Gunnar Wolf writes:
> Has this suggestion been pushed upstream? Don't you think we would do
> a greater service to the KDE users if we convinced the authors instead
> of just the Debian maintainers? (or at least, if we listened at their
> arguments as well)
My understanding of the job of package
John Goerzen dijo [Sun, May 31, 2009 at 08:24:17AM -0500]:
> > Actually an advisory dialog (which could be turned off) would make some
> > sense.
> > ("The author of this PDF document didn't mean to allow you $foo, do you want
> > to continue anyway? Abort Continue")
> >
> > Then a) you are awar
Roberto C. Sánchez dijo [Sun, May 31, 2009 at 07:27:56AM -0400]:
> Here is behavior that I consider to be equally sane:
>
> $ su -
> Password:
> # echo ciao >/tmp/foo
> # chmod -w /tmp/foo
> # exit
> logout
> $ vim /tmp/foo
> :w -> E45: 'readonly' option is set (add ! to override)
> :w! -> "/tmp/f
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 01:59:15AM +0200, Sjors Gielen wrote:
> May I ask why this is seen as a poor design decision? (Assuming that zsh
> only asks this if the shell is interactive)
Because it gives a false sense of security, trains people to be less
careful, and doesn't handle all similar use ca
Clint Adams wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 06:59:03AM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
>> Like the following, you mean?
>>
>> dulcinea:~/tmp % rm *
>> zsh: sure you want to delete all the files in /home/bremner/tmp [yn]?
>
> Just for the record, this is widely regarded as having been a poor
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 06:59:03AM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> Like the following, you mean?
>
> dulcinea:~/tmp % rm *
> zsh: sure you want to delete all the files in /home/bremner/tmp [yn]?
Just for the record, this is widely regarded as having been a poor
design decision, and is onl
Le mardi 02 juin 2009 à 06:59 -0300, David Bremner a écrit :
> >I can't think of many dialogs that would be more useless than asking the
> >user if he wants the software to forbid him to do what he asks it to do.
>
> Like the following, you mean?
>
> dulcinea:~/tmp % rm *
> zsh: sure yo
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 06:59:03 -0300
David Bremner wrote:
> Harald Braumann wrote:
>
> >[1 ]
> >On Sun, 31 May 2009 14:19:12 +0200
> >Michael Banck wrote:
>
> >> I like the advisory note somebody else proposed, i.e. "The author
> >> said you shouldn't do this, do you want to do this anyway?".
>
Harald Braumann wrote:
>[1 ]
>On Sun, 31 May 2009 14:19:12 +0200
>Michael Banck wrote:
>> I like the advisory note somebody else proposed, i.e. "The author said
>> you shouldn't do this, do you want to do this anyway?". Whether or
>> not that dialog could get permanently ignored by the user co
On Sun, 31 May 2009 14:19:12 +0200
Michael Banck wrote:
> I like the advisory note somebody else proposed, i.e. "The author said
> you shouldn't do this, do you want to do this anyway?". Whether or
> not that dialog could get permanently ignored by the user could be
> configurable.
I can't think
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 8:09 AM, John Goerzen wrote:
> I'm CCing this to Debian-devel because I think it speaks to a larger
> issue.
>
> I just downloaded a PDF, and tried to copy and paste a bit of text
> from it. I used the selection tool, and Okular offered to speak it to
> me, but said "Copy
Am 2009-06-01 10:17:23, schrieb Josselin Mouette:
> The French DRM legislation is so stupidly thought-off, badly worded and
> unsuitable for real life, that it’s not likely to be ever applied to any
> real case.
But currently they are trying exactly the contrary...
If the french advocats would ha
Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Michael Banck]
>> If copying is indeed the only thing which is mediated via DRM, I agree
>> with you, but maybe the situation should get analyzed a bit and anyway,
>> we should make it easy for large organisations (public administration,
>> companies) to set a default for
[Michael Banck]
> If copying is indeed the only thing which is mediated via DRM, I agree
> with you, but maybe the situation should get analyzed a bit and anyway,
> we should make it easy for large organisations (public administration,
> companies) to set a default for their users how this should
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 22:29 +0200, Michelle Konzack a écrit :
> In the USA... Not in Germany and France.
> Ignoring DRM let you run into touble here. :-/
The French DRM legislation is so stupidly thought-off, badly worded and
unsuitable for real life, that it’s not likely to be ever applied
Quoting Sune Vuorela (s...@vuorela.dk):
> > 4) Patch the text to tell people where to go to turn it off
>
> It's a deviation from upstream that we would have to maintain for eternity.
> This issue is not important enough for me to put the extra required work into
> it.
> Getting the prompt optio
John Goerzen wrote:
> In any case, two of the three, at least (xpdf and evince) have a similar
> core. It would be something if all three could standardize on poppler, eh?
Actually, it appears that okular also uses poppler. But then I also
forgot the Ghostscript-based ones: gv, gs, etc.
-- John
Johan Henriksson wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
>> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 03:54:29PM +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday 31 May 2009 15:32:25 John Goerzen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
#2 and #4 especially should be exceptionally trivial patches.
Why are you tagging it wont
In article <20090531223907.ga16...@jericho.bsnet.se> you wrote:
> This is not correct. In Europe similar laws exist. In Sweden you have
> the right to quote any published work, and after a quick search i
> found the same goes for at least France.
Same for germany. But circumventing DRM is another
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 03:54:29PM +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
>
>> On Sunday 31 May 2009 15:32:25 John Goerzen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> #2 and #4 especially should be exceptionally trivial patches.
>>>
>>> Why are you tagging it wontfix, Sune?
>>>
>> I see no r
Am 2009-06-01 00:39:07, schrieb Olof Johnasson:
> This is not correct. In Europe similar laws exist. In Sweden you have
> the right to quote any published work, and after a quick search i
> found the same goes for at least France.
>
> http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LE
On 2009-05-31 22:29, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2009-05-31 15:19:01, schrieb John Goerzen:
> > This has nothing to do with that. This is a bit flag, and has nothing
> > to do with the legality of copying some or all of the PDF. It is
> > *always* legal, in the United States at least, to excerpt
Michelle Konzack writes:
> In the USA... Not in Germany and France. Ignoring DRM let you run into
> touble here.
This is _not_ DRM. It is just advisory locking. It has no more legal
significance than "X-please-do-not-copy: yes" in the header of an email
message.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBS
Am 2009-05-31 22:43:18, schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli:
> No, sorry, that's FUD. For instance, you can always copy small part of
> materials that aren't even copyrightable, for instance a sequence of
> two letters. Please stop using this kind of arguments, as they are
> worth nothing.
No one is copyin
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 10:29:14PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> In the USA... Not in Germany and France.
No, sorry, that's FUD. For instance, you can always copy small part of
materials that aren't even copyrightable, for instance a sequence of
two letters. Please stop using this kind of argu
Am 2009-05-31 15:19:01, schrieb John Goerzen:
> This has nothing to do with that. This is a bit flag, and has nothing
> to do with the legality of copying some or all of the PDF. It is
> *always* legal, in the United States at least, to excerpt small parts of
> a document. This holds whether or
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2009-05-31 09:05:10, schrieb John Goerzen:
>> Could you share your reasoning with us, specifically why you don't like
>> each of the four options I mentioned? (Reproduced below)
>>
>> 1) Remove the DRM feature entirely
>
> And IF proples want o knoiw, whether a PDF wa
Am 2009-05-31 09:05:10, schrieb John Goerzen:
> Could you share your reasoning with us, specifically why you don't like
> each of the four options I mentioned? (Reproduced below)
>
> 1) Remove the DRM feature entirely
And IF proples want o knoiw, whether a PDF was DRM'ed?
> 2) Patch the default
tags 531221 patch
thanks
Sune Vuorela wrote:
>> 2) Patch the default to have it disabled
>
> It's a deviation from upstream that we would have to maintain for eternity.
> This issue is not important enough for me to put the extra required work into
> it
Here's the patch:
jgoer...@katherina:/tm
John Hasler wrote:
> Pino Toscano writes:
>> I'm just curious to know: if you don't use the package, how can you express
>> an
>> opinion on it?
>
> I commented on the misuse of the term DRM to describe the advisory locking
> that is the subject of this discussion. I added the parenthetical to
(Please everybody: I read debian devel, I am maintainer of the package so I
get a copy of emails to the bug report. That's already 2 copies. I don't need
a 3rd one put directly in my mailbox)
On Sunday 31 May 2009 16:05:10 John Goerzen wrote:
> Could you share your reasoning with us, specificall
Pino Toscano writes:
> I'm just curious to know: if you don't use the package, how can you express
> an
> opinion on it?
I commented on the misuse of the term DRM to describe the advisory locking
that is the subject of this discussion. I added the parenthetical to make
it clear that I was not
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 13:02 -0300, Gustavo Noronha a écrit :
> On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 12:13 +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > If you download files with license issues that you don't like, I'm not sure
> > you
> > should blame it on the software use to view the files.
>
> Then take out the optio
On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 12:13 +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > I just downloaded a PDF, and tried to copy and paste a bit of text
> > from it. I used the selection tool, and Okular offered to speak it to
> > me, but said "Copy forbidden by DRM."
>
> So. you want Okular to by default help you with vio
On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 16:59 +0200, Pino Toscano wrote:
> A final remark; John Hasler (and other people) wrote:
> > (I think it should be off by default with an option to turn it on but
> > that's just my irrelevant opinion. I don't use the package.)
>
> I'm just curious to know: if you don't use
On Sunday 31 May 2009 16:47:26 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> While I see as reasonable that you took this choice, I see similarly
> reasonable that you give the choice to sysadms to make a different
> choice easily. If this thread has shown something, is that the choice
> is a debatable one, hence i
Hi,
> 1) Remove the DRM feature entirely
This will not be done until ISO 32000 changes in that regard.
> 2) Patch the default to have it disabled
Nope.
> 3) Patch the prompt to have an "allow/deny" option
Which prompt are you speaking about?
> 4) Patch the text to tell people where to go to
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 08:32:25AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> presumably the same reasons. evince either never had it, or it is
> patched out in Debian. I would be happy with us patching okular to
http://bugs.debian.org/413953
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.or
On May 31, John Hasler wrote:
> Please don't call it DRM. It's just advisory locking. IMHO not enabling
> it or omitting it entirely has no legal implications.
It clearly has no legal implication (in jurisdictions having such a
clause, like the USA) because it is not an *effective* technologica
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 03:54:29PM +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> I see no reason to deviate from upstream's choices here, no matter
> how trivial the patches are.
> There is a design decision you don't like, well.
Thanks for the clarity. As hinted in my previous post, I consider
that you (KDE mai
John Goerzen writes:
> 1) Remove the DRM feature entirely
Please don't call it DRM. It's just advisory locking. IMHO not enabling
it or omitting it entirely has no legal implications.
(I think it should be off by default with an option to turn it on but
that's just my irrelevant opinion. I don
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 09:05:10AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Ana Guerrero wrote:
> > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 08:32:25AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> >> In any case, I think it was very premature to tag this wontfix.
> > ...
> >
> >> Why are you tagging it wontfix, Sune?
> >>
> >
> > I do not
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 03:54:29PM +0200, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On Sunday 31 May 2009 15:32:25 John Goerzen wrote:
>
>
> > #2 and #4 especially should be exceptionally trivial patches.
>
> > Why are you tagging it wontfix, Sune?
>
> I see no reason to deviate from upstream's choices here, no ma
On Sunday 31 May 2009 15:32:25 John Goerzen wrote:
> #2 and #4 especially should be exceptionally trivial patches.
> Why are you tagging it wontfix, Sune?
I see no reason to deviate from upstream's choices here, no matter how trivial
the patches are.
Here is no bug, so here is nothing to fix.
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 31, Sune Vuorela wrote:
>
>> So. you want Okular to by default help you with violating conditions of use
>> of
>> the document you downloaded?
> Correct, this is what I would like it to do (but I use evince instead,
> which by default does not bother users with this
Ana Guerrero wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 08:32:25AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
>> In any case, I think it was very premature to tag this wontfix.
> ...
>
>> Why are you tagging it wontfix, Sune?
>>
>
> I do not see this as premature at all. We, KDE maintainers, have talked
> about it and w
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 08:32:25AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> In any case, I think it was very premature to tag this wontfix.
...
> Why are you tagging it wontfix, Sune?
>
I do not see this as premature at all. We, KDE maintainers, have talked
about it and we all have decided we are ok as
On May 31, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> So. you want Okular to by default help you with violating conditions of use
> of
> the document you downloaded?
Correct, this is what I would like it to do (but I use evince instead,
which by default does not bother users with this sillyness).
Users can still le
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> FWIW If I were the package maintainer, my choice would be not to "Obey
> DRM" by default, but I'm not.
Interestingly enough, we patch this stuff out of xpdf already, for
presumably the same reasons. evince either never had it, or it is
patched out in Debian. I would
Hello,
On 2009 m. May 31 d., Sunday 15:42:33 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> - If okular has a system-wide setting "Obey DRM" which acts as a
> default for user choices, we have already won: the Debian package
> maintainer is fully in charge of making the choice of what that
> default should be.
Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2009-05-31, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> Both these propositions make the "feature" pointless. The only sensible
>> options is to dump it entirely, as you are suggesting below.
>
> Actually an advisory dialog (which could be turned off) would make some sense.
> ("The author of t
On 2009-05-31, Michael Banck wrote:
> If you prefer, we can use compiz to cube-scroll to another desktop where
> we play a video of you explaining how bad DRM is.
No need to mix compiz in. The kde window manager already have such
desktop effects.
/Sune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 03:02:18PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 14:19 +0200, Michael Banck a écrit :
> > I like the advisory note somebody else proposed, i.e. "The author said
> > you shouldn't do this, do you want to do this anyway?". Whether or not
> > that dialog c
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 14:19 +0200, Michael Banck a écrit :
> I like the advisory note somebody else proposed, i.e. "The author said
> you shouldn't do this, do you want to do this anyway?". Whether or not
> that dialog could get permanently ignored by the user could be
> configurable.
No Vist
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 02:30:58AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> I see it's been pointed out in a comment in your blog post already,
> but I'll mention it here for the benefit of those reading along:
> obeying DRM is a configurable runtime option in Okular, so it's just
> a matter of going to the p
Michael Banck writes:
> I like the advisory note somebody else proposed, i.e. "The author said
> you shouldn't do this, do you want to do this anyway?". Whether or not
> that dialog could get permanently ignored by the user could be
> configurable.
Yes, I find this (including the option to never
Roberto C. Sánchez writes:
> In reality, what I am having trouble with is, how these two
> scenarios are different:
>
> 1. Someone produces a PDF with certain DRM restrictions. The user
> decides that he does not like the restrictions and so looks to
> circumvent them.
>
> 2. A user or sysadmi
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 09:40:20PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> a) be disabled by default, so people can copy maximally without issue;
What about annotations? PDFs are becoming a collaborative document
format (like it or not), it might make sense to restrict annotations to
internally publically a
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:11:07PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
>
> Allow me to use your analogy[1] to look at an example of a behaviour
> that I consider sane:
>
> $ echo ciao > /tmp/foo
> $ chmod -w /tmp/foo
> $ vim /tmp/foo
> :w -> E45: 'readonly' option is set (add ! to override)
> :w!
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 06:00:36AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 09:40:20PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> >
> > I would go so far as to propose patching it out of Okular entirely.
> > Debian should not be a tool to support software restrictions like this.
> >
> If Deb
tag 531221 wontfix
thanks
On Sunday 31 May 2009 02:09:11 John Goerzen wrote:
> Package: okular
> Version: 4:4.2.2-2
> Severity: normal
>
> I'm CCing this to Debian-devel because I think it speaks to a larger
> issue.
>
> I just downloaded a PDF, and tried to copy and paste a bit of text
> from it.
In article <20090531062429.ga18...@glandium.org> you wrote:
> Let's be realistic, from the moment the functionality exists, it doesn't
> make _any_ sense to either of those, as everybody would end up disabling
> it somewhen.
Well, if a person is acrobat user and unaware of free defaults and thinks
Pino Toscano writes:
> Because Okular by default respect the PDF format.
> Why it is there? Exactly to give you the freedom to choose, to respect
> both the ideas of people who just shiver at listening the "DRM" word,
> and people who make a use of that PDF "feature".
Note, though, that “people
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:25:05PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 06:00 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez a écrit :
> > If Debian should not be a tool to support software restrictions like
> > this, then against which package should I file a bug to have all unix
> > user/group p
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 11:47 +0200, Pino Toscano a écrit :
> If tomorrow a corporate person complains that Okular does not respect the PDF
> format in that sense and that they cannot make use of it because of that,
> what
> should I tell them? They would be right.
You tell them to enable the
Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 à 06:00 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez a écrit :
> If Debian should not be a tool to support software restrictions like
> this, then against which package should I file a bug to have all unix
> user/group permissions ignored?
debian-devel is not the right place to ask for the ba
Roberto C. Sánchez writes:
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 09:40:20PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> >
> > I would go so far as to propose patching it out of Okular entirely.
> > Debian should not be a tool to support software restrictions like this.
> >
> If Debian should not be a tool to support soft
Hi,
> > This means the author of the PDF set that users shouldn't (in their will)
> > copy the text from their PDF.
> > You can disable the usage of document permissions by disabling the
> > related option from the preferences.
>
> I checked, and do see that option. But why is it on by default?
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 09:40:20PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> I would go so far as to propose patching it out of Okular entirely.
> Debian should not be a tool to support software restrictions like this.
>
If Debian should not be a tool to support software restrictions like
this, then against
On 2009-05-31, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Both these propositions make the "feature" pointless. The only sensible
> options is to dump it entirely, as you are suggesting below.
Actually an advisory dialog (which could be turned off) would make some sense.
("The author of this PDF document didn't mean t
Le samedi 30 mai 2009 à 21:40 -0500, John Goerzen a écrit :
> If this "feature" is there, it should:
>
> a) be disabled by default, so people can copy maximally without issue;
FWIW, this is what is done in evince, and the setting is hidden.
> b) the error message should clearly state how to disa
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 09:40:20PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Luis Felipe Tabera wrote:
> > On Sábado, 30 de Mayo de 2009 18:38:40 Marco d'Itri escribió:
> >> On May 31, Pino Toscano wrote:
> >>> This means the author of the PDF set that users shouldn't (in their will)
> >>> copy the text from t
Luis Felipe Tabera wrote:
> On Sábado, 30 de Mayo de 2009 18:38:40 Marco d'Itri escribió:
>> On May 31, Pino Toscano wrote:
>>> This means the author of the PDF set that users shouldn't (in their will)
>>> copy the text from their PDF.
>>> You can disable the usage of document permissions by disab
On Sat, 30 May 2009, Luis Felipe Tabera wrote:
> On Sábado, 30 de Mayo de 2009 18:38:40 Marco d'Itri escribió:
> > On May 31, Pino Toscano wrote:
> > > This means the author of the PDF set that users shouldn't (in their will)
> > > copy the text from their PDF.
> > > You can disable the usage of d
Luis Felipe Tabera writes:
> On Sábado, 30 de Mayo de 2009 18:38:40 Marco d'Itri escribió:
> > It's not clear to me why [turning off DRM] should not be the
> > default, but anyway I think that the interface could be improved by
> > mentioning this in the error dialog.
>
> Well, the default shoul
On May 31, Luis Felipe Tabera wrote:
> Well, the default should always be to follow the specification of PDF, even
> if
> there are parts of it that we do not like.
Do you have a rationale to justify this or are you just in the mood for
unsubstantiated statements?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.a
On Sábado, 30 de Mayo de 2009 18:38:40 Marco d'Itri escribió:
> On May 31, Pino Toscano wrote:
> > This means the author of the PDF set that users shouldn't (in their will)
> > copy the text from their PDF.
> > You can disable the usage of document permissions by disabling the
> > related option f
+ John Goerzen (Sat, 30 May 2009 19:09:11 -0500):
> I'm CCing this to Debian-devel because I think it speaks to a larger
> issue.
> I just downloaded a PDF, and tried to copy and paste a bit of text
> from it. I used the selection tool, and Okular offered to speak it to
> me, but said "Copy forb
Package: okular
Version: 4:4.2.2-2
Severity: normal
I'm CCing this to Debian-devel because I think it speaks to a larger
issue.
I just downloaded a PDF, and tried to copy and paste a bit of text
from it. I used the selection tool, and Okular offered to speak it to
me, but said "Copy forbidden by
79 matches
Mail list logo
