On 31 July 2017 at 19:52, Pavel Sanda <[email protected]> wrote: > Kornel Benko wrote: > > > It is not a demo. Only if you want to have all features like e.g. > > > splitting PDF pages one has to buy another version. So it is the same > as > > > with Acrobat Reader, for the full feature set of Acrobat one has to > pay. >
I skimmed their manual and read the license section which says: 3. NON-COMMERCIAL USE. You are hereby granted to use this Software for non-commercial purposes without charge for unlimited time on Desktop Linux. Software can also be used for viewing and printing documents on Windows and Mac OS X for unlimited time without any charge. If this is accurate, it might be useful for e.g. academic users of LyX. Regarding licenses... the program is based on Qt, and they ship several Qt libraries -- I just verified this after installing it on my mac. However, the program didn't seem to acknowledge Qt or reference LGPL or GPL, and they e.g. explicitly forbid reverse engineering so unless they've got a commercial Qt license they're likely violating Qt's LGPL. :-( Now, they might have acquired commercial Qt licenses, one per developer, in which case everything could be fine. However, as the Qt licenses aren't cheap, e.g. perhaps $1400/month for three developers, I see a risk that they don't have a commercial license. If we care about this, we could simply ask the company behind the program about their licensing situation. > > Do we really try to promote commercial programs? > > There is free version, with slightly less features, but otherwise if we > support acrobat reader which is not open source either why we could > not support another closed source but free app? > Market dominance is probably the reason to support Acrobat. But it's a good point. /Christian
