4 ms·

It's really interesting to see that there are foxit employees on the list of committers. I assume that means that it was initially a fork of the foxit PDF reade

It's really interesting to see that there are foxit employees on the list of committers. I assume that means that it was initially a fork of the foxit PDF reader?

barbs 12y ago
Foxit isn't open-source, so I don't think it would be legal to release a derivative under the BSD license (IANAL).
- awda 12y ago
  It's perfectly legal for Foxit to license their own software to Google to be released under the terms of the BSD license. This would be with Foxit's consent, of course.
  - tfinniga 12y ago
    Right, and probably some money changing hands.
- yincrash 12y ago
  I used the term 'initially' for a reason. My guess would be that the Chrome team used the Foxit SDK to get it out the door quickly, then over time and with Foxit guidance, replaced parts with their home grown source. That's just a guess, though.
- keeperofdakeys 12y ago
  It's important to understand that a license isn't on the code itself, but merely on a copy of the code. A copyright owner reserves full rights to whatever the hell they want to do with their code; open-source projects just release a version with a specific set of restrictions. It gets more interesting with contributors, and specifying a license for the contributed code.
hidamon 12y ago
https://pdfium.googlesource.com/pdfium/+/master/fpdfsdk/include/javascript/app.h https://pdfium.googlesource.com/pdfium/+/master/fpdfsdk/incl... "Original code copyright 2014 Foxit Software Inc. http://www.foxitsoftware.com" http://www.foxitsoftware.com"
- chilledheart 12y ago
  What about this one ? https://pdfium.googlesource.com/pdfium/+/master/core/src/fxge/Microsoft%20SDK/include/GdiPlus.h https://pdfium.googlesource.com/pdfium/+/master/core/src/fxg... "/\ * * Copyright (c) 1998-2000, Microsoft Corp. All Rights Reserved. * * Module Name: * * Gdiplus.h * * Abstract: * * GDI+ Native C++ public header file * \/ "
  - gcp 12y ago
    Part of the Windows SDK.
    - chilledheart 12y ago
      Correct me if I am wrong. I saw no evidence in the project showing that this file has BSD-style license.And since it is part of the windows SDK, it is nearly impossible to be BSD-style licensed. Maybe it was included from foxit's code or other codebase but it is better to be put into the thirdparties directory due to the license issue. Edited: Thanks for pointing out my misconception about Windows SDK.
      - magicalist 12y ago
        The SDK has a very permissive license (including redistribution), since it's obviously designed to be used, and it's convenient to developers to be able to redistribute parts of it to ease development. Agreed it is always nice to have these things in a thirdparty directory, though, but the larger Chromium project actually does appear to have all of pdfium in third_party, which helps keep that clear.

It's really interesting to see that there are foxit employees on the list of committers. I assume that means that it was initially a fork of the foxit PDF reader?

barbs 12y ago

Foxit isn't open-source, so I don't think it would be legal to release a derivative under the BSD license (IANAL).

awda 12y ago
It's perfectly legal for Foxit to license their own software to Google to be released under the terms of the BSD license. This would be with Foxit's consent, of course.
- tfinniga 12y ago
  Right, and probably some money changing hands.
yincrash 12y ago
I used the term 'initially' for a reason. My guess would be that the Chrome team used the Foxit SDK to get it out the door quickly, then over time and with Foxit guidance, replaced parts with their home grown source. That's just a guess, though.
keeperofdakeys 12y ago
It's important to understand that a license isn't on the code itself, but merely on a copy of the code. A copyright owner reserves full rights to whatever the hell they want to do with their code; open-source projects just release a version with a specific set of restrictions. It gets more interesting with contributors, and specifying a license for the contributed code.

hidamon 12y ago

https://pdfium.googlesource.com/pdfium/+/master/fpdfsdk/include/javascript/app.h https://pdfium.googlesource.com/pdfium/+/master/fpdfsdk/incl... "Original code copyright 2014 Foxit Software Inc. http://www.foxitsoftware.com" http://www.foxitsoftware.com"

chilledheart 12y ago
What about this one ? https://pdfium.googlesource.com/pdfium/+/master/core/src/fxge/Microsoft%20SDK/include/GdiPlus.h https://pdfium.googlesource.com/pdfium/+/master/core/src/fxg... "/\ * * Copyright (c) 1998-2000, Microsoft Corp. All Rights Reserved. * * Module Name: * * Gdiplus.h * * Abstract: * * GDI+ Native C++ public header file * \/ "
- gcp 12y ago
  Part of the Windows SDK.
  - chilledheart 12y ago
    Correct me if I am wrong. I saw no evidence in the project showing that this file has BSD-style license.And since it is part of the windows SDK, it is nearly impossible to be BSD-style licensed. Maybe it was included from foxit's code or other codebase but it is better to be put into the thirdparties directory due to the license issue. Edited: Thanks for pointing out my misconception about Windows SDK.
    - magicalist 12y ago
      The SDK has a very permissive license (including redistribution), since it's obviously designed to be used, and it's convenient to developers to be able to redistribute parts of it to ease development. Agreed it is always nice to have these things in a thirdparty directory, though, but the larger Chromium project actually does appear to have all of pdfium in third_party, which helps keep that clear.