Free ghostview for Win?
Dragan Cvetkovic
not really TeX related question, but in a way it is: :-)
A couple of years ago when I had to use Windows machines occasionally, I
would install ghostscript + ghostview there to view and print my postscript
files (LaTeX generated).
I have tried to do the same thing a couple of days ago on my wife's Win2K
machine (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/gsview/index.htm): installed Alladin
Ghostscript and Ghostview, but now whenever I douple-click on a .ps file it
asks me to register the program (and pay the fee).
Does it mean that ghostview is not a public domain program any more but
shareware? There is nothing on the web page indicating it.
Is there any other GUI driver for ghostscript available for Windows?
I can certainly use ghostscript (as I did on UNIX before), but having a GUI
driver is certainly easier.
Thanks a lot. Dragan
P.S. I have just read the licence at
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/gsview/Readme.htm and here is what is says
about the registation:
"GSview is copyright by Ghostgum Software Pty Ltd. GSview is distributed
with the Aladdin Free Public Licence. This licence is contained in the file
LICENCE . The Aladdin Free Public Licence does not require any payment to
the author; however the author would welcome any registrations of GSview to
cover costs and time involved in developing and maintaining GSview.
The registration fee is currently AUD$40. GSview can be registered online
at http://www.ghostgum.com.au/ or by faxing or mailing the registration
form. Ghostgum Software prefers that you use the online registration. On
registration you will be sent a registration code to disable the nag
screen."
I am confused: how do "Aladdin Free Public Licence" and "The registration
fee is currently AUD$40" (which will "disable the nag screen") go together?
This "nag screen" is a feature of shareware programs, not of free ones.
--
Dragan Cvetkovic,
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer
Walter Schmidt
> [...] installed Alladin Ghostscript and Ghostview,
You mean GSView.
> but now whenever I douple-click on a .ps file it
> asks me to register the program (and pay the fee).
> [...]
> Is there any other GUI driver for ghostscript available for Windows?
No, and I kindly ask you to register GSView and
help keeping it maintained. TeX cannot survive
without GSView.
> The registration fee is currently AUD$40.
Please, don't tell me that you cannot afford this!
It's certainly not too much.
--
Walter
Dragan Cvetkovic
> Dragan Cvetkovic schrieb:
>
> > [...] installed Alladin Ghostscript and Ghostview,
>
> You mean GSView.
Yes, you are right, Ghostview is a UNIX one (or gv).
>
> > but now whenever I douple-click on a .ps file it
> > asks me to register the program (and pay the fee).
> > [...]
> > Is there any other GUI driver for ghostscript available for Windows?
>
> No, and I kindly ask you to register GSView and
> help keeping it maintained. TeX cannot survive
> without GSView.
>
> > The registration fee is currently AUD$40.
>
> Please, don't tell me that you cannot afford this!
> It's certainly not too much.
>
I can certainly afford AUD$40, but that's not the point. I am/was confused
because:
* the program used to be free
* this is not freeware/public domain/whatever, it's now shareware,
without stating it anywhere.
And what about the Licence, doesn't it need to be changed?
OK, I see that this "feature" can be disabled in source and recompiled (and
no, I am not going to do it).
Besides, I am not sure if I want to pay for it as I will be using it once
every month or so (when I have no other choice).
Bye, Dragan
Giuseppe Bilotta
>
> I have tried to do the same thing a couple of days ago on my wife's Win2K
> machine (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/gsview/index.htm): installed Alladin
> Ghostscript and Ghostview, but now whenever I douple-click on a .ps file it
> asks me to register the program (and pay the fee).
>
Or get the sources and recompile without the nag code. It's legal for
you to do it, as long as you don't redistribute the nag-free
binaries.
--
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta
"Da grande lotterò per la pace"
"A me me la compra il mio babbo"
(Altan)
("When I grow up, I will fight for peace"
"I'll have my daddy buy it for me")
Christian Koch
> [Nag screen of GSview]
> I can certainly afford AUD$40, but that's not the point. I am/was
> confused because:
>
> * the program used to be free
> * this is not freeware/public domain/whatever, it's now
> shareware, without stating it anywhere.
>
> And what about the Licence, doesn't it need to be changed?
No, because it is not shareware. You simply do not have to pay for
using GSview, but you are encouraged to do so. This is the purpose of
the nag screen.
> OK, I see that this "feature" can be disabled in source and
> recompiled (and no, I am not going to do it).
The AFPL permits the modification of the source code. You may read
this posting of Russell Lang:
http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=2mcH5.15151%24wG1.62443%40news-server.bigpond.net.au
Christian.
Dragan Cvetkovic
>
> The AFPL permits the modification of the source code. You may read
> this posting of Russell Lang:
>
> http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=2mcH5.15151%24wG1.62443%40news-server.bigpond.net.au
>
> Christian.
Thanks to all for their answers.
Rich
Walter Schmidt <wsc...@arcor.de> spake the secret code
<3DADA168...@arcor.de> thusly:
>[...] TeX cannot survive without GSView.
TeX survived before GSView was created and if GSView goes away (or
becomes unsupported), I'm certain that TeX will still survive.
--
Ask me about my upcoming book on Direct3D from Addison-Wesley!
Direct3D Book <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
izfree: Open source tools for Windows Installer
<http://izfree.sourceforge.net>
Marc Rauw
> Or get the sources and recompile without the nag code. It's legal for
> you to do it, as long as you don't redistribute the nag-free
> binaries.
Even redistribution of the binaries is legal under the AFPL, as long as you
also distribute the sources (and honour the other provisions in the
license):
1 (b): "You may modify the Program, create works based on the Program and
distribute copies of such throughout the world, in any medium."
2 (iv): "You must accompany the Work with the complete corresponding
machine-readable source code, delivered on a medium customarily used for
software interchange."
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/doc/cvs/Public.htm
Regards,
Marc Rauw
Marc Rauw
> I can certainly afford AUD$40, but that's not the point. I am/was confused
> because:
>
> * the program used to be free
> * this is not freeware/public domain/whatever, it's now shareware,
> without stating it anywhere.
It's open-source software that uses a dual licensing strategy; it never (?)
has been public domain software. However, it is certainly no shareware,
since you don't *have* to pay the money; the money is just a donation, and
if you don't like the nag screen you can delete it from the source-code.
> And what about the Licence, doesn't it need to be changed?
No; see above. The AFPL license prohibits commercial redistribution, but it
doesn't say anything about a request for donations. The GPL license (used
for the Ghostview variants of the program) doesn't even block commercial
redistributions.
> Besides, I am not sure if I want to pay for it as I will be using it once
> every month or so (when I have no other choice).
Then why would you be bothered in the first place? If you only use it every
month or so, the little nag screen can hardly be an inconvenience, can it?
Regards,
Marc Rauw.
Dragan Cvetkovic
> "Dragan Cvetkovic" wrote:
>
> > Besides, I am not sure if I want to pay for it as I will be using it once
> > every month or so (when I have no other choice).
>
> Then why would you be bothered in the first place? If you only use it every
> month or so, the little nag screen can hardly be an inconvenience, can it?
>
Agreed. I was more expressing my surprise, confusion and disappointment
caused by the introduction of "nag screen" in that program since I have
last used it.
Once more, thanks to everyone explaining all the licence details to me. It
seems that licence (license?) issues are not so straightforward, but then,
lawyers need to earn their money as well. :-)
Lucian Wischik
>Once more, thanks to everyone explaining all the licence details to me. It
>seems that licence (license?) issues are not so straightforward, but then,
>lawyers need to earn their money as well. :-)
I was irritated enough by the nag screen, and (what I think is) their
disingenous attitude towards it, that I wrote a wrapper to remove the nag
screen from existing precompiled gsview binaries.
--
Lucian Wischik, Queens' College, Cambridge CB3 9ET. www.wischik.com/lu
Totte Karlsson
I'm interesting in geting rid of the anoying nag screen,
how did you write the wrapper?
If it is it an easy thing to do, I'm sure that many people are interested!
/totte
"Lucian Wischik" <ljw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:aokosr$4tu$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
Dragan Cvetkovic
> Hi,
> I'm interesting in geting rid of the anoying nag screen,
> how did you write the wrapper?
> If it is it an easy thing to do, I'm sure that many people are interested!
>
> /totte
Get the source code and look for registration_check(). There is a comment
in the source code how to do it.
Lucian Wischik
>I'm interesting in geting rid of the anoying nag screen,
>how did you write the wrapper?
>If it is it an easy thing to do, I'm sure that many people are interested!
The wrapper launches ghostview, waits for it to display the dialog, and
automatically clicks the OK button. Very easy to do -- fifteen lines of
code. I did it this way because it seemed easier to write this small
program than to download the ghostview source code, figure out how to set
it up to compile, figure out what to change, and then repeat the process
every time a new release came out.
Giuseppe Bilotta
Yup, but I remember reading somewhere (don't recall if GSview license
or in the source code) that redistribution of unnagged binaries is
"discouraged" or something like that.
Dragan Cvetkovic
>
> Yup, but I remember reading somewhere (don't recall if GSview license
> or in the source code) that redistribution of unnagged binaries is
> "discouraged" or something like that.
>
Well, there is a comment in the source code saying:
/*
[snip]
*
* We would prefer it if you do not distribute modified versions
* with registration disabled.
*/
I don't know if there is any other place stating the same.
Bye, Dragan
Paul Y. Peng
>
> Totte Karlsson <m...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >I'm interesting in geting rid of the anoying nag screen,
> >how did you write the wrapper?
> >If it is it an easy thing to do, I'm sure that many people are interested!
>
> The wrapper launches ghostview, waits for it to display the dialog, and
> automatically clicks the OK button. Very easy to do -- fifteen lines of
> code. I did it this way because it seemed easier to write this small
> program than to download the ghostview source code, figure out how to set
> it up to compile, figure out what to change, and then repeat the process
> every time a new release came out.
Could you please tell me a little bit more about your wrapper?
In what programming/script language did you write the wrapper?
Thanks for details.
Paul.
SanFranSisCo
news:lmn0pem...@lokrum.tht.net...
> Hi,
>
> not really TeX related question, but in a way it is: :-)
Well, I will probably get crucified for this, but it is hardly a secret
anyway (according to Google :) and you could probably figure it out from the
source code yourself:
Name: Dragan (or whatever name you like)
Serialnumber: 1-6616
It's probably not very ethical to use these codes, but the same can be said
(IMHO) for a nag screen in an open source program. I think the nag screen
should be replaced by a less intrusive call for donations; that, to me,
seems a much better (or rather: the only acceptable) way to ask for
financial support for an open source project (charging money for additional
services, as demonstrated by the major Linux distributors is something
entirely different, of course).
-SFO
Mikael Persson
I think the one(s) who wrote the program should decide! If you don't want to follow their license way, then don't use the program. Writing serial number here shows a huge lack of respect.
/Mikael Persson
(remove the colors from my email if you want to reply to me)
SanFranSisCo
news:20021017210029.3e7c...@green.hotmail.com.yellow...
> I think the one(s) who wrote the program should decide!
> If you don't want to follow their license way, then don't
> use the program. Writing serial number here shows a huge
> lack of respect.
So apparantly I was right: I _am_ going to get crucified. :)
However, if you do so, you should get your facts straight first. The license
certainly does _not_ forbid me to use these codes! If you truly believe it
does, then please show me the applicable clause... You can't, because it
does not exist.
Whether one removes the nag screen by using this reverse-engineered code, or
by removing the applicable routines from the source code doesn't make any
difference. If the programmers didn't want this to happen they should have
altered the license itself, making GSview true shareware. Now the program
_behaves_ as shareware, while in fact it is not!
For the record: I have actually paid for _my_ copy of GSview, even though
_I_ believe the use of a nag screen shows a huge lack of respect for the
open source concept in general. (Of course, the AFPL isn't a true open
source license anyway, but it seems to be sharing the same basic
philosophy.)
-SFO
SanFranSisCo
published the codes either. As I said earlier: using the codes may be
unethical. However, it is certainly not illegal!
-SFO
Nathaniel Beck
send him the $20 (US) that he requested. If I did not want to send
him $20, I would have been grateful for his providing a program I
could use for free at the price of an minor nag. Much prefer this to
being asked to by bloatware at high prices, bloatware that often
fails to work. So if others want to produce useful things and ask
for some minimal donation I am happy to do so (as I was happy to do
for miktex).
Neal
--
Neal Beck
Dept. of Political Science, UCSD
be...@ucsd.edu or http://weber.ucsd.edu/~nbeck
Visit Grace Elizabeth at http://weber.ucsd.edu/~nbeck/grace.html
Giuseppe Bilotta
> I live on gsview, thank Russell Leng a lot, and was quite happy to
> send him the $20 (US) that he requested. If I did not want to send
> him $20, I would have been grateful for his providing a program I
> could use for free at the price of an minor nag. Much prefer this to
> being asked to by bloatware at high prices, bloatware that often
> fails to work. So if others want to produce useful things and ask
> for some minimal donation I am happy to do so (as I was happy to do
> for miktex).
Indeed, this is the usual misunderstanding on the "free" in free
software which is really open source. While it surely allows you
*not* to pay for it, it doesn't mean that a "vote-with-your-wallet"
support is out of the question. The main difference is that with
commercial software you pay a fixed price, with free software you can
decide how much money is that program worth.