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.

  • stuner@lemmy.world
    1·
    1 年前

    I’m not a legal expert, but the AGPL seems to be quite clear on this point:

    1. 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.

    1. 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 […]

    • PullUpCircuit@iusearchlinux.fyiOP
      1·
      1 年前

      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.

      • stuner@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 年前

        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.

        • PullUpCircuit@iusearchlinux.fyiOP
          2·
          1 年前

          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.