Several open-source alternatives already exist. All are powered by pdf-lib, with the first two also utilizing PyMuPDF.

- BentoPDF (12.3k stars): https://github.com/alam00000/bentopdf

- PDFCraft (3.6k stars): https://github.com/PDFCraftTool/pdfcraft

- PDFLince (31 stars): https://github.com/GSiesto/pdflince

Since this project likely uses the same stack, I’m not sure what the selling point of a more limiting product is.

Well, if you aren't a developer you're not going install a PDF editor by going to GitHub, especially if having a desktop app means downloading the code yourself. Also, all of these you listed were created within the last 6 months, which is after when BreezePDF was initially created anyways. Lots of options out there, everyone can choose however they see fit!

Just for competitive reference, note that e.g. BentoPDF has a website as well, not just a GitHub repo: https://www.bentopdf.com/

Yes, but not a desktop app that doesn't require downloading the code from GitHub

These aren't real arguments for/against your project. The body is also AI generated. I do not see a reason why I would want to try out your version, seeing as you don't care about writing a welcoming body.

I'm not sure what you mean by "body"

Related: My FOSS tool allows uploading PDF files to a private server for annotating within a browser. Annotations are saved server-side in JSON format, which can be viewed and modified by anyone with the URL.

https://repo.autonoma.ca/repo/notanexus/blob/HEAD/README.md

The software uses PHP and PDF.js for displaying and annotating. Screenshot:

https://i.ibb.co/gL39qGdc/notanexus.png

This is not related. This is self-promotion and contributes little to OP's show. Poor form..

I take that back it does contribute since I realize OP's is paid and yours is FOSS

"You've used all 3 free downloads this month" much free very no signup

There is no sign up required to use it for the 3 free downloads (unlike many other PDF products).

this doesn't make it a free editor. in the EU, you could probably be sued for using that wording: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...

you're likely a founder or employee posting about your commercial product. and what you post can be classified as misleading commercial practice. so in theory, yes. in practice - who knows. your website copy also claims: "no signup required" which is false, don't you think?

It's not false at all. You don't have to sign up to use the product. No sign up doesn't mean no limitations.

I usually go for https://simplepdf.com/ (gets the job done, files never leave the browser either).

If you try BreezePDF, feel free to give feedback!

>This will use 1 of your free monthly downloads. You have 3 remaining.

If this is in [my] browser, why should I pay?

If I go to the grocery store and I grab bananas off the shelf, they're already in my hand, so why should I pay?

you should pay because you did not build it. same as how you pay for a burger that digests in your intestines

souvlakee should vibe code his own clone of BreezePDF and perhaps open source it for the community for free.

Problem solved.

People regularly pay for software that runs on their machine.

Not interested in using a tool like this unless it's open source and we can verify it is privacy respecting

You can simply open the network requests and verify for yourself. Or download the desktop version

Is this any different from your other submission of the same tool[0] or simply a duplicate?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43880962

Last year there were a couple features, but it was pretty limited. In the year since, I've added a ton more features, created desktop app and CLI. So it was a major overhaul since last time, which is why I posted it again

The HN rule is that a repost of a past submission is a dupe if it last had significant attention and discussion in the preceding 12 months.

The exception is that if it is a major upgrade, such that it is effectively a new/different product.

If this is the case, you need make it clear in your introduction post, how that is the case. You should reference the previous post ("Hey HN, we posted this project here a few months ago and at that time the state of the app was ___". Since then we've added ____, changed ____ and removed ____").

If you can write an intro like that and if the community agrees it's sufficiently changed, it can have some more front page time (because the discussion can be substantially different from what it was last time).

Understood. Yes, it was a major upgrade since last time, where then it only had maybe 6/7 features. Now it has nearly 40, plus desktop and a CLI.

I updated the intro, is if sufficient to be unmarked as dup? Thanks

I sent an email to the HN email with the updated description since time expired to update it myself. Take a look, thanks!

That was 10 months ago!!!

Looks nice.

Redacting text seems to actually work. However, editing existing text results in both the original text and the edited version being shown in the PDF after download.

(The page downloads mupdf (WASM) for rendering the PDF. When "downloading" (= saving) the PDF, the page first checks whether the allowed three downloads have been reached via a POST request (no PDF data uploaded), then it downloads PyIodide and some Python wheels (pdfrw, defusedxml) before creating the PDF file.

Isn't MuPDF AGPL assuming that BreezePDF is open source in compliance of this license?

I believe AGPL'd software cannot be sold without a license unless there is full disclosure of the source code.

If that is the case, the OP is likely in violation of MuPDF's AGPL license if he is selling and distributing binaries without contacting sales.

The MuPDF part is separated from the rest of the code as a completely separate file communicated to over web workers, so the separation means the rest of the code does not need to be open source.

So that is not correct workaround at all for AGPL licenses. By moving the MuPDF logic into a Web Worker, you are still providing a "modified version" of the program to the user to interact with. The "separation" via a Web Worker does not change the fact that the user is interacting with a system that includes AGPL-licensed code.

Exactly.

It is a clear AGPL license violation without contacting the MuPDF sales team.

If the OP doesn't want to contact the sales team, it should be open source.

Thanks! Looking into text removal issue, fixing now.

Yes, PDF data is never uploaded to the servers. It's the entire reason I created the project, after seeing the all the main results you see when you search on Google upload your data to their servers.

Btw this is fixed now!

Bit bummed to see many posts pitching their own products (often paid) rather than give OP feedback which is the spirit of a ShowHN. There should be a blanket policy of disallowing that.

Tried to convert to docx, got failed to import js module error.

CC hasn't caught this :p

Sorry about that! Fixing now

my goto -> pdf24

If you try BreezePDF, feel free to give feedback!