Debian, XPDF and Copyrights

Sould writes " Debian Planet are running a story here discussing whether Debian should retain document-specific cripples in xpdf - a GPLed pdf viewer that honours Adobe's copy controls. "

Comments

Derek Noonbur's The Reason Adobe Opened PDF At All

[pjrc]

If it weren't for Derek's xpdf program, Adobe probably never would have completely opened up the PDF specification at all. I've been using Derek's xpdf program for years, since the days when it mis-rendered all sorts of things... even when Adobe finally released acroread for Linux, I still liked xpdf, because Derek's program is fast. I always used to open PDF files with xpdf first, and if it was all messed up, then I'd try acroread.

Back in the bad-old-days, xpdf couldn't read any encrypted PDF files. It printed a message about how Adobe's "open" spec didn't contain the information about how to access these files. It printed a message with contact info for a person at Adobe. At one point, there was considerably hostility on Adobe's part against Derek... I don't recall exactly what their words were, but they had a form-letter response about xpdf, that basically said Derek was a bad programmer. Of course, that was bullshit... they didn't want to truely provide a complete spec for PDF files. Eventually enough people complained. Perhaps other factors were involved that I'm not aware of. In any case, Adobe finally released open specs on PDF and Derek's message was replaced with one saying the specs were available, and later an off-shore patch was available for decryption, and now that the export regs are changed, xpdf comes with decryption (and Derek's made many other cool improvements since then).

So it seems a bit ironic that Derek's xpdf is getting slammed for making the design decision to honor the author's copy and print restrictions, when if it weren't for Derek's many years of hard work and pressure placed on Adobe, there probably wouldn't even be a truely open PDF specification.

For those that read English...

[BillyGoatThree]

...instead of whatever Hemos is writing in, here's a quote from the link that makes the story more intelligible:

"Xpdf is a free (GPLed) PDF reader which respects Adobe's lame "copy-protection" bits in PDFs where the reader refuses to allow printing or copying etc.

I've written a patch to uncripple xpdf, should Debian apply it?"

Now, on to what I think.

1) The creator of xpdf (assuming he's not an Adobe employee) has no obligation to emulate Adobe's product exactly.

2) Similarly, the creator has no obligation to enforce a third-party's copyright.

3) OTOH, if the patch is applied, PDF creators may be incensed enough to ask Adobe to "fix it, Mommy". Adobe could then change the format such that xpdf can no longer read it or, worse, put the arm on xpdf somehow.

Therefore, my suggestion is this. Apply the patch, but make it a commandline option that is off by default. That way, the protection is there as a "reminder" but not as an obstacle.
--

A: Computers are here to serve people, not v.v.!

[mkcmkc]

The answer to your question is that

Computers are here to serve people and not to control them.

Similarly, the purpose of your computer is to serve you, not some distant control-freak deciding whether you should or shouldn't print a file, should or shouldn't edit a file, should or shouldn't be able to read text in the font of your choice, should or shouldn't be subjected to a pop-up advertisement, etc.

Insist on the control due you, or you soon may find yourself with none.

--Mike

This is DANGEROUS.

[rjh]

1. Programs == Data.
   
   John von Neumann proved this way back in the 50s, if memory serves. From an information-theoretic perspective, there is absolutely no difference between a program and data. In fact, some programs use themselves as data. As a trivial example, imagine that you have a Perl script that prettifies source code--now run the program through itself. Presto: the program is the data.
   
   
2. Hardware == Software.
   
   As Andy Grove is fond of saying, hardware is just software that's frozen in silicon. There's no difference between them, again speaking from an information-theoretic perspective.
3. It's already illegal to have hardware or software that circumvents a protection mechanism.
   
   We all know this one, given the DMCA and how it was used as a big and gnarled club against DeCSS.

... Add it all up. What do you get? If it's already illegal to write a software program which strips usagecontrols from data (ala deCSS), then it's going to be a very short court battle to show that it's also illegal to deliberately write software which never bothers to check for usage controls, or ignores flags in a data file which would normally indicate the presence of usage controls.

If Debian wants to include this, I've got to commend them on their willingness to make a moral stand. But they'd better have damn good legal counsel, and they'd better be expecting a lawsuit from Adobe at any time.

The author sounds VERY reasonable here

[JohnZed]

Check out http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/cracking.html, in which the original author of xpdf explains why he doesn't want to include patches of this sort. He sounds like a very reasonable guy, who respect the principle of copyright. Don't forget that copyright (or left) is an integral part of the GPL as well. If these laws on distribution can be disregarded, there's nothing to stop commercial companies from stealing GPL'ed products left and right. And I don't think anybody wants to see that. I think the patch developer also takes a good angle with his question when he asks if it would be moral/ethical to apply the patch, not whether it would be legal. While the answer to the second question might be "yes", the answer to the former is much clearer, as far as I can tell: yes, it would be hypocritical and unethical to encourage people to break copyright laws. Hmmm... I wonder what RMS would say on this one? Anybody want to ask him? --JRZ