Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane
From: Pino Toscano <pino <at> kde.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#531221: okular: Arbitrarily enforces DRM
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.debian.devel.general
Date: Sunday 31st May 2009 09:47:15 UTC (over 8 years ago)
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?  Or
> even there at all?

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".

> > > So what I want to know is: why are people putting code into Debian
> > > that limits our freedom?  Why are people putting such code into KDE?
> >
> > If you feel limited in "your freedom", then go complaining about Adobe
> > and the ISO 32000, aka the standardization of the PDF format, because,
in
> > case you don't know, those permissions are features of the PDF format,
> > nothing Okular
>
> False.  I'm not running Adobe code on my system.

You're missing the point. It is not matter of "Adobe code", but "format
which 
was totally in the hand of Adobe until one year ago" (when ISO 32000 was 
standardized).

> It is entirely within the power of the developers
> of Okular to decide whether or not to implement this "feature".

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.
Look, having the "power of developers" does not imply developers should
feel 
like crackers, disabling restrictions just because they can or in the name
of 
some "freedom".

> The cheaper option in terms of developer time would have been to ignore
> that flag.

Speculating on what how we should had spent our time won't work, sorry.

> > enforces on its own. And given that it is a feature of a file format
just
> > like annotations or sounds, people could use it (for example in
corporate
> > environments to avoid documents or parts of them being leaked or so).
>
> But we all know it's trivial to work around.  pdftotext will do it,
> and Okular will even do it if you untick that box.  It's no real
> security at all.  It's a bit in a file, not some sort of encryption
> scheme.  Why are we honoring it?

Because it is part of the file format, and some people can make use of it
(as 
told just in the sentence you quoted)?

> > The program is just following a file format in that regard AND
providing
> > the option to not to, so nothing to be fixed.
>
> Pfft.  You are causing incompatibility with nothing if you ignore that
> flag.  You are causing incompatibility with things if you honor it.
> What is the point to honoring it?

If everything we do cases problems, then I don't see how it is worth
changing 
anything.

-- 
Pino Toscano
 
CD: 25ms