License change v0.46.2 to v1.0.0. How this affects self hosting or businesses hosting this software?

[Novapixel1010]

Since I don't fully understand code. I am curious what code/features are under proprietary. I am supportive of the project’s goal to generate revenue from its efforts. However, I would appreciate being informed about which features will be paywalled. Additionally, I hope that essential features and security measures will remain accessible without a paywall.

Did I miss a post?

v0.46.0 License

MIT License

Copyright (c) 2024 Stirling Tools

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

v1.0.0 License

This got added

Portions of this software are licensed as follows:

* All content that resides under the "proprietary/" directory of this repository,
if that directory exists, is licensed under the license defined in "proprietary/LICENSE".
* Content outside of the above mentioned directories or restrictions above is
available under the MIT License as defined below.

The newest license says

* All content that resides under the "app/proprietary/" directory of this repository,
if that directory exists, is licensed under the license defined in "app/proprietary/LICENSE".
* Content outside of the above mentioned directories or restrictions above is
available under the MIT License as defined below.

[dosubot[bot]]

The license change means Stirling-PDF is now "open core": all essential PDF functions—like conversion, editing, watermarking, redaction, and password protection—remain free and MIT-licensed for self-hosting and business use. Features under app/proprietary/ are paywalled and include things like team/user management, advanced authentication (SAML2, OAuth2, SSO), audit logging, and enterprise security infrastructure. If you only need basic PDF operations, you won't be affected; if you want enterprise features, you'll need a commercial license. There are no user limits or paywalls for the open source version, and all document-level security features remain accessible source source.

There have been official posts and discussions about this change, and the separation between free and paywalled features is clear in the codebase and license files. You didn't miss any major announcement—everything is reflected in the project structure and public discussions source.

To reply, just mention @dosu.

---

^{How did I do? Good | Irrelevant | Incorrect | Verbose | Hallucination | Report 🐛 | Other}    

[Novapixel1010]

It would be great to have SSO available without a paywall, as it seems like this important security feature often comes with a cost. I agree with everything else mentioned. The primary reason I would like SSO is to avoid exposing my self-hosted instance to everyone.

[knightglyder]

I can support the developers wanting to generate revenue for premium features. But yeah, just spent the afternoon setting up SSO only to find it rejecting due to being locked out (I should have read the context more in-depth - SSO was listed as a feature explicitly with the latest release).

IMO, however, calling it "advanced authentication" and putting SSO behind a paywall is pretty pathetic and shows that the devs either want to monetize their efforts on this specific bit, or really don't care about convenience/security from a basic usage standpoint.
I mean, they could have even allowed it for the basic 5-user limitation but disabled it from even this.

The PDF market is already saturated with greed to be able to do anything useful on this document type what with companies wanting a recurrent subscription to their editing tool MONTHLY in most cases. When a useful alternative like this shows up it's a bit sad to see the same behavior emerging.

[JerboaGobi]

I can support the developers wanting to generate revenue for premium features. But yeah, just spent the afternoon setting up SSO only to find it rejecting due to being locked out (I should have read the context more in-depth - SSO was listed as a feature explicitly with the latest release).

IMO, however, calling it "advanced authentication" and putting SSO behind a paywall is pretty pathetic and shows that the devs either want to monetize their efforts on this specific bit, or really don't care about convenience/security from a basic usage standpoint. I mean, they could have even allowed it for the basic 5-user limitation but disabled it from even this.

The PDF market is already saturated with greed to be able to do anything useful on this document type what with companies wanting a recurrent subscription to their editing tool MONTHLY in most cases. When a useful alternative like this shows up it's a bit sad to see the same behavior emerging.

Seconding this, there's other non-security reducing methods to enforce the five user limit. Disappointing to see this regression take place.

Submitted to SSO.tax

robchahin/sso-wall-of-shame#616

[SoCuul]

I can support the developers wanting to generate revenue for premium features. But yeah, just spent the afternoon setting up SSO only to find it rejecting due to being locked out (I should have read the context more in-depth - SSO was listed as a feature explicitly with the latest release).
IMO, however, calling it "advanced authentication" and putting SSO behind a paywall is pretty pathetic and shows that the devs either want to monetize their efforts on this specific bit, or really don't care about convenience/security from a basic usage standpoint. I mean, they could have even allowed it for the basic 5-user limitation but disabled it from even this.
The PDF market is already saturated with greed to be able to do anything useful on this document type what with companies wanting a recurrent subscription to their editing tool MONTHLY in most cases. When a useful alternative like this shows up it's a bit sad to see the same behavior emerging.

Seconding this, there's other non-security reducing methods to enforce the five user limit. Disappointing to see this regression take place.

Submitted to SSO.tax

robchahin/sso-wall-of-shame#616

@Frooodle It would be great if you could comment on this. SSO is a core security feature that is necessary to use software at any scale, not just large-enterprise level. Even in home setups, SSO is crucial to be able to log in to many self-hosted services with the same credentials.

I have loved and used this project for years, but I am worried after seeing steps like this taken after being acquired by a VC (which ironically also owns Authentik, which is used in many self-hosted SSO setups).