Debian Bug report logs - #531221
okular: Arbitrarily enforces DRM by default

Full log

Message #40 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

Received: (at 531221) by bugs.debian.org; 31 May 2009 10:16:14 +0000
From [email protected] Sun May 31 10:16:14 2009
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
	(2007-08-08) on rietz.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 14; hammy, 144; neutral, 126; spammy,
	7. spammytokens:0.997-1--False, 0.993-1--quoted, 0.992-+--cheaper,
	0.987-1--crackers, 0.954-+--corporate hammytokens:0.000-+--H*c:sk:pgp-sha,
	0.000-+--H*u:KDE, 0.000-+--H*UA:KDE, 0.000-+--H*u:x86_64, 0.000-+--H*UA:x86_64
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.6 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
	autolearn=ham version=3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Received: from smtp.mornie.org ([208.78.100.168])
	by rietz.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
	id 1MAi5O-0002V0-BO
	for [email protected]; Sun, 31 May 2009 10:16:14 +0000
Received: from draco.localnet (dynamic-adsl-94-37-4-119.clienti.tiscali.it [94.37.4.119])
	by smtp.mornie.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29FD1198762;
	Sun, 31 May 2009 04:47:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: Pino Toscano <[email protected]>
To: [email protected],
 John Goerzen <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Bug#531221: okular: Arbitrarily enforces DRM
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 11:47:15 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.11.2 (Linux/2.6.26-2-amd64; KDE/4.2.2; x86_64; ; )
Cc: "Marco d'Itri" <[email protected]>,
 [email protected]
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
X-Face: 2{O<L6n#o}As|AP]~j{^f$FhVLNXSMG=_D:KpHD\>9dSG@:f3UD?Euh5"^{F],
 P7K*Yet5
	J+({@"pnu*um[J`/I!A-ViZfZ[,g8&vpZV_W=A[M}\&&yNRy4c'lp$'2$Umi,
 CR-zEy\U]
	T@)WBZ3-T-~1)>$ha,S&mr_S4^s-L]e[Y4LUd>vEQCFMf=H;_%;hQMakyd)
 ~mUaYVwZTsk
	}FRS{b)QH6Ko:2t,QgMiFU]G/9:"AoXz!)n89]^QW!yty+/$\!NxdU8HxE&yv`TR@"!!"
 p
	YY6D)Vm3qwZ%2E"5*9.1n+/tQbLWCBN1oZ<4[lgU"ojId.JQE+ai[Rzy]PJy
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
  boundary="nextPart2691158.6suvzKDIWl";
  protocol="application/pgp-signature";
  micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <[email protected]>

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

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

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.