Nearly a year ago, we published a blog on the developments in iText licensing: namely, that iText had changed ownership hands and that the new entity – Apryse – was aggressively going after iText users for allegedly past due licensing fees. As part of our mission to keep our clients and colleagues up to date on software licensing trends and developments, we are taking this opportunity to revisit the Apryse/iText saga and provide important updates. In this past year, we have counseled numerous licensees who are on the receiving end of Apryse’s aggressions and, from our experiences, the update is straight forward: Apryse is still at it, and yes, they are as serious as can be.
As we recounted back in October 2024, Apryse is best viewed and understood as a software licensing troll, an entity formed to exploit the intellectual capital supplied by copyrights and monetize licenses without regard for business relations with customers. As far back as 2019, PDFTron received a $71M investment from Silversmith Capital Partners, a Boston-based growth equity firm that at that time had $1.1 billion of capital under management. In 2021, PDFTron received a “strategic growth investment” from Thoma Bravo, a private equity investment firm focused on the software sector (referred to by some as an “acquisition”).
In 2022, PDFTron acquired iText, a library for creating and manipulating PDF files in Java and .NET. In February 2023, PDFTron rebranded itself as “Apryse.” By this time, Apryse was over 50% staffed by employees of acquired companies.
As time has told us again and again, once software companies are controlled by venture capital, their primary goal is to increase short-term profits. And, in our experience, this usually means targeting existing licensees.
At its most basic, iText is a library used for the creation and altering of PDF files. iText is nominally open source and has been licensed for free pursuant to the GNU Affero General Public License (“AGPL”) since approximately 2009. Apryse also offers iText pursuant to a commercial model for companies that, in their words, “cannot comply with the AGPLv3 terms.” Apryse refers to this as a “dual-license” model.
And, as we previously stated, this model is anything but clear. And what exactly are these terms? Among other things, the AGPL mandates that users who “modify” the program “must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software.”
The Free Software Foundation’s sprawling FAQ gives some murky guidance on the strictures of the AGPL, but how it translates to practice is uncertain. If you listen to Apryse, the strictures are near-absolute. For example, Apryse asserts that “You may not deploy [iText] on a network without disclosing the full source code of your own applications under the AGPL license. You must distribute all source code, including your own product and web-based applications.”
While you should not accept statements on Apryse’s website as the final authority on the terms of the AGPL, this does provide insight into how it intends the contract to be applied. Still, the bottom line is clear. Do not be duped by notions of “open source” and “freely available.” As Apryse will be the first to tell you, “Free” means free of charge, not free of obligation.
As we stated previously, the open questions are numerous and, in our experience, they have yet to be answered satisfactorily. To recap:
A lot remains to be resolved regarding licensing pursuant to the AGPL. For example, what constitutes a “modification”? If there is a modification, how much proprietary code must be published to meet the terms of the AGPL? (Licensees should consider whether they concur with Apryse’s position that “all” source code “including your own product and web-based applications” must be made publicly available.) What are the legal consequences, if any, for breach of a “free” license? What is the status of Apryse’s copyrights in the historic iterations of iText?
While there is relatively little being written online about Apryse/iText licensing, we were browsing a Reddit forum where a user recommended that companies “Ignore them.” Another commenter in the same thread suggested it was comparable to the infamous “Weblistings Mail Scam.”
While we have sharp words and opinions for troll-like behavior, we must draw the line here and stress that this is NOT a scam. To be clear, Apryse often comes brandishing pdfs with footers indicating past use by the target licensee. Further, there is a license in place – the AGPL – and it does have some concerning restrictions/requirements on use of the software. And, while we cannot account for every instance, it has been our experience that Apryse does NOT go away if you ignore them. In fact, ignoring any legitimate vendor is often the surest way to allow them to turn a middling claim into a material one.
As with the Patent Trolls that reigned supreme in the 90s, troll-like behavior may merely be nettlesome in some instances; however, it can be a serious threat in others. To wit, as we said in our previous post, trolls are disinclined to invest serious time in individual matters. However, this does not necessarily mean they are litigation adverse.
Bottom line? Do not let Apryse – or any other vendor – turn your company into an appetizing target.
***
For further reading on software license trolls, please see our webinars, podcasts, blog posts and articles sounding the alarms about this stealth market phenomenon. As always, we recommend securing the guidance of experienced licensing counsel.
Please do not hesitate to contact us for further guidance on Apryse/iText and software licensing trolls in general.
Published on September 23, 2025
Software licensors are known for vague contracts—they’ve made a business of it.
Read the latest industry news.
