4 ms·
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
by 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 agoWhat 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
- cess11 3y agoI'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.