No-cost access to the latest PDF standard: ISO 32000-2 (PDF 2.0)
1–10 of 71 posts
Re: No-cost access to the latest PDF standard: ISO 32000-2 (PDF 2.0)
#2Heads-up: apparently some kind of signup is required to download anything from this page. So if you heartily dislike ISOs not because of cost, but because of how insane it is to make standards difficult to actually access at all - nothing has changed.
Re: No-cost access to the latest PDF standard: ISO 32000-2 (PDF 2.0)
#3It's worth noting that while https://www.pdfa.org/resource/iso-32000-pdf/ mentions the 2011 patent release for PDF 1.7 (https://www.adobe.com/pdf/pdfs/ISO32000-1PublicPatentLicense...) it makes no such mention of such a release for PDF 2.0.
Additionally, https://www.pdfa-inc.org/eula/ seems to indicate that you may only use the downloaded files on one computer - and does not establish a license agreement between the user and any third party IP holders.
No-cost access does not mean free-as-in-software. Caveat emptor.
Re: No-cost access to the latest PDF standard: ISO 32000-2 (PDF 2.0)
#4> ISO 32000-2 was also, however, the first and only core PDF specification published exclusively — and only for purchase — by ISO, inhibiting its use and adoption over the last five years.
Who would have thought that "international standards" that require payment don't work well? How many people are willing to spend a couple hundred CHFs to access the PDF specs? Also it seems insane to me that the PDF creator, Adobe, now has to pay ANSI to distribute their own spec for free.
For some reason you still need to "add to cart" the standards and they will ask you for your address and email. You don't need to provide real information for anything, not even email, they just redirect you to a page with download links.
Also the EULA is insane.
> You may install one copy of the Product on, and permit access to it by, a single computer owned, leased or otherwise controlled by you. In the event that computer becomes dysfunctional, such that you are unable to access the Product, you may transfer the Product to another computer, provided that the Product is removed from the computer from which it is transferred and the use of the Product on the replacement computer otherwise complies with the terms of this Agreement. Neither concurrent use on two or more computers nor use in a local area network or other network is permitted. You may print one copy of the Product for your personal use. You shall not merge, adapt, translate, modify, rent, lease, sell, sublicense, assign or otherwise transfer any of the Product, or remove any proprietary notice or label appearing on any of the Product. You may make one (1) copy the Product for backup purposes only.
They don't even allow you to use it on your 2 devices at the same time. Complete nonsense that I'm sure everyone will follow.
Re: No-cost access to the latest PDF standard: ISO 32000-2 (PDF 2.0)
#5Heads-up: apparently some kind of signup is required to download anything from this page. So if you heartily dislike ISOs not because of cost, but because of how insane it is to make standards difficult to actually access at all - nothing has changed.
[deleted]
Re: No-cost access to the latest PDF standard: ISO 32000-2 (PDF 2.0)
#6It's worth noting that while https://www.pdfa.org/resource/iso-32000-pdf/ mentions the 2011 patent release for PDF 1.7 ( https://www.adobe.com/pdf/pdfs/ISO32000-1PublicPatentLicense... ) it makes no such mention of such a release for PDF 2.0. Additionally, https://www.pdfa-inc.org/eula/ seems to indicate that you may only use the downloaded files on one computer - and does not establish a license agreement between th…
Formally speaking, I'm pretty sure you can satisfy the terms of the EULA by "buying" another copy of the files (another instance of the "Product") for every computer you want to store it on. IANAL though. (And regardless, it definitely doesn't meet the principles of freedom as in free software.)
Re: No-cost access to the latest PDF standard: ISO 32000-2 (PDF 2.0)
#7One interesting thing I noticed is that the shortest conforming PDF 2.0 file clocks in at 254 bytes long (if you strip out the indentation):
%PDF-2.0
1 0 obj>endobj
2 0 obj>endobj
xref
0 3
0000000000 65535 f
0000000009 00000 n
0000000053 00000 n
trailer>
startxref
96
%%EOF
Re: No-cost access to the latest PDF standard: ISO 32000-2 (PDF 2.0)
#8> ISO 32000-2 was also, however, the first and only core PDF specification published exclusively — and only for purchase — by ISO, inhibiting its use and adoption over the last five years. Who would have thought that "international standards" that require payment don't work well? How many people are willing to spend a couple hundred CHFs to access the PDF specs? Also it seems insane to me that the PDF creator, Adobe,…
When nobody tells lawyers no, this is what happens. This protects nobody other than some lawyers feeling fuzzy that they "mitigated risks" for their customer.
Re: No-cost access to the latest PDF standard: ISO 32000-2 (PDF 2.0)
#9> ISO 32000-2 was also, however, the first and only core PDF specification published exclusively — and only for purchase — by ISO, inhibiting its use and adoption over the last five years. Who would have thought that "international standards" that require payment don't work well? How many people are willing to spend a couple hundred CHFs to access the PDF specs? Also it seems insane to me that the PDF creator, Adobe,…
When nobody tells lawyers no, this is what happens. This protects nobody other than some lawyers feeling fuzzy that they "mitigated risks" for their customer.
What if they are not allowed to say no to lawyers?
Re: No-cost access to the latest PDF standard: ISO 32000-2 (PDF 2.0)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
When nobody tells lawyers no, this is what happens. This protects nobody other than some lawyers feeling fuzzy that they "mitigated risks" for their customer.
What if they are not allowed to say no to lawyers?
Legal is a cost center, which means that they don't get to say no. Here is how that conversation goes:
Lawyer: You must include my unenforceable EULA.
Anyone-with-a-brain: lol, no. Your "contribution" to this project only serves to do the direct opposite of our stated intent... Actually, why are you involving yourself here - are you billing for this?
Lawyer scampering noises recede into the distance