Talk:iText

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 October 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 June 2009 (YTR). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Java Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Java, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Java on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JavaWikipedia:WikiProject JavaTemplate:WikiProject JavaJava articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Computing: Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

OpenPDF is assumed to be based on iText svn tag 4_2_0[edit]

Nybygger claims that OpenPDF is based on iText svn tag 4_2_0. This is factually incorrect. The initial commit (by ymasory) of the OpenPDF repository contains files from iText that were introduced after the claimed fork point. Compare for example TestResourceUtils.java in OpenPDF initial commit to TestResourceUtils.java in iText commit 5.0.0-18-g9de983d71e. That file was added on Dec 21, 2009, by trumpetinc, an external contributor of iText. It could be argued that OpenPDF infringed on the IP of trumpetinc by taking AGPL-licensed code and putting it in an LGPL/MPL licensed project, without permission of the copyright holder. AmedeeVanGasse (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file refered to above, TestResourceUtils.java, is in fact exactly the same in iText tag 4_2_0 as in OpenPDF. Therefore the above claim is false, and the file is used in accordance with the GNU Lesser General Public License. Nybygger 14:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file was added on 2009-12-21 15:26:30, after the license change. See https://sourceforge.net/p/itext/code/6803/log/?path=/tags/iText_4_2_0/test/core/com/itextpdf/testutils/TestResourceUtils.java Also, the file itself has a comment header:

/*
 * Created on Dec 21, 2009
 * (c) 2009 Trumpet, Inc.
 *
 */

The 4_2_0 tag was added on 2009-12-21, after the license change, and after the 5_0_0 tag on 2009-12-08. See https://sourceforge.net/p/itext/code/HEAD/tree/tags/ It was added as an artifact for internal use only. I have tried to be extremely helpful by giving the exact commit that corresponds to that tag, see https://github.com/LibrePDF/OpenPDF/issues/18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmedeeVanGasse (talk • contribs) 13:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The release based on tag 4_2_0 was created 2009-11-27 13:12:56, as can be seen here: https://sourceforge.net/p/itext/code/6803/log/?path=/tags/iText_4_2_0 The commit clearly states: "This is the final version of iText available as an MPL/LGPL library." Nybygger 14:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TestResourceUtils.java was created on Dec 21, 2009. svn tagging is weird. I don't know how it ended up there. You tell me. And please stop the edit wars. AmedeeVanGasse (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we can agree that OpenPDF is in fact created based on iText svn tag 4_2_0 then. Great. Have a nice day! Nybygger 14:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not yet agree. Answer this question: is OpenPDF based on svn revision 4107 or 4213? AmedeeVanGasse (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpenPDF is based on iText svn tag 4_2_0, which was described as "This is the final version of iText available as an MPL/LGPL library.". Svn tag 4_2_0 has a LGPL license file in it: https://sourceforge.net/p/itext/code/HEAD/tree/tags/iText_4_2_0/www/lowagie/lgpl.txt Nybygger 14:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain: in Subversion, there is no technical difference between branches and tags. They are just copies of the trunk directory. If you create a tag, then there is an unwritten agreement that you should not add any more revisions to that tag. But nothing technically prevents you from doing that. If you add revisions to a tag, then it turns into a branch. What most likely happened here, is that user trumpetinc added 2 revisions to a tag by mistake, where he should have added them to trunk. Which he also did: revision 4213 is identical to revision 4218, which is in trunk between 5.0.0 and 5.0.1: https://sourceforge.net/p/itext/code/4218/log/?path=%2Ftrunk. Additionally I found that the internal tag 4_2_0 wasn't on revision 4107 but on 4106. 4106 changed the version number and the release date, 4107 is simply a copy from trunk to an svn tag. AmedeeVanGasse (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpenPDF is complying with the GNU Lesser General Public License. This is the nature of open source software development, the source code can be redistributed with the same license. OpenPDF is based on iText svn tag 4_2_0, which has a LGPL license file in it: https://sourceforge.net/p/itext/code/HEAD/tree/tags/iText_4_2_0/www/lowagie/lgpl.txt The above mentioned file previously used for testing in iText, TestResourceUtils.java, is not even included in the current version of OpenPDF. Nybygger 16:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you edit this page instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPDF AmedeeVanGasse (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nybygger uses the phrase "Have a nice day!" which is a typical expression used by an internet troll (the full expression is YHBT YHL HAND). The edit war started by Nybygger is consistent with my assumption that he or she is a troll who wants to hurt the open source community by introducing IP liabilities into the code base of innocent open source users. Apart from the testutils example mentioned by AmedeeVanGasse, there are also some other IP issues that aren't documented publicly because there's an non-disclosure in place between the original copyright holders of the code and iText Group who used some code without obtaining permission first (actually, there was a specific issue that prevented the release of iText as AGPL until December 2009; the legal discussion took much longer than I anticipated). iText Group has done every effort in its power to remove all the infringing versions, but can't prevent other people to distribute their own copy. Whoever redistributes such a version should be aware of what happens if stolen software is published as Open Source. Should my assumption be incorrect and should Nybygger have the best of intentions, there are also the many technical problems with the 2009 version. For instance: it's my opinion that distributing code that creates signatures that are no longer valdid counts should be considered as "software development malpractice" (read To Serve Man, with Software). Suppose that someone downloads Openpdf, and uses it to create digitally signed PDF's using SHA-1 as the hashing algorithm. Such digitally signed PDF's are worthless since it has been proven that SHA-1 is insecure (read Are PDF Signatures shattered?) If there is no company behind Openpdf, then this is the responsibility of the individuals distributing such code. This is something I realized back in 2007 when I performed an IP review on iText. Once I understood the possible consequences, I got so scared that I almost abandoned the project. I guess that the people distributing Openpdf (and by doing so, they use *my name*), aren't fully aware of those consequences. If they operate from Europe, they probably also don't know that moral rights have precedence over open source rights in Europe. If I exercise my moral rights in Europe, the open source license is invalid. I can't do this in the US, because in the US, the open source license is considered more important than my moral rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blowagie (talk • contribs) 08:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not an internet troll. Using the phrase "Have a nice day!" is not evidence of this. Nybygger 08:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising[edit]

The paragraphs about Awards and ISO standards support are mostly advertising about a commercial product. Wikipedia:Notability#Self-promotion_and_publicity Nybygger 08:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpenPDF: WP:COI[edit]

User Nybygger added a link to the OpenPDF fork, but did not disclose that they are one of the contributors of OpenPDF. This is a WP:COI. I cannot give more information about their identity because I do not want to violate WP:OUTING. Disclosure: I am QA Engineer at iText Software, which means I also have a WP:COI, so I will not edit the page. I would very much prefer that Nybygger contacts iText Software directly to talk about this. We are friendly people. A Wikipedia edit war really isn't needed. AmedeeVanGasse (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

iText changed license from MPL / GNU LGPL to a commercial / AGPL dual license as part of establishing a company to sell iText. The license change is documented here. Therefore it is relevant to mention that a fork of iText with the original license still exists. In my opinion, by reverting my comments about the OpenPDF fork of iText on Wikipedia, the employees of iText are here censoring Wikipedia, hiding the truth, preventing fair competition of open source software, all with the motive of selling the open source software iText. This is a WP:COI. Nybygger 08:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the license has changed. That's true, but that still doesn't mean everyone gets to advertise their "keep iText open and free" project on Wikipedia, believe me (as an iText developer), there are a lot of those and they have all been without success. We're just not accommodating the "free and open iText" project of the month by advertising on wikipedia. This wikipedia insertion feels like very cheap tactics to get free advertising. Aside from that, I get that people are annoyed by the license change, but in the end iText is still open source and actively maintained because it had a license change. We want open source forks to thrive and prosper, we even reached out to your project to assess on what commit/version the fork was based on, because 4.2.0 never existed in Java, but the reply we've got was very rude and hostile. On your bugtracker on github I also saw unresolved questions where the answer is basically "diy" or "nobody has time or the expertise". This is what the license change brought for iText. Don't assume that just because there's a company now, that it's an evil company censoring wikipedia or hiding the truth, we're not. We're still interested in keeping the communication channels open, but not through wikipedia. All that said and done, no one is stopping you from making an OpenPDF page. MyMilkedEek (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Major Edit 2015[edit]

I took the liberty of attempting to edit out some of the advertising wording on the page. I'm leaving the advisory tags at the top since the edit doesn't fully eradicate them. I.am.qix (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do this in your summer holidays 2.220.165.114 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on IText. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some elements on this page used the personal pronoun 'we' - I have removed them[edit]

This was part of my main edit to improve grammar and reduce ad-like nature of the page. There were also elements which were not translated correctly into English from what I presume was French – the author of these elements is likely an employee of iText recording award nominations/wins as they come. RichardThePeterJohnson (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]