How to remove document restriction from PDF file generated by LaTeX?
iamsolo
I'm using MikTeX2.5 on WindowsXP. I found my co-workers can not add
comments in the PDF document generated by pdflatex in Acrobat 8.0. It
seems my MikTeX-pdfetex 2.5.2579 (1.30.6) does not support pdfcrypt
package. What else can I do to make my PDF document can be commented?
Thanks!
iamsolo
Heiko Oberdiek
> I'm using MikTeX2.5 on WindowsXP. I found my co-workers can not add
> comments in the PDF document generated by pdflatex in Acrobat 8.0. It
The enabling of comments isn't free, Adobe wants money for it.
> seems my MikTeX-pdfetex 2.5.2579 (1.30.6) does not support pdfcrypt
There are free tools that encrypt PDFs.
Yours sincerely
Heiko <ober...@uni-freiburg.de>
Alexander Grahn
> What else can I do to make my PDF document can be commented?
You may want to try AREnable (for Windows):
http://sourceforge.net/projects/arenable/
Tim X
As I understand it, by default (i.e. if nothing is done), the ability to
anotate PDF files is disabled and has to be enabled. Its not so much that Latex
is disableing the feature, but rather it knows nothing about it and therefore
can't enable it. I think this is only possible with the latest version of
acrobat distiller. While someone may be able to work out how to enable this
feature in PDFs generated by Latex et al., its unlikely to occur for a while
(and who knows what the licensing restrictions imposed by Adobe might be).
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
j...@amrita-ebook.org
Any half-decent programmer can activate the commenting features by
following the approach outlined by Dmitry Sklyarov in his security
alert (URL deliberately witheld). It took me 1hr and just 220 lines of
Perl.
However, attention should be draw to section 4.3 of AR's licence
agreement.
*************************************************************************************
4.3 Document Features. The Software may contain features and
functionality
that appear disabled or "grayed out" (the "Document Features"). The
Document Features
will only activate when opening certain PDF documents that have been
created using
corresponding enabling technology available only from Adobe ("Keys").
You agree not to access, or attempt to access, disabled Document
Features or otherwise
circumvent the permissions that control activation of such Document
Features.
You may only use the Document Features with PDF documents that have
been enabled
using Keys obtained under a valid license from Adobe. No other use is
permitted.
*************************************************************************************
I did it for my own personal edification, just to see what was
involved;
I don't distribute the code and I don't distribute comment-activated
documents.
Why? A project such as "arenable" pointed out earlier in this thread
clearly
runs against the licence agreement and runs the risk on incurring
Adobe's wrath.
James Quirk
Wilfried Hennings
1.) Do you really mean Acrobat 8.0 (the full commercial version) or do
you mean Adobe Reader 8.0 (the cost free version)?
2.) There is an alternative pdf reader available which allows
commenting;
in the cost free version, the comments however are marked as
generated by the free version.
It is available for MS Windows
http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php
and Linux
http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/desklinux/
Hope that helps.
--
Wilfried Hennings
email me: change "nospam" to "w.hennings"
All opinions mentioned are strictly my own, not my employer's.
iamsolo
> 1.) Do you really mean Acrobat 8.0 (the full commercial version) or do
> you mean Adobe Reader 8.0 (the cost free version)?
Thanks for this tip! Acrobat Reader 8.0 can not comment, but the full
commercial version can add comment.
> 2.) There is an alternative pdf reader available which allows
> commenting;
> in the cost free version, the comments however are marked as
> generated by the free version.
> It is available for MS Windowshttp://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php
> and Linuxhttp://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/desklinux/
>
> Hope that helps.
>
I will try the software on the other WindowsXP box on June 7, and then
post the test result.
Thank you!
And Thank you all!
Iamsolo.
Michele Dondi
>alert (URL deliberately witheld). It took me 1hr and just 220 lines of
>Perl.
220 lines of proper Perl are not that few, seems a complex enough
task.
Michele
--
>It's because the universe was programmed in C++.
No, no, it was programmed in Forth. See Genesis 1:12:
"And the earth brought Forth ..."
- Robert Israel in sci.math, thread "Why numbers?"
k...@alldial.net
This doesn't seem to prevent pdflatex incorporating (the equivalent
of) your code to produce pdf files that can be commented.
j...@amrita-ebook.org
>
> 220 lines of proper Perl are not that few, seems a complex enough
> task.
The task turns out to be much simpler than it first appears.
As explained by Sklyarov, it essentially boils down
to prepending the first /Contents object with a "key" that
is lifted from an Adobe-rights-enabled document.
James
j...@amrita-ebook.org
The process involves lifting a "key" from an Adobe-rights-enabled
document and so I think
it's pretty clear that section 4.3 of the licence
agreement is relevant. At least, I would not care
to get into a tussle with Adobe's legal team over it.
James Quirk
Michele Dondi
>> 220 lines of proper Perl are not that few, seems a complex enough
>> task.
>The task turns out to be much simpler than it first appears.
>As explained by Sklyarov, it essentially boils down
>to prepending the first /Contents object with a "key" that
>is lifted from an Adobe-rights-enabled document.
So that much of the code is in fact a hardcoded constant, ain't it?
j...@amrita-ebook.org
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:16:20 -0000, j...@amrita-ebook.org wrote:
> >> 220 lines of proper Perl are not that few, seems a complex enough
> >> task.
> >The task turns out to be much simpler than it first appears.
> >As explained by Sklyarov, it essentially boils down
> >to prepending the first /Contents object with a "key" that
> >is lifted from an Adobe-rights-enabled document.
>
> So that much of the code is in fact a hardcoded constant, ain't it?
refers to the code I used to scan in a PDF, apply the
required "fixes", and then write it out again.
James
Erik Quaeghebeur
>>>
>>>> As I understand it, by default (i.e. if nothing is done), the ability to
>>>> anotate PDF files is disabled and has to be enabled. Its not so much that Latex
>>>> is disableing the feature, but rather it knows nothing about it and therefore
>>>> can't enable it. I think this is only possible with the latest version of
>>>> acrobat distiller. While someone may be able to work out how to enable this
>>>> feature in PDFs generated by Latex et al., its unlikely to occur for a while
>>>> (and who knows what the licensing restrictions imposed by Adobe might be).
Seeing as both the KDE team (with oKular) as the GNOME team (with Evince)
are busy on annotation-capable pdf-viewers to be ready by the end of this
year (already in SVN for KDE), I'd guess that within this and a year Adobe
will be forced to free this feature; annotations are so useful that if
others make it freely possible and Adobe wouldn't they'd lose marketshare
(KDE apps are being ported to Windows and Mac as well, so it won't be
Linux only).
Also, I think Adobe will think twice about sueing its customers over this,
that would be a marketing disaster. (Apart from this, EULA's purportedly
have questionable legal status in many places worldwide, even in the US.)
I haven't considered the possibility that annotating in the mentioned open
source programs would also only be possible after doing the stupid 'Adobe
plays the monopoly' activation procedure. That would be a bad sign for
software development.
Erik
Robin Fairbairns
>Also, I think Adobe will think twice about sueing its customers over this,
>that would be a marketing disaster. (Apart from this, EULA's purportedly
>have questionable legal status in many places worldwide, even in the US.)
they might think twice, but who knows what the second thoughts will
come up with?
>I haven't considered the possibility that annotating in the mentioned open
>source programs would also only be possible after doing the stupid 'Adobe
>plays the monopoly' activation procedure. That would be a bad sign for
>software development.
that is what software patents are for -- some of the most egregious
ones appear to say "we thought of this so you mustn't, even though
we've not implemented it and don't intend to". and some of the cases
i've been consulted about make it clear that patent agencies are happy
to grant exclusive rights to things that have been common practice for
decades.
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
Tim X
some of this patent stuff is just getting rediculous. I read somewhere a few
months back that McDonalds has obtain a patent on the 'sandwitch" and I also
read that IBM and a few Linux distro companies have banded together to form a
company (which I believe is based in New York) with the sole purpose of buying
up patents - not because they really want to, but because they need to build up
an arsenal of patents to possibly use as counter-claims and leverage against
other companies that have actually established a business out of purchasing
patents and then attemptinig to generate income through out of court
settlements.
I've been told that part of the issue is that the patent authorities just don't
have sufficient resources to adequately vet all the patent applications they
recieve, plus it isn't really their job to assess the validity of a patent -
this is interpreted as a role of the court system. The problem arises because
of the high costs that can be associated with challenging a patent - resulting
in many companies opting for an out of court settlement as a cheaper
alternative. On the other hand, large companies can often ignore patents
because they beleive the cost of losing a court case will be less than the
profits earned by 'illegally' using a patented technology. apparently MS has
done this with some of their wireless technology where the patent was clearly
owned by the CSIRO - rather than pay the royalties, MS has used the technology
knowing that it will almost certainly lose the court case as the benefits in
market share and profits will be higher than the penalties (knowing that the
CSIRO, an Australian Gov. body doesn't have the same financial resources, there
is probably also a hope that either it won't be able to fight the case to the
end or will settle for an out of court settlement that will be potentially
cheapre than if MS had tried to license the technology in the first place). I
think it was late last year that details emerged of MS support of the SCO
claims against Linux as well - it would seem that this sort of patent
bastardisation is now considered a 'normal' part of competitive business.
I saw a figure a while back that indicated between 15% and 20% of gross profits
for the average software company in the US was spent on legal costs defending
against largely bogus patent claims. The really unfortunate side of all of this
is that these companies will almost certainly try to get some of these profits
back by charging more to the end user i.e. us.
tim
Curtis R Anderson
> some of this patent stuff is just getting rediculous. I read somewhere a few
> months back that McDonalds has obtain a patent on the 'sandwitch" and I also
> read that IBM and a few Linux distro companies have banded together to form a
> company (which I believe is based in New York) with the sole purpose of buying
> up patents - not because they really want to, but because they need to build up
> an arsenal of patents to possibly use as counter-claims and leverage against
> other companies that have actually established a business out of purchasing
> patents and then attemptinig to generate income through out of court
> settlements.
This is a little off-topic, but back in the 1900s through about 1915 Ma
Bell did just about the same thing to try to kill off the independent
telephone equipment manufacturers. As best as my memory allows right
now, they went as far as sneakily buying Automatic Electric to achieve
their means. Also, The Bell System tried to lobby Congress to allow
perpetual patent rights. Fortunately, Congress and others put a stop to
it back then.
--
Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", still
"In Heaven there is no beer / That's why we drink it here ..."
http://www.gleepy.net/ mailto:gle...@intelligencia.com
mailto:gle...@gleepy.net (and others) Yahoo!: gleepythehen