4 ms·

That's pretty neat. I could use something like this professionally, might actually to 'contact sales' and see what kind of money they expect.

by cess11 3y ago

wwarner 3y ago
I tried paying for muPDF a few years ago and it was way way more than my company could afford. Had to use a different system that was not dual licensed.
reaperman 3y ago
What is your application? I'm curious why AGPL wouldn't be a reasonable choice. Seems like you could modify it and link it in a way that doesn't trigger AGPL on anything except your modifications to MuPDF itself, which don't seem like they'd be too valuable to give away in most cases.
- wwarner 3y ago
  What is the point of a dual license if you can't pay for the commercial rights which guarantee that you're not infringing on the copyleft license? Whoever I spoke to at Artifex [0] several years ago told me the terms of the commercial license were that if any output of muPDF were visible to the public, my company would owe $10k/mo plus some share of the revenue of the company. Unlimited internal use fell under the AGPL and was therefore free. Btw, the software is incredible, it was a shame I couldn't use it! [0] https://mupdf.com/licensing/index.html#commercial https://mupdf.com/licensing/index.html#commercial
  - reaperman 3y ago
    Okay reading all of that link, in totality it's getting fairly ridiculous.
  - cess11 3y ago
    Thanks for sharing. That's kinda pricey, in the vicinity of 1-2 employees.
- cess11 3y ago
  I'm in two markets, both heavily reliant on PDF rendering, viewing and distribution. Commonly PDF/A, which isn't very popular so having to adapt libraries happens every now and then. We're both into desktop applications and network services. While I'm quite FOSS positive, a lot around GPL style licensing hasn't been tested in court and I don't want to be a pioneer in this area. Besides the business aspects of having to maybe publish some of the 'secret sauce', of course.
merb 3y ago
The last time I contacted them. The money was not my problem. However the problem was that the license used a fork instead of the open source code, which meant we needed to use binaries from artifex which was exactly what we wanted to avoid.

That's pretty neat. I could use something like this professionally, might actually to 'contact sales' and see what kind of money they expect.

by cess11 3y ago

That's pretty neat. I could use something like this professionally, might actually to 'contact sales' and see what kind of money they expect.

wwarner 3y ago

I tried paying for muPDF a few years ago and it was way way more than my company could afford. Had to use a different system that was not dual licensed.

reaperman 3y ago

What is your application? I'm curious why AGPL wouldn't be a reasonable choice. Seems like you could modify it and link it in a way that doesn't trigger AGPL on anything except your modifications to MuPDF itself, which don't seem like they'd be too valuable to give away in most cases.

wwarner 3y ago
What is the point of a dual license if you can't pay for the commercial rights which guarantee that you're not infringing on the copyleft license? Whoever I spoke to at Artifex [0] several years ago told me the terms of the commercial license were that if any output of muPDF were visible to the public, my company would owe $10k/mo plus some share of the revenue of the company. Unlimited internal use fell under the AGPL and was therefore free. Btw, the software is incredible, it was a shame I couldn't use it! [0] https://mupdf.com/licensing/index.html#commercial https://mupdf.com/licensing/index.html#commercial
- reaperman 3y ago
  Okay reading all of that link, in totality it's getting fairly ridiculous.
- cess11 3y ago
  Thanks for sharing. That's kinda pricey, in the vicinity of 1-2 employees.
cess11 3y ago
I'm in two markets, both heavily reliant on PDF rendering, viewing and distribution. Commonly PDF/A, which isn't very popular so having to adapt libraries happens every now and then. We're both into desktop applications and network services. While I'm quite FOSS positive, a lot around GPL style licensing hasn't been tested in court and I don't want to be a pioneer in this area. Besides the business aspects of having to maybe publish some of the 'secret sauce', of course.

merb 3y ago

The last time I contacted them. The money was not my problem. However the problem was that the license used a fork instead of the open source code, which meant we needed to use binaries from artifex which was exactly what we wanted to avoid.