Originally we used PDF preptool (or something like that) for some functons, but I believe recent versions are not royalty-free.

 

I need to be able to split pdfs, and extract text from pdfs. I also read and update form variables.

 

Any suggestions would be appreciated. I've spent horus in Google searches without much results.

 

I asked for clarifications and they said yes that is really what they mean.

 

But if I aske real nice they have an OEM license but it is not a ficed price. I am not holding my breath.

 

I'll look at others you listed, and thanks for the list.

 

 

 

I really don't like ' how much money do you have' pricing.

 

PDFLib doesnt look like it will let me extract text or split PDFs, and the PDFLib+PDI (which might or might not do that) costs $EU-20,000 - and I am not even sure that is a royalty free license. It says that is for one 'platform' by which I hope they mean all versions of Windows.

 

"PDF-Tools" is the PDF Prep Tool api I have used in the past, when it was royalty free. Now they want a runtime license of $720 per user and $3600 per server. That's more than the computers cost!

 

PDF-in-the-box is royalty free, but it isnt a PDF toolkit in the sense of being able to open existing PDFs, split them, extract text, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the reference!

But thank you for the reference, all the same.

 

I went to look at his site. It looks like he did a VB interface to call Ghostscript, which I have been thinking of doing myself (right now I am using and reconfiguring PDFCreator).

 

PDFCreator uses REDMON to redirect the printer output, but he has gotten around the need for that somehow, it looks like.

 

 

 

iText is open source and therefore pretty worthless to a commercial developer. It is unrealibale code - not because the code is unreliable but because the licensing is unreliable. I thought at one point that open soruce libraries could be used without publishing the source of the code that used them, but have since heard that this is not true.

 

The uncertainty of this makes the code unreliable. I am not going to open myself up to lawsauits - or even worse, bad press - by using code that opens me to litigation or slander. If I am using a library that is open source, I should be able to give it credit, provide a link so that a user can go find the library and the source, and be done with it.

 

To me, the open source licensing is about having a chip on your shoulder and asserting control over others. If not, they would allow people to use the code for derivitive works without publishing the changes - since the open source version will continue on in any case, and should be 'superior' according to the theory of the open source movement. Either they don't really eblieve their owqn theory, or the real issue is vanity and the desire to control others.

 

I have much more respect, for example, for the thousands of VB6 programmers who have published source code for the free use of millions of other programmers. They are my real heroes. I don't mean to say that I don't respect open source people, but to me uinconditional giving is superior to conditional giving.

 

I notice most useful applicaitons of open source libraries fudge the open source licensing requirements - Miche publishes source code only the subroutine that calls Ghostscrript, not his entire application, and then provides another enhanced version he charges for, apparently also using Ghostscript, that he charges for.  In similar fashion, the PDFCreator team publishes all of their source code, but they include an optional but selected IE search toolbar that generates revenue for them when the user uses it.

 

I don't have a problem with either of these behaviors, but I don't think they follow the open source licening strictly. I am not sure. That is the whole Achilles heel of open source for me - I can't be sure and confiodent in my use of what it provides.

 

 

 

 

 

I read the interpretation of the license on the iText site, and I really don't understand it either, but it doesn't matter what they say, since a court will interpret the license, not someone's interpretation of the license.

 

The MPL license is so verbose and obscure, it creates unneccsary uncertainty. A commercial enterprise using code that is subject to the MPL, is, in my opinion, opening themselves up to the psossibility of extremely expensive litigation -0 and in today's jury award climate , the possibility of large losses.

 

That's why the commercial PDF libraries are getting away with charging thousands of dollars per server.  A large company with a competent legal department is going to turn thumbs down on MPL-licensed software.

 

Here's an example of the obguscation in this agreement:

 

"  3.7. Larger Works.
     You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code
     not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger
     Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the
     requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code."

 

That could mean just about anything, particularly as the 'requirements of this license' are horribly convoluted and unclear.

 

What I would need to use the library as a library (object verison) would be a no-gotchas, clear statement that I can use the library without restrictions and without opening myself to litigation from the developers. I would then use the library, give the user the link to the itext development site, with the warning that if they use any version of itext not provided by me, or make any source code changes to the liText ibrary,  we will not be able to support our product for them.

 

It can't just be the opinions of the developer as stated on their web pages, it really has to be in the license agreement itself.

 

As to JAVA in big companies, I remember PowerBuilder, Cold Fusion, Lotus Notes, and many other development environments. Most of them still exist.

 

I've worked with JAVA-based terminal emulation software, and it is a horrible hack, apparently impossible to integrate with, disobeying Windows apis, etc.

 

I suspect what oyu are referring to is J2EE used as a web development system.

 

 

 

 

If I were an 800 pound gorilla like Adobe, perhaps I would be less concerned about the open liability created by open soruce licenses.

 

But I am not/