Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Are all files produced by GPL Ghostscript copyrighted by 'Artifex Software, Inc.'?
23 views
Skip to first unread message
Vaibhav Niku
Dec 22, 2012, 1:30:01 AM12/22/12
to
Hello all
pdf2ps, which is a frontend to gs, inserts a copyright notice in all PS files it produces. I am using `GPL Ghostscript 8.71 (2010-02-10)'. Files look like this:
%!PS-Adobe-3.0
...
%%Creator: GPL Ghostscript 871 (pswrite)
...
%%BeginProlog
% This copyright applies to everything between here and the %%EndProlog:
% Copyright (C) 2010 Artifex Software, Inc. All rights reserved.
%%BeginResource: procset GS_pswrite_2_0_1001 1.001 0
...
%%EndProlog
...
%%EOF
(Needless to say, the files are corrupted if you delete the Prolog stuff.)
This is a serious issue on multiple counts:
(i) The idea itself is ghastly! It is like saying that if you convert a photo from one format to another in via ImageMagick tools, ImageMagick LLC will hold the copyright to your new photo. And it may be even worse. Depending on where all gs inserts the copyright notice, it may be equivalent to emacs claiming copyright for all your code!
(ii) Why is the information about this missing _everywhere_? Nothing in man pages, nothing in /usr/share/doc/ghostscript/, nothing on gs homepages (http://www.ghostscript.com and http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/ .)
And finally,
(iii) Why is gs a part of Debian? Since Debian maintainers find such restrictions acceptable for files produced by one program, how do I know that it is not acceptable for other programs? Am I supposed to check files with a hexeditor after every change I make to every file?
P.S.: Someone on #debian at irc.debian.org said that the notice is not inserted when using the upcoming version 9.17 of gs. (available in wheezy; the latest version for stable is 8.71)
Even so, I would like to have clear information about this file. There are probaly hundreds of thousands of files having this notice upto now. The authors of these would be interested in knowing that ARTIFEX SOFTWARE, INC claims copyright for them. (https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=%25%20This%20copyright%20applies%20to%20everything%20between%20here%20and%20the%20%25%25EndProlog%3A )
Yours faithfully,
~Vaibhav.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1356156572.82923...@web161706.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
pdf2ps, which is a frontend to gs, inserts a copyright notice in all PS files it produces. I am using `GPL Ghostscript 8.71 (2010-02-10)'. Files look like this:
%!PS-Adobe-3.0
...
%%Creator: GPL Ghostscript 871 (pswrite)
...
%%BeginProlog
% This copyright applies to everything between here and the %%EndProlog:
% Copyright (C) 2010 Artifex Software, Inc. All rights reserved.
%%BeginResource: procset GS_pswrite_2_0_1001 1.001 0
...
%%EndProlog
...
%%EOF
(Needless to say, the files are corrupted if you delete the Prolog stuff.)
This is a serious issue on multiple counts:
(i) The idea itself is ghastly! It is like saying that if you convert a photo from one format to another in via ImageMagick tools, ImageMagick LLC will hold the copyright to your new photo. And it may be even worse. Depending on where all gs inserts the copyright notice, it may be equivalent to emacs claiming copyright for all your code!
(ii) Why is the information about this missing _everywhere_? Nothing in man pages, nothing in /usr/share/doc/ghostscript/, nothing on gs homepages (http://www.ghostscript.com and http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/ .)
And finally,
(iii) Why is gs a part of Debian? Since Debian maintainers find such restrictions acceptable for files produced by one program, how do I know that it is not acceptable for other programs? Am I supposed to check files with a hexeditor after every change I make to every file?
P.S.: Someone on #debian at irc.debian.org said that the notice is not inserted when using the upcoming version 9.17 of gs. (available in wheezy; the latest version for stable is 8.71)
Even so, I would like to have clear information about this file. There are probaly hundreds of thousands of files having this notice upto now. The authors of these would be interested in knowing that ARTIFEX SOFTWARE, INC claims copyright for them. (https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=%25%20This%20copyright%20applies%20to%20everything%20between%20here%20and%20the%20%25%25EndProlog%3A )
Yours faithfully,
~Vaibhav.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1356156572.82923...@web161706.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Chris Bannister
Dec 22, 2012, 4:10:01 AM12/22/12
to
Issues regarding copyright, or legal issues in general should be sent to
debian...@lists.debian.org CC'd
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Tom Furie
Dec 22, 2012, 5:00:02 AM12/22/12
to
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:09:32PM -0800, Vaibhav Niku wrote:
> pdf2ps, which is a frontend to gs, inserts a copyright notice in all PS files it produces. I am using `GPL Ghostscript 8.71 (2010-02-10)'. Files look like this:
>
> %!PS-Adobe-3.0
> ...
> %%Creator: GPL Ghostscript 871 (pswrite)
> ...
> %%BeginProlog
> % This copyright applies to everything between here and the %%EndProlog:
> % Copyright (C) 2010 Artifex Software, Inc. All rights reserved.
> %%BeginResource: procset GS_pswrite_2_0_1001 1.001 0
> ...
> %%EndProlog
> ...
> %%EOF
>
> (Needless to say, the files are corrupted if you delete the Prolog stuff.)
To be fair to Artifex Software, it is only the prolog they are claiming
>
> %!PS-Adobe-3.0
> ...
> %%Creator: GPL Ghostscript 871 (pswrite)
> ...
> %%BeginProlog
> % This copyright applies to everything between here and the %%EndProlog:
> % Copyright (C) 2010 Artifex Software, Inc. All rights reserved.
> %%BeginResource: procset GS_pswrite_2_0_1001 1.001 0
> ...
> %%EndProlog
> ...
> %%EOF
>
> (Needless to say, the files are corrupted if you delete the Prolog stuff.)
copyright on, none of the actual content.
Cheers,
Tom
--
I brake for chezlogs!
Vaibhav Niku
Dec 22, 2012, 7:30:01 AM12/22/12
to
One solution to the problem is to get the source code, delete the lines which insert the copyright notice (“modify the code”), compile the code, and use this. This is legal as the code is released under GPL and GPL allows modifications. (You could release your modifications too. This is how Debian makes ‘Iceweasel’ out of ‘Firefox’ -- just so that Debian users don't have to sign a EULA with Mozilla.)
Still, Ghostscript (in its present state) should not be a part of Debian. Indeed, if signing a EULA is unacceptable, how much worse is having your code copyrighted by a third party!
~Vaibhav
> pdf2ps, which is a frontend to gs, inserts a copyright
> notice in all PS files it produces. I am using `GPL
> Ghostscript 8.71 (2010-02-10)'. Files look like this:
>
> %!PS-Adobe-3.0
> ...
> %%Creator: GPL Ghostscript 871 (pswrite)
> ...
> %%BeginProlog
> % This copyright applies to everything between here and the
> %%EndProlog:
> % Copyright (C) 2010 Artifex Software, Inc. All rights
> reserved.
> %%BeginResource: procset GS_pswrite_2_0_1001 1.001 0
> ...
> %%EndProlog
> ...
> %%EOF
Still, Ghostscript (in its present state) should not be a part of Debian. Indeed, if signing a EULA is unacceptable, how much worse is having your code copyrighted by a third party!
~Vaibhav
> pdf2ps, which is a frontend to gs, inserts a copyright
> notice in all PS files it produces. I am using `GPL
> Ghostscript 8.71 (2010-02-10)'. Files look like this:
>
> %!PS-Adobe-3.0
> ...
> %%Creator: GPL Ghostscript 871 (pswrite)
> ...
> %%BeginProlog
> % This copyright applies to everything between here and the
> %%EndProlog:
> % Copyright (C) 2010 Artifex Software, Inc. All rights
> reserved.
> %%BeginResource: procset GS_pswrite_2_0_1001 1.001 0
> ...
> %%EndProlog
> ...
> %%EOF
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1356178084.70123...@web161702.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Claudius Hubig
Dec 22, 2012, 9:10:01 AM12/22/12
to
Hello Vaibhav,
Vaibhav Niku <vaibha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello all
>
> pdf2ps, which is a frontend to gs, inserts a copyright notice in all PS files it produces. I am using `GPL Ghostscript 8.71 (2010-02-10)'. Files look like this:
>
> %!PS-Adobe-3.0
> ...
> %%Creator: GPL Ghostscript 871 (pswrite)
> ...
> %%BeginProlog
> % This copyright applies to everything between here and the %%EndProlog:
> % Copyright (C) 2010 Artifex Software, Inc. All rights reserved.
> %%BeginResource: procset GS_pswrite_2_0_1001 1.001 0
> ...
> %%EndProlog
> ...
> %%EOF
This only claims copyright to the prolog (sort of like a header),
which is created by Ghostscript itself. As the header, which is
introduced in these files to make them valid, had to be written by
someone, naturally someone has the copyright to said header, even if
it is put into your files. Note that in some jurisdictions, not even
such a notice is necessary in order to hold the copyright, nor does
removing the notice help with anything (apart from copyright
infringement).
Furthermore note that even though Artifex Software holds the
copyright to parts of this file, it may well allow you to do whatever
you want with your files.
Best,
Claudius
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121222134...@ares.home.chubig.net
Vaibhav Niku <vaibha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello all
>
> pdf2ps, which is a frontend to gs, inserts a copyright notice in all PS files it produces. I am using `GPL Ghostscript 8.71 (2010-02-10)'. Files look like this:
>
> %!PS-Adobe-3.0
> ...
> %%Creator: GPL Ghostscript 871 (pswrite)
> ...
> %%BeginProlog
> % This copyright applies to everything between here and the %%EndProlog:
> % Copyright (C) 2010 Artifex Software, Inc. All rights reserved.
> %%BeginResource: procset GS_pswrite_2_0_1001 1.001 0
> ...
> %%EndProlog
> ...
> %%EOF
which is created by Ghostscript itself. As the header, which is
introduced in these files to make them valid, had to be written by
someone, naturally someone has the copyright to said header, even if
it is put into your files. Note that in some jurisdictions, not even
such a notice is necessary in order to hold the copyright, nor does
removing the notice help with anything (apart from copyright
infringement).
Furthermore note that even though Artifex Software holds the
copyright to parts of this file, it may well allow you to do whatever
you want with your files.
Best,
Claudius
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
John Hasler
Dec 22, 2012, 10:20:01 AM12/22/12
to
Claudius writes:
> Furthermore note that even though Artifex Software holds the copyright
> to parts of this file, it may well allow you to do whatever you want
> with your files.
It does. You just can't prevent anyone from making copies of the prolog
> Furthermore note that even though Artifex Software holds the copyright
> to parts of this file, it may well allow you to do whatever you want
> with your files.
(oversimplified). The copyright on the rest of the file is yours to do
with as you see fit.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Vaibhav Niku
Dec 22, 2012, 11:00:02 AM12/22/12
to
Hello Claudius
I am not convinced that the notice is harmless. At any rate, since the GS code is released as GPL, I am well within my rights to alter it as I suggested. (But, IANAL.)
> Note that in some jurisdictions, not even
> such a notice is necessary in order to hold the copyright, nor does
> removing the notice help with anything (apart from copyright
> infringement).
You will find that what I said is a standard procedure in dealing with issues like these. It is not copyright infringement -- removing the copyright notice from the produced PS code will be copyright infringement, however. Check what John Gilmore did, for example:
http://www.toad.com/gnu/sysadmin/index.html#firefox-eula-sux
[QUOTE:]
Now here's the free-as-in-freedom bit:
Firefox is free software and you are free to modify it, either before or after you install it. I chose to modify it before I installed it. I modified it by removing the EULA. So there is no EULA, no agreement between me and the Mozilla Corporation, no contract. Just the free software. Thank you for the free software.
It would be easier to modify the source, and I'm happy to come up with a source patch for the Mozilla team (or any distro) if they'll install it. But it was more expedient to modify the binary: it was sitting in front of me, and it turned out to be easy.
…
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1356191664.68778...@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
I am not convinced that the notice is harmless. At any rate, since the GS code is released as GPL, I am well within my rights to alter it as I suggested. (But, IANAL.)
> Note that in some jurisdictions, not even
> such a notice is necessary in order to hold the copyright, nor does
> removing the notice help with anything (apart from copyright
> infringement).
http://www.toad.com/gnu/sysadmin/index.html#firefox-eula-sux
[QUOTE:]
Now here's the free-as-in-freedom bit:
Firefox is free software and you are free to modify it, either before or after you install it. I chose to modify it before I installed it. I modified it by removing the EULA. So there is no EULA, no agreement between me and the Mozilla Corporation, no contract. Just the free software. Thank you for the free software.
It would be easier to modify the source, and I'm happy to come up with a source patch for the Mozilla team (or any distro) if they'll install it. But it was more expedient to modify the binary: it was sitting in front of me, and it turned out to be easy.
…
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Vaibhav Niku
Dec 22, 2012, 11:10:02 AM12/22/12
to
Filed a bug-report:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=696539
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1356191986.55498...@web161706.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=696539
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Claudius Hubig
Dec 22, 2012, 12:00:03 PM12/22/12
to
Hello Vaibhav,
please fix your mail client. It currently breaks threading (no In-Reply-To:
or References: header), CC’s people for no good reason (I am subscribed to
the list and do not wish to receive off-list copies, cf. [1]) and doesn’t
break lines sensibly (at about 80 characters).
Vaibhav Niku <vaibha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am not convinced that the notice is harmless. At any rate, since
the GS code is released as GPL, I am well within my rights to alter
it as I suggested. (But, IANAL.)
Sure. And if someone later wants to find out what exactly they are
allowed to do with that GS code or wish to obtain a different license
for it (e.g. to use in a closed-source programme) they will have to
jump through loops to find out who actually holds the copyright to the
PS prolog to contact them and ask for a different license.
> You will find that what I said is a standard procedure in dealing
with issues like these. It is not copyright infringement -- removing
the copyright notice from the produced PS code will be copyright
infringement, however.
If the prolog is copyrighted, it will still be copyrighted even if you
remove the generation of the copyright header. Of course you could
remove the code that generates said copyrighted prolog, but you will
find the resulting .ps file to be unhelpful.
> Firefox is free software and you are free to modify it, either
before or after you install it. I chose to modify it before I
installed it. I modified it by removing the EULA. So there is no
EULA, no agreement between me and the Mozilla Corporation, no
contract. Just the free software. Thank you for the free software.
The Mozilla foundation granted him the rights as set out in the
license, and only these allow him to use the software. Last time I
checked, this EULA was simply a reiteration of the license (i.e.
Mozilla Public License) and some hints at the trademark rules, which
also apply regardless of whether someone clicks „I agree“.
Best regards,
Claudius
1] http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121222163...@ares.home.chubig.net
please fix your mail client. It currently breaks threading (no In-Reply-To:
or References: header), CC’s people for no good reason (I am subscribed to
the list and do not wish to receive off-list copies, cf. [1]) and doesn’t
break lines sensibly (at about 80 characters).
Vaibhav Niku <vaibha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am not convinced that the notice is harmless. At any rate, since
the GS code is released as GPL, I am well within my rights to alter
it as I suggested. (But, IANAL.)
allowed to do with that GS code or wish to obtain a different license
for it (e.g. to use in a closed-source programme) they will have to
jump through loops to find out who actually holds the copyright to the
PS prolog to contact them and ask for a different license.
> You will find that what I said is a standard procedure in dealing
with issues like these. It is not copyright infringement -- removing
the copyright notice from the produced PS code will be copyright
infringement, however.
remove the generation of the copyright header. Of course you could
remove the code that generates said copyrighted prolog, but you will
find the resulting .ps file to be unhelpful.
> Firefox is free software and you are free to modify it, either
before or after you install it. I chose to modify it before I
installed it. I modified it by removing the EULA. So there is no
EULA, no agreement between me and the Mozilla Corporation, no
contract. Just the free software. Thank you for the free software.
license, and only these allow him to use the software. Last time I
checked, this EULA was simply a reiteration of the license (i.e.
Mozilla Public License) and some hints at the trademark rules, which
also apply regardless of whether someone clicks „I agree“.
Best regards,
Claudius
1] http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Andrei POPESCU
Dec 22, 2012, 1:00:02 PM12/22/12
to
On Sb, 22 dec 12, 16:35:45, Claudius Hubig wrote:
>
> The Mozilla foundation granted him the rights as set out in the
> license, and only these allow him to use the software. Last time I
> checked, this EULA was simply a reiteration of the license (i.e.
> Mozilla Public License) and some hints at the trademark rules, which
> also apply regardless of whether someone clicks „I agree“.
I suspect it is there just to make the legal department happy.
>
> The Mozilla foundation granted him the rights as set out in the
> license, and only these allow him to use the software. Last time I
> checked, this EULA was simply a reiteration of the license (i.e.
> Mozilla Public License) and some hints at the trademark rules, which
> also apply regardless of whether someone clicks „I agree“.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
Vaibhav Niku
Dec 22, 2012, 8:50:02 PM12/22/12
to
Hello Claudius
> > Firefox is free software and you are free to modify it, either
> before or after you install it. I chose to modify it before I
> installed it. I modified it by removing the EULA. So there is no
> EULA, no agreement between me and the Mozilla Corporation, no
> contract. Just the free software. Thank you for the free software.
>
> The Mozilla foundation granted him the rights as set out in the
> license, and only these allow him to use the software. Last time I
> checked, this EULA was simply a reiteration of the license (i.e.
> Mozilla Public License) and some hints at the trademark rules, which
> also apply regardless of whether someone clicks „I agree“.
allows me to make any modifications I see fit, and _use_ the resulting
software. I may choose to remove the lines which insert the copyright
notice in all PS files. This is what I think, but since IANAL, anyone
interested in doing this should best ask debian-legal first.
> please fix your mail client. It currently breaks threading (no In-Reply-To:
> or References: header), CC’s people for no good reason (I am subscribed to
> the list and do not wish to receive off-list copies, cf. [1]) and doesn’t
> break lines sensibly (at about 80 characters).
use the mail headers. (The webmail I am using does not allow insertion of
arbitrary headers.)
CC: You are right of course. But this is what the bug webpage
suggests. Check the ‘Reply to:’ at the bottom of the link below. It puts
the sender in ‘To:’ and the list in ‘CC:’.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/12/msg00934.html
Line break: corrected.
~Vaibhav.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
John Hasler
Dec 22, 2012, 9:10:01 PM12/22/12
to
Vaibhav Niku writes:
> And 'Artifax Software, Inc' grants me the rights as set out in the
> GPL. GPL allows me to make any modifications I see fit, and _use_ the
> resulting software. I may choose to remove the lines which insert the
> copyright notice in all PS files.
Use, yes. However, if you distribute the software you must comply with
> And 'Artifax Software, Inc' grants me the rights as set out in the
> GPL. GPL allows me to make any modifications I see fit, and _use_ the
> resulting software. I may choose to remove the lines which insert the
> copyright notice in all PS files.
the GPL. As part of the software the prolog is licensed to you under
the GPL and so you must comply with the GPL when distributing files
containing it. Note that this applies only to the prolog, not the rest
of the file.
On the other hand, the prolog may not be protected by copyright at all.
If so, you may do with it as you will regardless of the license terms.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Claudius Hubig
Dec 22, 2012, 10:50:01 PM12/22/12
to
> And 'Artifax Software, Inc' grants me the rights as set out in the GPL. GPL
> allows me to make any modifications I see fit, and _use_ the resulting
> software. I may choose to remove the lines which insert the copyright
> notice in all PS files.
Sure, but this doesn’t change the fact that the prolog (which is
> allows me to make any modifications I see fit, and _use_ the resulting
> software. I may choose to remove the lines which insert the copyright
> notice in all PS files.
really just pre-written Postscript code) is still copyrighted by
Artifax Software. It is probably comparable to how Microsoft owns the
copyright to all the code that makes a .doc an actual .doc and not
just a .txt, i.e. the structure of the contents, the way things are
specified etc.
> CC: You are right of course. But this is what the bug webpage
> suggests. Check the ‘Reply to:’ at the bottom of the link below. It puts
> the sender in ‘To:’ and the list in ‘CC:’.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/12/msg00934.html
(on-list)" "Claudius Hubig (off-list)". The first one (which should
be the default) only sends the mail to d...@l.d.o, which is the
correct behaviour and also sets the In-Reply-To: header.
> Line break: corrected.
Thanks :)
Best,
Claudius
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
0 new messages