
QPDF: A Content-Preserving PDF Transformation System - ghosh
http://qpdf.sourceforge.net/
======
patrickg
QPDF is great! I use it heavily to analyze PDFs generated from other
applications (PDFTeX, InDesign) to incorporate new features (such as spot
colors) in my software
([http://speedata.github.io/publisher/index.html](http://speedata.github.io/publisher/index.html))
The command line I prefer is

    
    
        qpdf --qdf --object-streams=disable in.pdf out.pdf
    

so I can view the result with less or a text editor.

~~~
astrodust
If it's so great, why does it live on Sourceforge? Every time I see a link
there I die a little inside.

~~~
patrickg
Very limited audience? No marketing effort?

~~~
astrodust
Destined to die in obscurity? Check.

------
mnw21cam
So, a very heavy overlap with pdftk then.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdftk](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdftk)

~~~
xioxox
pdftk was removed from Fedora linux because of itext5 license issues
([https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-March/1...](https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-March/196394.html)).

~~~
patrickg
isn't itext released under the terms of the AGPL? While one may like or
dislike the license, it should be considered OpenSource!?!

~~~
maxerickson
If you follow the thread, this message is linked:

[https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-June/00...](https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-June/001656.html)

Which explains some more.

~~~
belorn
A key part to take from the conversation: "I also know from working with Tom
Callaway that the theoretical solution of using the section 7 permission to
remove additional restrictions is not one that Fedora generally wishes to use,
perhaps as a matter of policy. I would add that, speaking for Red Hat as
distributor, we do not wish to use that permission in this instance."

Ie: There is additional restrictions added to the AGPLv3 license in this
specific case. The license allow fedora to remove them, but Fedora chooses not
to do so.

