itext is currently packaged in Fedora. The license is given in the package metadata as (LGPLv2+ or MPLv1.1) and ASL 2.0 and BSD and LGPLv2+.
As of version 5.0.0, the project has relicensed to AGPLv3. The project says at http://itextpdf.com/terms-of-use/index.php, and in source code notices:
In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU Affero General Public License, you must retain the producer line in every PDF that is created or manipulated using iText.
This is an additional restriction that is not authorized by section 7 of AGPLv3.
Possibly also of concern is the statement:
You can be released from the requirements of the license by purchasing a commercial license. Buying such a license is mandatory as soon as you develop commercial activities involving the iText software without disclosing the source code of your own applications.
While the examples given might generally trigger the AGPL source code distribution requirement, surely there are conceivable "commercial activities" that would not trigger it. The fact that the project is now apparently organized as a dual-licensing commercial venture justifies heightened scrutiny of such statements.
For these reasons, I propose that any future packaging of AGPL-licensed releases of itext be subject to explicit approval by Fedora Legal.
On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 02:13 -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU Affero General Public License, you must retain the producer line in every PDF that is created or manipulated using iText.
This is an additional restriction that is not authorized by section 7 of AGPLv3.
That isn't obvious to me. Does 7(b) allow a requirement that a legal notice be preserved in a specific field of a file format? If so, it still seems the requirement could only apply to PDF files that constitute a derivative work of iText, not (e.g.) to PDF files that just had pages removed with iText.
(IANAL, I'm just participating out of my own curiosity.)
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 01:01:37AM -0700, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 02:13 -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU Affero General Public License, you must retain the producer line in every PDF that is created or manipulated using iText.
This is an additional restriction that is not authorized by section 7 of AGPLv3.
That isn't obvious to me. Does 7(b) allow a requirement that a legal notice be preserved in a specific field of a file format?
No. This clause was largely meant to codify GPL-compatibility of existing notice preservation requirements in GPLv2-compatible licenses, which apply only to code itself (or maybe materials accompanying distributed code).
- RF
-
Matt McCutchen -
Richard Fontana