Talk:Sumatra PDF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).


How can the neutrality of the page be disputed - if there is no dispute? The page looks fine to me.

-- Removed the NPOV, as there was no posted comment on how it wasn't neutral. Fake0Name 08:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it again, as it appears to have been replaced with no discussion here.FelixFelix talk 12:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The page is a bit too much like an advertisement as opposed to an encyclopedia article. Not horribly so, and I wouldn't tag it with a NPOV box, but a rewrite with a more neutral tone would seem to be in order.

It's hard to believe that there are no criticisms an all, especially when you consider the fact that the author of the software says (in ) that "Printing in Sumatra is slow. It's unlikely to be fixed." and "Filling forms and adding comments is not implemented. Also unlikely to be fixed."

Guy Macon 16:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


i was going to minor-edit references, but editmode shows only "reflist" (within wikitag).

so not sure how to edit content when it's somehow 'hidden' in "reflist"?

i tried searching "reflist", but a quarter zillion results come up. then drilled a little into wikipedia help,, editing,, .. no 'reflist' found when browser's page-text search... about 182 for* ... after trying a likely looking result, i saw it wasn't useful for how to deal with 'reflist',

so... i ain't got time...

if someone else wants to fix the typo, it would consume only a couple minutes if you're a slow keyboarder: References: #1,2 hrefs' urls (appscout, neowin) are transposed. 2z2z 20:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed the references. The actual references usually aren't written in the References section; that's just where they appear. They're actually in line with the text, enclosed by "ref" tags: <ref> and </ref>. So, if you need to update a reference, just edit the whole article; that way, you'll be able to see your changes in the Preview window. — EagleOne\Talk 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia users who also use Sumatra PDF may want to add this userbox to their user page:

Code Result What links here
Sumatra2.png This user reads
PDFs in Sumatra.

- Ahunt (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to merge criticism section[edit]

Sounds good. - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


Is it still true after Sumatra PDF 1.2 that printing is performed by converting the pages to BMP, and it is slow and causes large spools? I know 1.2 has improved printing performance, but I don't know the details of how it did so. Threexk (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Website is not accessible from Turkey[edit]

The website is not accessible from Turkey, due to widely exercised Internet censonship in Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedkad (talkcontribs) 19:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

I don't think this article should have been moved from "Sumatra PDF" to "SumatraPDF" (with no space). The official page for the application very specifically says "Sumatra PDF is a free PDF, XPS, DjVu, CHM, Comic Book (CBZ and CBR) reader for Windows" and so on. It is called Sumatra PDF there consistently. - Ahunt (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay since a week has passed with no objections I will move it back. - Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:SumatraPDF Logo.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:SumatraPDF Logo.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:SumatraPDF Logo.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 August 2012[edit]

The page says that the Sumatra PDF is distributed under GPL. This is clearly not the case. The GPL states that:

"According to Richard Stallman, the major change in GPLv2 was the "Liberty or Death" clause, as he calls it — Section 7.[8] This section says that if somebody has restrictions imposed that prevent him or her from distributing GPL-covered software in a way that respects other users' freedom (for example, if a legal ruling states that he or she can only distribute the software in binary form), he or she cannot distribute it at all."

Google, the only place where this software is distributed, clearly violates that clause of the GPL by not allowing the software to be downloaded from countries under America. This must be made clear in the body of the article.

Of course, given Wikipedia, its creator, the support it needs from companies like Google and the governments of America and UK, there is no hope for this page to express the truth. In short, Wikepedia, is vandalizing the truth by using its reputation as a source of free information. Other experiences with Wikipedia reinforces that view. In fact, Wikipedia has moved so far in that direction that it has turned into a great reference for researching the lies that the manipulators and chiselers behind Wikipedia want to tell the world.

Thank you in advance for driving home that last point. (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog and not a soapbox for attacks or your personal opinions. Also putting rants and unsubstantiated accusations into article is no way to influence how an encyclopedia reads. Let's deal with verifiable information: This reference shows that Sumatra is distributed under GNU GPL v3 and also that Sumatra source code is hosted on Google Code. This reference explains that "When posting Content to the Google Code website ( or when sharing Content obtained from this website with others, you agree that you are solely responsible for complying with U.S. export control regulations, including the Export Administration Regulations ("EAR"), and all other applicable export and import laws and regulations. These regulations require that all postings of open source encryption code be simultaneously reported by email to the U.S. government. You are responsible for submitting this email report to the U.S. government in accordance with procedures described in: and Section 740.13(e) of the EAR. Users residing in countries on the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control sanction list, including Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria, may not post or access Content available through the Google Code website." So that makes it clear that due to US export restrictions, not due to GPL or Google issues, the source code is not available in those countries from Google Code. This issue is explained in the Google Code article, so this is hardly new information. It is also not restricted to Google, as other source code hosts, such as SourceForge, have the same restrictions to comply with US law, as that article explains, too. I will add the restiction to this article since I found references for that much. As far as this being a GPL issue, as per WP:V, you will need to provide a reliable reference that identifies this as an issue for Sumatra PDF for inclusion in this article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
...aaand based on that, X mark.svg Not done and template marked as answered to clean-up category. — Deontalk 12:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

GPL and DRM question[edit]

I thought the big deal about GPLv3 was that it is anti-DRM. How can Sumatra be released under GPLv3 when it enforce PDF's DRM features against its users? Is that a violation of the GPL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanothervisitor (talkcontribs) 15:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Free Software Foundation Europe[edit]

The Free Software Foundation Europe has previously recommended the software (archived copy [1]) but doesn't currently suggests it on its list of Free Software PDF readers. (Note: It was the recommended software for the Windows operating system.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CySun (talkcontribs) 16:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference please! - Ahunt (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I did find this and it doesn't list Sumatra, but it doesn't say it was ever listed and removed. That page also says "The recommendations are based on ease of use and install and do not reflect the technical merits of the software itself." So my question is: "so what if Sumatra is not on this list"? Also FSFE does list Sumatra on this page. - Ahunt (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay I note that you added links to show that it once was on the list and isn't now, but again, so what?. Given the disclaimer I quoted from that page the removal doesn't imply anything and no conclusions can be drawn. - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe that COI policies prevent me from directly editing this page, but this recommendation has been retracted as we believe SumatraPDF to include non-free code. Details Author's credentials. Changing the article to reflect this would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for adding that, it is interesting. The problem seems to be that it includes code from Unrar, but as that article points out, one version of unrar is free software, so I think we need more information here before we can add anything. Is there information on which version we are dealing with? - Ahunt (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at the licence of the version included with Sumatra. The licence clearly articulates usage-based restrictions. Furthermore, GNA unrar seems to have last been updated in 2004 (see this). From the previously linked unrar licence page in Sumatra PDF's repository, we see that unrar has been updated to version 4.10.1 as recently as October 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
What you have written adds up! I also found this which indicates they were intending to use unrar 5.0 soon after May 2013. So the unrar used in Sumatra is freeware under its own licence. As shown on this page Sumatra is under GNU GPL v3. But if it incorporates freeware (which is allowed by the freeware licence) doesn't that invalidate the GNU GPL v3 licence? - Ahunt (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Licensing is a complex issue. The code that the developers of Sumatra PDF hold © to is still licensed under GPLv3. However, they do not have any power to alter the licence of unrar. Where the topic gets really complex is potential liability of people who redistribute Sumatra PDF. First, they may be liable to the Sumatra PDF developers for non-compliance with GPLv3 when they redistribute the binaries. However, the concepts of estoppel and implied licence would most likely prevent imposition of such liability in most jurisdictions. However, users who assume the whole code base to be GPL-compatible and make use of the unrar and Sumatra combination to recreate the rar compression algorithm would likely be liable for copyright infringement to unrar developers. I believe that, ultimately, they would have a case against Sumatra developers and they could recover the costs, but the situation is a legal minefield and no user can be expected to navigate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
That also makes sense, although both the free software and freeware parts are free to give away. There is an issue though, as the whole application is not GPL v3- parts of it are and parts are freeware licenced, but that should make the whole thing freeware, not free software, or am I missing something here? - Ahunt (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
This makes the whole application non-free and merely gratis, yes. However, if someone were to remove unrar and compile their own version that does not include unrar, then that would be free, provided they release the source code with the binaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay I think I have that all straight now. I also think we have enough information to edit the article and cite refs to this effect to indicate what the situation is. Let me give it a try and then you can see if I got it all correct. I'll post back here when I am done. - Ahunt (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes check.svg Done - Have a look at the changes and let me know here if anything could be said better. - Ahunt (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Setup file size[edit]

According to this, setup file size in 2009 was not 4.2 MB but 1.21 MB. Can someone fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrej7 (talkcontribs)

Yes check.svg Done - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)