Nice work. I've been building something lately to manipulate PDFs in the browser for privacy, although it's quite a different use case.
I think I see you're using pdf-lib and jspdf - both great libraries, and I'm using both, but:
(1) Have you seen the recent WASM compilation of MuPDF? I am also using it for some functions and find it really excellent with accessible APIs and highly functional. Worth an try!
(2) We chose different forks of the (unmaintained) pdf-lib - is there a reason you went with `pdf-lib-plus-encrypt`? I chose the cantoo fork, which seemed well-maintained to me - but I didn't research many others so would be interested to know if there is a good reason.
(1) Yes, I am very familiar with the WASM compilation of MuPDF. It's got a lot of great features. I actually built another product pdfredactoronline.com that does redaction fully in the browser using the MuPDF WASM compilation. The reason I don't use it in BreezePDF is MuPDF has an APGL license which requires open-sourcing any code that uses their software. Which, I guess technically anything fully browser based is essentially open sourced :) so perhaps I could use it here.
Since a lot of the basic functionality I've added so far is also covered by more permissible packages like the ones you mentioned, I've started out just using those. But thanks for bringing that up, I'll revisit using MuPDF for redaction and other features
(2) I went with pdf-lib-plus-encrypt because the original pdf-lib doesn't have functionality for password-protecting PDFs, and since pdf-lib-plus-encrypt does, I used it so I could have that feature
> Which, I guess technically anything fully browser based is essentially open sourced :) so perhaps I could use it here.
Open source isn't just about the source code being available (and when making web apps, there is often a compile step which makes the browser facing code not source code), but also about the license under which it is available.
It is in every sense of the word technically not open source.
not yet available as open source. Open-source has two main purposes I think: trust, and customizing/integrating it into other products.
On the first part, since everything happens in the browser, anyone can see the html/javascript and inspect the Network tab and see that no network requests are made that send their PDF anywhere.
And on the second part, I think most people who use the software aren't developers and won't want to modify it, and I don't particularly see a use case for integrating this software into another one, outside maybe an internal corporate scenario.
Though, maybe I'll add something where you can pay to get the desktop version, similar to what Sejda does.
That's exactly right. The main attractiveness of your tool comes from the "never leaves your browser", insinuating that other similar services do send your data to a server and then who-knows has access to your sensitive data. I really like that angle. But we don't know you. We can use some tools to check that nothing is transmitted today. But who knows about the future? Maybe you change your mind? Maybe once your service becomes popular you sell it for $$$ and the new owner silently pushes things to a server "totally securely, we promise"? Or is even malicious?
> anyone can see the html/javascript
Seeing minified javascript is not the same as open source. Nobody would claim that the google doc UI is "open source".
If you open source this and it turns out as great as it seems then it can make you world famous. If you keep it closed then it will probably disappear in the vast sea of similar sevices, server-based or not (since avg Joe doesn't know the difference and doesn't care). It's your choice to make.
> Though, maybe I'll add something where you can pay to get the desktop version
Ah, thanks for your honesty here. An angle describing your project in a more bad-faith way could now be that you run beta-testing of your proprietay software through this "free" service and intend to turn it into a closed pay product once the public testing has fleshed out the main issues. That's obviously something you are free to do instead of an open source product emphasizing freedom.
> trust
All fair points that you're making. I see no reason I would change my mind to send PDFs to the server, but I understand your concerns. If I'm reading in between the lines of what you're saying, that the way to alleviate these concerns is to make it open source?
I think that's a compelling argument, but to play devil's advocate if most people realistically working with PDFs aren't developers and thus wouldn't go to GitHub to host it themselves, then what would change for them to have a self-hostable option? If I released a desktop version, might the average person would see that as "private" and have any privacy concerns relieved, whether it was open sourced or not?
There is always a degree of trust you put in any company's software you use, and it's up to the company to be good stewards of that trust. If they break it, it's always bad for business anyways. But there is a point that if it was open source, those who have the desire to do so can continue using it without any concerns, which is fair.
> anyone can see the html/javascript
Yes minified javascript is not the same as open source, but mine is not minified. Plain HTML, CSS and vanilla JS. So given that and since all the editing happens in the browser, the entire source code is inspectable for anyone who wants to see.
Given that the average person editing PDFs is not tech savvy, and as you said they don't really know the difference between software options, then given that what do you see as the utility of open-sourcing, from a business or even public good perspective? Genuine question.
> Though, maybe I'll add something where you can pay to get the desktop version
I can see why someone would think that, but really at this point I'm figuring out what/if there is a monetization method here, and I'm not set on a particular path. I don't have any agenda to just make it free then close it off. That'd probably be a bad business decision anyways. I'm not sure if desktop is something to charge for, or if desktop and the whole thing is better to be free and open-source along with premium features that people can optionally pay for that are outside the core scope. I'm still thinking through it.
Ideally, I'll make all core features open-source while there are also some extra features people are willing to pay for. I'm just still wrestling with even just from the public good perspective, for the vast majority of people that won't host it themselves how would they benefit from open-source versus the core features just being free?
Curious if you have any response to what I've laid out here.
Appreciate your thoughtfulness!! You've given me a lot to think about.
>There is always a degree of trust you put in any company's software you use, and it's up to the company to be good stewards of that trust. If they break it, it's always bad for business anyways. But there is a point that if it was open source, those who have the desire to do so can continue using it without any concerns, which is fair.
I generally agree, but in this case you don't even have any meaningful identification on the site to say who created the software. I'm not sure how one can trust the creator of software if they won't even tell you who or what they are. Not even a pseudonym. There is no way to say that the person posting as philjohnson here is in fact the creator, or if the claimed copyright owner "Breeze PDF" is a legal entity that can own copyright.
As it is, with no source or identifying information, my default assumption if I happened upon this page would be that is is another one of the thousands of sites running FOSS software as a service with no added value or contribution back, but possibly also scanning every PDF it sees for bank/personal/tax/crypto information at which point it would decide to send that off to a server.
Open sourcing a piece of software, especially one that focuses on a broader audience like yours, can convince more people than just developers. The advantages of open source are well-known even among less techy people who aren't necessarily interested in self-hosting the application. It's a good way to quickly earn the trust of people who are initially sceptical of your product.
It shows to your potential users that, even if they decided not to trust the developer anymore in the future, they will likely still be able to use your application. Everyone praised Simple Mobile Tools until the developer sold it to an ad company. But because it was open source, people were able to fork the entire suite of apps to continue using them.
There's also a lot of growth potential. draw.io likely wouldn't be integrated into so many other products if it wasn't open source. It allows them to charge money (apparently) for specific integrations, simply because everyone is already familiar with the product.
Typst is another good example. Their compiler is free and open source, but the web app is not. Certain features of their web app require a subscription, which allows them to pay the bills. But I (and many other people) wouldn't be using and recommending it if the core wasn't open source, because if Typst ever disappears, I still want to be able to compile my documents. Currently this might not matter much for your app since PDF is a universal format anyway, but as you flesh out your product, it will become more important.
It's difficult to monetise open source software, but so much more rewarding if it does work out. And your app being targeted at the general public gives you a massive advantage, since the potential market is so much larger.
Apart from the crazy dog, the style has similarities to "Virgin and Child Surrounded by Angels" by Jean Fouquet[1], from a somewhat similar era (1452). If you search for "Early Netherlandish paintings" you'll find more, so it's not outrageous for the time. I'm sure people who know their art history (not me) can point towards even much closer ones.
First, the order being reported is made against the lawyer, not against the lawyer's client - And it is in order not to do this in future. So, while your observation is good I think the conclusion you draw from it doesn't follow.
Secondly, one aspect of your good point is that arguments are filed in a very plain format. The point being that the format does not detract from the message. In this case, the format heavily detracts from the message. Have you seen the PDF? It's absolutely nuts. I hope he doesn't turn up to court wearing a dragon mask.
Thanks for emphasising the US perspective, because it matters.
IAAL outside the US, and I'm aware in UK and EU law copyright can subsist in typefaces, and there are specific provisions relating to them. Since FACT is a UK Org, taking UK law as an example, see ref. []
I personally find it a good example of aging law. It's quite difficult to reconcile the law as drafted (in 1987) with modern digital font uses. Is a PDF with embedded fonts "material produced by typesetting", or is it an "article specifically designed or adapted for producing material in a particular typeface"? Arguably it could be either.
I'm not aware of this ever having been considered by a court.
> I personally find it a good example of aging law. It's quite difficult to reconcile the law as drafted (in 1987) with modern digital font uses.
Bizarrely, it seems like the precedent has only gotten stronger since 1987. It was re-affirmed again by the Code of Federal Regulations, § 202.1[1], in 1992. Honestly, I don't fully understand why. I know that U.S. copyright law generally limits the ability to copyright things that do not involve sufficient originality or creativity, but while all typeface outlines are the same basic shapes, there's still plenty of room for creativity.
I also know that the U.S. is also not entirely alone in generally considering typefaces ineligible for copyright protection; I believe Japan also has a similar position. Maybe eventually, it will shift.
> IAAL outside the US, and I'm aware in UK and EU law copyright can subsist in typefaces, and there are specific provisions relating to them. Since FACT is a UK Org, taking UK law as an example, see ref.
Oh, I honestly didn't even realize FACT was a UK organization; I didn't really know a whole lot about them other than the commercial.
That makes this situation a bit more awkward, as Catapult was, IIRC, based in Cupertino, so Catapult may have not been breaking any U.S. copyright laws, even though their typeface would presumably be illicit by UK law. That said, they were possibly breaking Dutch copyright laws, and I'm not sure what happens there. I suppose that comes down to the nitty gritty of how international copyright treaties work, and I am way out of my depth there.
...as demonstrated by the analogy in the original post here, where he explains the concrete concept of knitting stitches by reference to the much more abstract concept of garbage collection in computer programming!
Is it somehow filtering out referrals from this site?
reply