Open Source

31250 readers

252 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

FOSS In government use (iusearchlinux.fyi)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

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.