My question in FOSS is whether, or how the license applies, if anyone can clarify it for me. I’m not going into a legal battle, I just am having issues rectifying the licensing with my expectations.
Also, ia most FOSS is written this way, with an expectation that organizations have to pay for licensing to use the software?
The issue below is for AGPL and PDFCreator. AGPL, if I read it correctly, seems to restrict restrictions on the license.
I work as MSP for an entity who uses PDFCreator, quite possibly based on a previous license.
I can’t otherwise explain the use or make changes myself, other than it is used as a PDF printer on user desktops to create digital documents.
What I can say is that we had recently attempted to automate the process of installing it with new computers. We ran into a minor hiccup and contacted their support for assistance. The response was that the program is not intended for free use in a corporate environment and that we will need to purchase licenses.
While I take issue with their determination and restriction of the use, it is their software and they make the rules. I’m not sure if they are violating the GPL, but I’d like some understanding if anything has a different interpretation.
We will most likely just use the built in PDF creator. A loss for the FOSS footprint, but not something I can control.
I am not a lawyer but previously in my career I dealt with software licensing and FOSS. When it comes to charging for FOSS it is almost always for support. Otherwise you are 100% on your own to read documentation and figure out how to use it.
I am not surprised at all by their reaction and request for you to pay for the software when calling for technical support. This is their business model, make money off of the tech support.
100% how I read their license page. It isn’t like we are using it within another application, just literally using it as advertised. Unfortunately, the email came off as advising us that the software isn’t intended for use without a business license so we are now investigating other options.
Note that they said “not intended” and not “not allowed”. you are perfectly within your right to use the program under the GPL without licensing it otherwise.
But the company would prefer if you paid for a license (and support). If you weren’t allowed the use you do, they would have said as much, but they didn’t.
This is a common business practice with open source software and I don’t particularly think it s “wrong”, but the fact that they are apparently trying to use confusion to make it look like you have to buy a license for commercial use is very icky in my opinion (but is unfortunately also very common).
This is how I expected FOSS to function. If you get a chance, check out their license page, which directs prospective users to the AGPL and also has further restrictions on what users may not do.
I just checked it out. That licensing documentation is a mess. They say that it’s released under the AGPL, but not all of it? So what they are saying is that the whole product is not actually under the AGPL. I wonder if their “freeware” part can actually be removed without major loss of functionality. Because if that’s possible, then you could simply rebundle that one.
But I suspect it exists exactly to “taint” the open source nature of the product.
I suspect most of it leans heavily on ghostscript, so they are required to provide AGPL. They would like to obtain support contracts, so support requests are considered out of compliance unless they are paid. I find it interesting that they basically have AGPL+ were plus is whatever they have on their license page in addition to AGPL.
GPL says you can sell the software for whatever price you want too. I could take any piece of sodtware licensed under GPLv3, bundle it up, charge people for that software (while telling them that what I am selling them is GPLv3 software and informing them that they can request a copy of the source code including any modifications that I have made to it). That’s totally fine. But why would someone pay for the software if the seller is not adding any value to to product? cough windows app store cough
Not providing builds seems to be a good incentive. I’ve seen some projects that charge for the installation/compiled software with the source freely available. Lots of software is a gigantic pain in the ass to build without the proper configuration and pipeline set up.
But why would someone pay for the software if the seller is not adding any value to to product?
A: the mistaken belief that the seller is adding value, even in the face of all evidence, which is caused by a capitalist tendency to believe that all prices are inherently just
B: disbelief in the idea of anything worthwhile being free, which is caused by the capitalist tendency to attack the free exchange of goods and services.
Yeah their license is pretty clear that you can use and share it at will. The subscription gives you adfree and priority support.
deleted by creator
I’m not a legal expert, but the AGPL seems to be quite clear on this point:
- Basic Permissions.
All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. […]
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. […]
However, depending on the exact thing that they said, they may be in violation of the AGPL. Once they have given you (conveyed) a copy of the program, they cannot impose a license fee for the use of the software.
- Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.
Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. […]
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation […]
That’s how I feel. I’m not a legal expert either. The caveat to this is that there is a disclaimer on the legal page where you are directed to the AGPL that says that you may not, “Use PDFCreator within an application or service that is not licensed under the terms of the AGPL.”
I’m assuming using the software in a Windows environment is allowed as it is distributed as a Windows application. If you are using the software to accept print jobs to PDF in a manner configurable through the default UI without modifying the code or default files, I’m also hard pressed to call it a violation, regardless of the input application.
I think that the concern from PDFForge is that we were asking for assistance with a feature, which crosses the line in any sort of professional setting.
The GPL (and AGPL) do place some restrictions on how you can integrate it into another application but this doesn’t have anything to do with commercial use.
Basically, if you create a derivative work and publish/sell it, you also need to license it under the AGPL. In case of the AGPL it also applied if you use it to offer a service. But if you only use the unmodified version (same source code) and the intended application interfaces, this does not apply.
Running the application on Windows is clearly allowed. The second case also sounds ok (allowing this is kinda the point of FOSS). However, if you create an improved version of PDFCreater, then you’ll need to publish it under the same AGPL license.
Thanks. It’s good to hear someone outline what I was thinking. I’m frustrated that the support response made it sound like we shouldn’t be using the software, but I guess I’ll get over it.
