Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Free Software Foundation Calls PDF Done

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,301

    Default Free Software Foundation Calls PDF Done

    Phoronix: Free Software Foundation Calls PDF Done

    The Free Software Foundation has removed GNU PDF from their list of high-priority projects, since libpoppler and other open-source PDF viewing solutions have matured and support the PDF ISO standard...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTk4Mw

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,257

    Default

    - Congrats to libpoppler devs. It's a great tool for those who don't do PDF's for a living.
    - Gnash needs work, and it would be nice if they would throw some backing behind Lightspark too.
    - I'm sure they would like to do more development for PowerVR, but lack of docs/specs holds them back. Reverse engineering is probably the only option there.
    - Coreboot is extremely important since a lot of otherwise useable mobos/systems are held back by poor BIOS implementations (esp. ACPI and ASPM).

    Thanks again to the FSF and all who support it!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    989

    Default

    One thing that bugs me is that Michael's articles about the FSF mention "open source" projects. While this may well be true, it's more courteous (and in-context) to mention that the projects under discussion are Free Software. After all, it's possible for something to be "Open Source", but not "Free Software". If that were the case, then the FSF would not support that project. The reverse doesn't really seem possible, though: I don't think there's any case where something is Free Software, but is not Open Source.

    So when you are talking about projects condoned by / supported by the FSF, it's better to call them Free Software, because the FSF would not support projects that are only Open Source, but which fail to meet the four essential freedoms of the definition of Free Software. Calling something Free Software makes a stronger claim about its license than does calling it Open Source.

    Further, I could even interpret this article as misrepresenting the statements of the Free Software Foundation, which is an even more dangerous proposition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoronix
    The foundation cites libpoppler as an open-source library supporting modern PDF features like annotations and forms as now being good enough to mark GNU PDF off their list.
    Above, the bolded words are exactly what I'm talking about. By saying that the FSF "cites" libpoppler as an "open-source" library, you are essentially misrepresenting something that the FSF would never in a thousand years say themselves. No -- they would call libpoppler a free software library. Can you provide any examples of official FSF communication where they choose to label a Free Software project as merely Open Source? I can't think of any.

    This could be construed as deliberate sabotage of reputation and organizational mission, at this point, if you don't correct the article, Michael. It seems like you might be intentionally trying to harm the message of the Free Software Foundation by diluting its statements with the ideals and the terminology of another movement which is distinct from the FSF. Please update the article to at least refer to libpoppler as a free software library in any case where the reader could construe that you are representing the FSF's statements or positions.

    You are, of course, free to call libpoppler anything you like when you are speaking as yourself. You can call it a "Michael-friendly library" if you want. But when you are trying to paraphrase what the Free Software Foundation says, you need to accurately depict a position or statement that the Free Software Foundation itself would take. Free speech only goes so far -- you can't misrepresent the statements or opinions of others.

    I'm pretty sure you made this error just because you are habitually used to typing "open source" in your articles, and you didn't put much thought into it. I'm not going to assume you did this intentionally. But if you don't correct the article, then I would have to assume that after a certain point you either don't care that you misrepresented someone else's opinion, or you intentionally intended to misrepresent their opinion.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    Hmmm, they call it "done". I guess proper pdf support with editable form fields will have to continue to use Adobe Reader.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Hmmm, they call it "done". I guess proper pdf support with editable form fields will have to continue to use Adobe Reader.
    What do you mean, editable?
    Filling in information in form fields for printing works well in evince and okular last time I checked.

    I worry more about annotations... Evince can add them but not remove them...?

  6. #6

    Default

    i'm still waiting for evince to be able to reliably render PDFs. The evince devs bounce off bug reports as RESOLVED NOTGNOME, and then they sit in the poppler/cairo bug tracker for years. to add to the frustration some display better in the ancient versions of evince in SL5.

    some personal examples:
    stroke gradient
    https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=627642
    https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11719

    text not displayed
    https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624773
    https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29167

    figure upside down
    https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=658067
    https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40596

    gradients dont render
    https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33726

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisXY View Post
    Filling in information in form fields for printing works well in evince and okular last time I checked.
    I haven't found this to be the case, several forms that I have come across in the past will not allow entry to the fields unless opened up in Acrobat Reader (or OS X's pdf reader). Most of them were password protected so I'm not sure if authentication is root cause.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    205

    Default

    - As some people pointed, Libpoppler is still not done. Adobe is adding non-standard features that aren't in the ISO standard and lots of PDF files generated by using Adobe tools use it.
    - Coreboot should be priority #1 right now, specially due to Windows 8 making computer manufactures to use UEFI features that would make impossible to install Operating Systems not signed by some entity. This can be very negative for alternative Operating Systems, specially Open/Free Source ones. I also think Corebook should adopt non-x86 platforms too, but that's another thing.
    - Gnash is a lost battle, the same as Lightspark. While they are technically quite interesting and such, Adobe can advance the standard a lot faster and it's happening now with those 3D support and game developers porting to Adobe Flash.


    I think OpenGL 4.x or later support needs to be in a lot higher priority list.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    141

    Default

    "high-priority projects" - the most pointless initiative ever that's never accomplished anything. Crap stays on that list for years and nobody takes it seriously.
    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    One thing that bugs me is that Michael's articles about the FSF mention "open source" projects. While this may well be true, it's more courteous (and in-context) to mention that the projects under discussion are Free Software. After all, it's possible for something to be "Open Source", but not "Free Software". If that were the case, then the FSF would not support that project. The reverse doesn't really seem possible, though: I don't think there's any case where something is Free Software, but is not Open Source.

    ... blah blah blah.
    LOL k gnutard. Sorry we'll call it freeware next time.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timofonic View Post
    - Coreboot should be priority #1 right now, specially due to Windows 8 making computer manufactures to use UEFI features that would make impossible to install Operating Systems not signed by some entity. This can be very negative for alternative Operating Systems, specially Open/Free Source ones. I also think Corebook should adopt non-x86 platforms too, but that's another thing.
    That would be nice if they did improve Coreboot. I'm disappointed that AMD isn't working more with the Coreboot team and OEM manufacturers so that loss of features and loss of other operating system support isn't lost by using Coreboot.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •