[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The "Evil Cookie Producer" case

On 08/03/11 15:53, Bruno Lowagie wrote:
> Copy/paste from a previous answer.
> If company B is using iText, Company B is bound by the license. This
> doesn't mean the producer line can't be changed; there are different
> options to add extra data:
> - They can add data to the existing producer line ("created by product
> A; modified by product B")
> - They can use an other metadata field (Application in Document
> Properties) to add whatever they want.
> Read ISO-32000-1 to find out more about metadata in PDF.
> If company C is using PDFs produced by company B, it doesn't enter in
> the AGPL, but has the right to know that Company B uses iText. During
> post-processing operations, the producer line may change or even disappear.
> Now that I think of it: company B can be identical to company C. Maybe
> it's better to talk about "product X using iText" and "product Y
> processing PDFs produced by iText".


I think the problem with your last paragraph is that if company B is
identical to company C then company C is also bound by the license. So
during post processing C is not allowed to change the producer line. So
I think it needs the additional term to talk about the product using
iText rather than the person. So then a derivative work of iText, i.e.
one using iText to create/modify a pdf, must retain the producer line.
And once the PDF is written then it's not affected by the additional term.


Reply to: