
>> I have been migrating PDFBox to C# in order to provide an Apache 2.0 licensed solution
for working with PDFs in C#.
> Cool, there a a lot of people asking for a .NET version.
> 
>> Repository is here: https://github.com/UglyToad/Pdf
> 
> What PDFBox version is the base for your port, trunk or 2.0.x?
> 
>> I am almost at the point where I intend to release an alpha version of the software
to NuGet (Maven equivalent).
>>
>> I wanted to check what conditions were necessary/polite for releasing this derivative
work.
> IANAL, but I try to answer your questions as good as possible
> 
>>     *   I am keeping the Apache 2.0 license but should the copyright in my license
be the copyright from the PDFBox version of the license?
> The PDFBox PMC still owns the copyright of the origin code. IMHO even ported
> code is still copyrighted by us, as long as the ported code is similar to the
> origin one. If you add some substantial changes to the code, you might *add*
> your own copyright to that part of the code. All new classes are of course
> yours. And the port as a whole (our code, your changes and your additions) is a
> derivative work and you may the copyright for that as a whole.
> 
>>     *   Additionally I assume I must redistribute the NOTICES.txt file present in
the PDFBox code?
> That would be nice. You might remove those parts which are not ported to .NET
> 
> 
>>     *   On naming, I was intending to rename the project (not sure what name yet)
to indicate that much of the code has been rewritten and it’s not an official port. This
will prevent people filing bugs (of which my version will have many) with PDFBox. Is this
ok or would this be considered bad etiquette?
> Good idea, it will make it easier to separate both projects. As you already did
> so, IMHO there is no need for further changes.
> Furthermore "PDFBox" is a registered trademark ;-)
> 
> 
>>     *   Are there any other steps I should take to release a work derived from PDFBox
and managed by the Apache Foundation?
> You already mentioned the origin of your port (it is not necessary but highly
> appreciated) so that we get the credits for the work of our community.
> 
> Are you interested in being "promoted" by us if someone asks for a .NET port,
> e.g. we could mention the port somewhere at a more or less prominent place on
> our website?
> Are you planning to monitor our changes and port them as well to your codebase?
> 
> Andreas
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Eliot Jones
>>
>> Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows
10
>>
>>
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@pdfbox.apache.org
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@pdfbox.apache.org


Mime
View raw message