Details

    • Type: Question
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      The incubating Apache PDFBox project embeds CMap files (character code mappings) for CJK (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) fonts in PDF documents. The files are available from http://www.adobe.com/devnet/font/#pcfi and come with license headers like this:

      Copyright 1990-2001 Adobe Systems Incorporated.
      All Rights Reserved.

      Patents Pending

      NOTICE: All information contained herein is the property
      of Adobe Systems Incorporated.

      Permission is granted for redistribution of this file
      provided this copyright notice is maintained intact and
      that the contents of this file are not altered in any
      way from its original form.

      PostScript and Display PostScript are trademarks of
      Adobe Systems Incorporated which may be registered in
      certain jurisdictions.

      The license grants rights to redistribute the files, but does not allow any modifications. Is it OK for Apache PDFBox to redistribute these files unmodified?

      Having these files included in PDFBox is highly convenient as they allow PDFBox to work OOTB with PDF documents that contain CJK fonts. Also, I can't think of cases where a user would want to modify the CMap files.

      1. LEGAL-36.patch
        1 kB
        Jukka Zitting
      2. LEGAL-36.patch
        1 kB
        Jukka Zitting

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Hide
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment -

          It's not clear to me how well this satisfies the Open Source Definition. It seems to contradict with the OSD point 3. Derived Works, but then the point 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code explicitly allows a license to prevent the modification of the original source files.

          Show
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment - It's not clear to me how well this satisfies the Open Source Definition. It seems to contradict with the OSD point 3. Derived Works, but then the point 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code explicitly allows a license to prevent the modification of the original source files.
          Hide
          bayard Henri Yandell added a comment -

          I'm in favour of this being acceptable use - namely that they can be considered category B licenses and not be modified.

          Show
          bayard Henri Yandell added a comment - I'm in favour of this being acceptable use - namely that they can be considered category B licenses and not be modified.
          Hide
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment -

          See related discussion at [1]. The consensus seems to be that the license itself is acceptable, but that we should clarify what the "Patents Pending" note refers to. To find out more I have contacted [2] the "PDF Language and Specifications" forum hosted by Adobe.

          [1] http://markmail.org/message/itzg3ppfw2phbttm
          [2] http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b72109

          Show
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment - See related discussion at [1] . The consensus seems to be that the license itself is acceptable, but that we should clarify what the "Patents Pending" note refers to. To find out more I have contacted [2] the "PDF Language and Specifications" forum hosted by Adobe. [1] http://markmail.org/message/itzg3ppfw2phbttm [2] http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b72109
          Hide
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment -

          I contacted Adobe legal directly about this and they pointed me to the patent pledge Adobe has made to ISO for the ISO 32000-1 standard (PDF 1.7). Their words: "Adobe has provided a patent pledge to ISO which states that Adobe will grant a fee and royalty free license to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide, non-discriminatory basis and under other reasonable terms and conditions to make, use, and sell implementations of PDF 1.7 (ISO 32000-1)."

          AFAIUI this patent pledge covers everything we need. Unless anyone objects I will consider this issue resolved.

          Show
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment - I contacted Adobe legal directly about this and they pointed me to the patent pledge Adobe has made to ISO for the ISO 32000-1 standard (PDF 1.7). Their words: "Adobe has provided a patent pledge to ISO which states that Adobe will grant a fee and royalty free license to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide, non-discriminatory basis and under other reasonable terms and conditions to make, use, and sell implementations of PDF 1.7 (ISO 32000-1)." AFAIUI this patent pledge covers everything we need. Unless anyone objects I will consider this issue resolved.
          Hide
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment -

          Geir commented on this [1] but I believe my answer [2] satisfied his concerns.

          Recent discussion on legal-discuss@ seems to suggest that it would be better not to have these kinds of non-modifiable resources in svn, but that downloading them from for example the Maven repository during the build and including them in a binary release artifact would be OK.

          [1] http://markmail.org/message/iyfqnj5hsdd55zyr
          [2] http://markmail.org/message/imzu5sdat5dcfvcj

          Show
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment - Geir commented on this [1] but I believe my answer [2] satisfied his concerns. Recent discussion on legal-discuss@ seems to suggest that it would be better not to have these kinds of non-modifiable resources in svn, but that downloading them from for example the Maven repository during the build and including them in a binary release artifact would be OK. [1] http://markmail.org/message/iyfqnj5hsdd55zyr [2] http://markmail.org/message/imzu5sdat5dcfvcj
          Hide
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment -

          I'm not sure how this should be reflected on the resolved.html page. Perhaps we should have a separate section for files that are OK as dependencies and as included parts of binaries but that shouldn't be kept in svn.

          Show
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment - I'm not sure how this should be reflected on the resolved.html page. Perhaps we should have a separate section for files that are OK as dependencies and as included parts of binaries but that shouldn't be kept in svn.
          Hide
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment -

          For the record, I've created a Maven bundle containing these CMaps and the font metrics discussed in LEGAL-35 and asked for that bundle to be uploaded to the central Maven repository. This way our projects can easily use these files without having them in Apache svn. See http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MAVENUPLOAD-2485 for the upload request.

          Show
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment - For the record, I've created a Maven bundle containing these CMaps and the font metrics discussed in LEGAL-35 and asked for that bundle to be uploaded to the central Maven repository. This way our projects can easily use these files without having them in Apache svn. See http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MAVENUPLOAD-2485 for the upload request.
          Hide
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment -

          Attached a proposed patch that adds a new section about this to the Previously Asked Question page. I've tried to summarize the apparent consensus, but feel free to propose edits if I'm missing or misrepresenting something.

          Here's a plain text copy of the proposed new section:

          • How should licenses that prevent modification be handled?

          There are licenses that give broad rights for redistribution of
          /unmodified/ copies. Such licenses are not open source, but they
          do satisfy the second and third guiding principles above.

          Apache projects must not include material under such licenses in
          version control or in released source packages. It is however acceptable
          for a build process to automatically download such dependencies and
          include them in the resulting binaries. Such use makes it clear that
          these dependencies are not a part of the open source code of the project.

          Software and other material under the following licenses may be used
          as described above:

          Show
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment - Attached a proposed patch that adds a new section about this to the Previously Asked Question page. I've tried to summarize the apparent consensus, but feel free to propose edits if I'm missing or misrepresenting something. Here's a plain text copy of the proposed new section: How should licenses that prevent modification be handled? There are licenses that give broad rights for redistribution of /unmodified/ copies. Such licenses are not open source, but they do satisfy the second and third guiding principles above. Apache projects must not include material under such licenses in version control or in released source packages. It is however acceptable for a build process to automatically download such dependencies and include them in the resulting binaries. Such use makes it clear that these dependencies are not a part of the open source code of the project. Software and other material under the following licenses may be used as described above: CMaps for PDF CJK Fonts ( http://www.adobe.com/devnet/font/#pcfi )
          Hide
          bayard Henri Yandell added a comment -

          Feels a bit broad. I'm happy with it for images, fonts etc where I've less feeling that modification rights are needed; but I'm less convinced that a code library that said free to distribute but do not modify should be in an Apache project.

          Show
          bayard Henri Yandell added a comment - Feels a bit broad. I'm happy with it for images, fonts etc where I've less feeling that modification rights are needed; but I'm less convinced that a code library that said free to distribute but do not modify should be in an Apache project.
          Hide
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment -

          Attached an updated patch, with modified wording: "It is however acceptable for a build process to automatically download such non-software materials like fonts and standardized data and include them in the resulting binaries."

          LEGAL-50 has a for standard API libraries that might fall within the same category, but lets deal with that there.

          Show
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment - Attached an updated patch, with modified wording: "It is however acceptable for a build process to automatically download such non-software materials like fonts and standardized data and include them in the resulting binaries." LEGAL-50 has a for standard API libraries that might fall within the same category, but lets deal with that there.
          Hide
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment -

          Any more comments on this? I'd like to get this closed so we can proceed with the first Apache release of PDFBox.

          Will it be OK for me to commit the patch based on this discussion or should I rather let a member of the legal committee do it?

          Show
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment - Any more comments on this? I'd like to get this closed so we can proceed with the first Apache release of PDFBox. Will it be OK for me to commit the patch based on this discussion or should I rather let a member of the legal committee do it?
          Hide
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment -

          Note that PDFBox also uses some additional Adobe CMap files from ftp://ftp.oreilly.com/pub/examples/nutshell/cjkv/adobe/. These files are released by Adobe under the same license terms as the ones on their devnet page, so I think the already proposed resolved.html patch covers also these files.

          Show
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment - Note that PDFBox also uses some additional Adobe CMap files from ftp://ftp.oreilly.com/pub/examples/nutshell/cjkv/adobe/ . These files are released by Adobe under the same license terms as the ones on their devnet page, so I think the already proposed resolved.html patch covers also these files.
          Hide
          robertburrelldonkin Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment -

          i'm +1 for the latest patch

          • robert
          Show
          robertburrelldonkin Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment - i'm +1 for the latest patch robert
          Hide
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment -

          Patch applied in revision 806965. Thanks everyone for the reviews!

          Show
          jukkaz Jukka Zitting added a comment - Patch applied in revision 806965. Thanks everyone for the reviews!

            People

            • Assignee:
              jukkaz Jukka Zitting
              Reporter:
              jukkaz Jukka Zitting
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              1 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:

                Development