Talk:CC PDF Converter

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Notability and prod

This was prod'ed by user:93.167.94.18 with the concern:

"unnotable. there are dozens of these kind of programs. pdfcreator, bullzip, pdf995, adobe distiller are all more popular than this (try google). this program has not been updated for the last two years."

All these examples are malware (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdfcreator#Adware_toolbar_controversy) or licensed. Mrdthree (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've de-prodded this, on the grounds that its use and encouragement of embedding a Creative Commons licence makes it interesting from the copyright and licence labelling aspect. As far as PDF creators go, I'd agree that it's just one of many similar programs.

By all means take it to AfD (or re-prod) if you'd still like to see it deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this has been re-prodded by the same editor. I'd still keep it, for the rights management issue noted above. As agreed, being a PDF creator alone isn't notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. As the editor above said this is important to document because it is stable. reliable and CC.

Mrdthree (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latest release

I just updated the latest release info. The web site doesn't say when the latest release was or its version number, the source download isn't in public revision control, and there's no changelog, but the installer identifies the program as version 0.9.0.0 and the installer was digitally signed November 18, 2012, so that's what I used. Jeffrey Bosboom (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notabiity Established by 4 star review, freeware status, and popularity

Freeware that has no malware is by definition notable. Please re-read the banner at the top of this discussion. It is a public resource of the highest importance and wikipedia has elected to make a program that archives programs of this sort. Every example provided by previous editors comes loaded with malware. Second, when an article is written in a major magazine to review a program it establishes notability, especially when it is freeware. Please discuss. If you have a conflict of interest, like working for adobe please discuss as well. I do not work for any for profit pdf writing/reading companies. Mrdthree (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Freeware that has no malware is by definition notable" is a critical misunderstanding of notability. See WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT, that is how notability for software is established. Simply not having malware or being freeware with a single review is not. As for a "conflict of interest", no, I do not have a conflict of interest in any way, shape, or form. - Aoidh (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Freeware that has no malware is by definition notable" I'm healthy, so I'm famous. What kind of logic is that? Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 08:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinued

Discontinued 24.123.84.22 (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]