openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Brown <>
Subject Re: A first try to remove some copyleft components from the build
Date Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:54:59 GMT
Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Am 07/18/2011 10:04 PM, schrieb David McKay:
>> On 18/07/11 20:50, Andy Brown wrote:
>>> Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>>> On 18.07.2011 20:21, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>>>>> 1) xpdf (GPL'd) is a run dependency, this is linux/unix
>>>>>> specific. PDFBox may be a replacement.
>>>>> This component is used for the pdf import extension, not for OOo
>>>>> itself.
>>>>> The pdf import extension is not built by default, there is a configure
>>>>> switch to enable it in the build. In that case xpdf would be
>>>>> required. I
>>>>> think that this already fulfils the legal requirements that building
>>>>> lgpl code must be "opt-in". So as far as I can see, this is not a
>>>>> "to do".
>>>> Giving it one more thought: it would be still a to do if we wanted to
>>>> have a pdf import extension released by Apache. So perhaps a to do with
>>>> minor priority.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Mathias
>>> If we do include the pdf import extension I would like to see it
>>> rewritten to do a better job of importing. I have seen to many post in
>>> the forums about the way that it works. My suggestion would be to drop
>>> it completely.
>>> Andy
>> A lot of the issues I see on the forum regarding the PDF extension are
>> to do with expectation. People seem to think this extension is going to
>> give them a full-blown PDF editor with the capabilities of the Adobe
>> tools. When they discover it is for tiny corrections and typo fixes they
>> feel let down. That's not to say there aren't any bugs in it, there may
>> well be. But I don;t think the PDF extension was positioned or described
>> sufficiently to provide users with the correct expectations.
> The intension was to show what is possible. On the extension website is
> a note that the Beta status was left due to the positive notes we got
> about the extension. But this is no promiss that its quality is like the
> import filter for the documents formats for MS Word & Co.
> The solution is not to remove the extension but to improve it's work.
> Marcus

If it can be improved then it maybe worth the effort.  I still think an
OCR engine would do the work.


View raw message