PDF problems: Any way to evade installation of Adobe Reader? Urgent.
I am a member!
Hello everybody!
For my application for scientific funding I need to view and edit a PDF document that apparently is designed for Adobe Reader only. I have saved a local copy and opened the document with the following readers:
- Evince
- xpdf
- qpdfview
- gv
- MuPDF
- Okular
With all of them, there is only an empty page with a note that Adobe Reader is necessary in order to view the document. Okular gives the following error message: "This document has XFA forms, which are currently unsupported."
Which are my options? Using software provided with Trisquel, is there any way to view this document, fill in the forms, save the changes, and upload it on the application website in such a way that the people at the institution can read and process the document? (They probably use the Adobe software.) If not, I would need to use the Adobe Reader, but how could I install it in Trisquel?
This is an urgent call because the application deadline is approaching in about four weeks' time, and I'd like to be way ahead of deadlines.
Thanks in advance.
Florian
That's indeed a difficult case to solve. I hope some free/libre software
can support XFA forms (either by volunteer work, or by development made
by people hired to implement such feature). If someone knows a reader
that supports these forms, please reply to this topic.
I don't know much about PDF (and all variants, because there is no "one
PDF standard"), but perhaps you can make use of the `drop_xfa` option of
the pdftk software. I don't know how to use it though, because I don't
have any experience or knowledge about it.
For me, the best "PDF standard" is the PDF/A-1, because it provides less
problems to free/libre software activists. Evince (the default document
viewer) can probably tell which standard that document is using.
With this in mind, there are also less demanding approaches at your
side, the idea of these approaches is to tell the provider of the PDF
document to fix the issue himself, otherwise forget the application:
- Demand the provider of the document to fix the issues, and/or provide
a PDF/A-1 document.
- Drop the application if he fails to respect that demand.
--
- [[https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno]]
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre, por isso não uso. Iguais a ele prefiro
GNU Ring, ou Tox. Quer outras formas de contato? Adicione o vCard
que está no endereço acima aos teus contatos.
- Pretende me enviar arquivos .doc, .ppt, .cdr, ou .mp3? OK, eu
aceito, mas não repasso. Entrego apenas em formatos favoráveis ao
/software/ livre. Favor entrar em contato em caso de dúvida.
That's DRM. It's not possible to open it with libre software.
You should complain to whoever sent that to you. In the complaint, explain that you had to do the following (and this is what I'd suggest you do):
1. Find someone else who uses a computer with Adobe Reader on it. Ask them to borrow their computer for a short while.
2. On this other person's computer, open the DRM-encumbered PDF in Adobe Reader, then "print" the document to a file. Put that file onto your USB drive (or SD card, or whatever) and transport it to your own computer.
3. Open the "printed" file from your computer and print it for real.
4. Fill out the forms by hand.
5. Use a scanner to re-convert your filled-out forms to images.
6. Paste the images into LibreOffice Draw. Export a new PDF. Send this PDF in.
Also, be sure to include details of any difficulties you had at any one of these steps. This will illustrate just how much of a burden they are causing by putting handcuffs onto PDFs.
If they ask why you didn't "just" use this other person's computer to fill out the forms, tell them that you refuse to send DRM-encumbered files out of principle, and secondarily (if this is true) that this would hardly have made the job easier anyway.
If they tell you that they won't accept a PDF with an image of a hand-filled page, tell them that you will gladly fill out the PDF normally if they send a version that can be viewed on your computer.
If they offer to help you install Adobe Reader, explain that you refuse to put avoidable proprietary software on your computer.
Onpon4's suggestion works too, and I also second the suggestion to
describe in every detail complaining to the sender of that PDF file and
showing how much burden they made you go through --- provided you are
indeed going to use such burdensome way. :)
"If they ask why you didn't "just" use this other person's computer to fill out the forms, tell them that you refuse to send DRM-encumbered files out of principle, and secondarily (if this is true) that this would hardly have made the job easier anyway."
I really think the burden should be on the developers, sellers, bundlers, and users of proprietary software, formats, and DRM to justify their imposition of encumbrances on others, NOT on everyone else to justify ourselves. So the proper response to the question above is to immediately ask why the person didn't "just" use free software and/or a non-DRM'd file, instead of imposing unjust restrictions and hassles on other people.
> So the proper response to the question above is to immediately ask why the person didn't "just" use free software and/or a non-DRM'd file, instead of imposing unjust restrictions and hassles on other people.
This is a confrontational response, not particularly likely to be productive, and there might actually be an answer even if it's not a good one. Besides, you can't change the past. Your goal should be to convince whoever is responsible to not do it again in the future, not to tell them that they should feel guilty.
In fact, I would argue that you should make sure that you don't accuse anyone specific of responsibility. If there is reasonable doubt that you know who is responsible for something bad, then that person may reflect on that and decide to change their behavior in the future so that they don't get caught out next time. But if you specifically say something about them, like "you were wrong to do X", then they are more likely to be defensive, come up with justifications, and resist change. Basically, it hardens their heart.
So, to clarify, I think you should criticize the action very harshly, but never accuse a specific person of performing that action. You should speak as if the person you are talking to would never do such a thing, and you have no idea who did it. Heck, maybe even accusing Adobe Reader of doing that by default, or suggesting that some unnamed person must have lied to them. Pretty much anything to avoid making them, or any other specific named individual, into an enemy.
The confrontation and harshness began with the question asking why you didn't "just" use someone else's computer, as if it's OK for others to impose burdens and one should just put up with it.
At the very least, the person who BEGAN that tone should be made to realize how they sound, by some means, if not by using the same tone on them. Maybe they should worry about hardening our hearts, or treating US as an enemy.
Fighting fire with fire just burns the forest down even faster.
Or put another way, just because someone else started it does not mean it is smart for you to continue it.
I'm in the US and routinely apply for grants through grants.gov, since almost all federal funding agencies (except the NSF, as far as I know) use it. In my experience there is no other way but to use adobe reader. So i boot into windows and do it there. If enough of us complain, especially if we coordinate, we may have some luck, some day (probably under a different administration). Cooperative agreements (a type of smaller research grant) from the US Dept of Agriculture also require the use of as adobe reader, btw.
It might be worth getting in touch with the Code.gov team, and ask if they can get permission to modify grants.gov so it works sanely regardless of the OS being used. A process like applying for government funding should never require a person to use the proprietary product of one company, unless there is a *very* good reason. I wouldn't worry too much about the administration either. This is the sort of public service level stuff that rarely becomes politicized enough to come to the attention of Congress or the President's staff.
https://code.gov/
I am a member!
Thank you, everyone, for your swift replies and support in this issue.
I have chosen not to fight for software freedom. I appreciate the Trisquel project and I feel honored to use the software some of you guys provide. (That's the reason why I am a member.) However, I am not a developer but a medical doctor and also a medical communications researcher. I neither have the resources nor the knowledge to engage in the fight as some of you have suggested. That's why I'm looking for a pragmatic solution: I use a friend's computer to connect to the internet and, yes, I'm also using Acrobat because obviously the organization I apply with uses complex PDF forms to organize their applications. I don't feel responsible to change their policy.
However, I've already started to consider changing the distro -- back to Ubuntu, or to LinuxMint. The alternative would be to re-install Windows on my computer and have it parallel to Trisquel as /forest/ has suggested. (I just need to do the work I need to do, and I would like to cooperate with the non-free software world.) What are your thoughts on this matter? Which way would be a better support for free software development?
ADFENO, I think your suggestion to drop the application unless the organization "cooperates" is a little misplaced in this context. Would you change career plans because your operating system is not able to process a file you need to submit? Or could you provide me with an alternative funding of around 2,500 EUR for active participation in an international conference (30%-chance of getting the fund, that is) which I can apply for with free software?
Hope to read from you guys. Best regards
Florian
> However, I am not a developer but a medical doctor and also a medical communications researcher. I neither have the resources nor the knowledge to engage in the fight as some of you have suggested.
The libre software movement is never going to get anywhere if the only people who work toward it are software developers. Besides, you don't need to do everything. Just making it clear that the DRM they are using in these forms is unwelcome would be sufficient. More likely than not, DRM is being used because of ignorance or a misguided idea about "security", not malice. If enough people inform them of the problem, they may stop using the DRM. But it's pretty much guaranteed that no software developers will be doing this, because it's very unlikely that any software developer would also engage in scientific research. So if everyone in your position just decides to do nothing because they aren't software developers, then it's just not going to be solved.
> I just need to do the work I need to do, and I would like to cooperate with the non-free software world.
That's why you should make it clear that someone is getting in the way of you doing your work. Putting DRM on forms you need to fill out is not cooperative. It's obstructive.
In my experience, documents with XFA forms usually work in Okular. They give a warning, but you can still fill in the forms, though they can't be saved in the document (Okular stores them in its dotfiles). I just print to PDF from Okular, which generally works fine.
Also, I don't know why onpon4 mentioned DRM. XFA is a proprietary format for PDF forms, but it has nothing to do with DRM.
And I would not change career plans because of an XFA form. If all else fails, just use somebody else's computer.
> XFA is a proprietary format for PDF forms, but it has nothing to do with DRM.
Yes... and it also has nothing to do with the problem:
> there is only an empty page with a note that Adobe Reader is necessary in order to view the document.
This is what happens when a PDF is encumbered with Acrobat Reader's DRM feature. The presence or absence of XFA forms is irrelevant.
A day I bought a DRMed book, that really got me fckd. I remember that I unshitted the book by running some python script. So, DRM in pdf is breckable.
I am a member!
It occured to me that I want to use a less judgmental wording:
> ADFENO, I think your suggestion to drop the application unless the organization "cooperates" is /unrealistic/ in my context.
Indeed, the suggestions I gave might be unrealistic depending on
peoples' context.
Thankfully, as others have pointed out, you don't have to install
non-free software in order to do it, because you can borrow others'
computers to do it. But, as others suggested, make sure to tell the
provider of such faulty documents how DRM is problematic.
Also, depending on which organization you work for, there might be a way
to get the funds you suggested for guving speeches about free/libre
software. I found this to be common if one works for organizations
related to free/libre software activism.
Anatom, we help identify problems like these by being users of a 100% free software distro. A user of an OS that hacks around these problems by compromising with unnecessary, externally-imposed demands for proprietary software would never realize that the problem exists. I understand that your #1 priority is to get your own work done, as with any person using a computer, and nobody here will judge you for doing that (or if they do, that's their issue, not yours).
However, OnPon is suggesting that as well as going through whatever work around is required to get though this application, you document that workaround, and offer this documentation to the person who supplied you with the DRM-crippled PDF. The problem cannot possibly be fixed until there is awareness that the problem exists. By describing the problem, in a technical, non-judgemental way, you make sure that the people in a position to fix the problem at least become aware of the problem.
Now, who knows, they might immediately apologise, and set to work changing their processes so its works with only free code software. If they don't, that's when you have to decide whether or not you want to take on a fight for software freedom. You don't have to do that. But many tiny, soft drops of water, hitting the same spot persistently enough, can dissolve even the hardest stone. If they get the same feedback from enough free code software users, they may decide to change their process. If not, when someone eventually decides to take on the fight to get the process changed, at least if won't be the first time the organisation has heard about the problem.
I wonder if they are aware of the issue at all. It seems they take it for granted that Adobe's offerings are the only way to go.
I think they should be told that there are people out there who cannot access their grants on other systems. If they are going to make changes to the system by this December, it would be a good time to urge them to reconsider the software.
https://grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/download-application-package.html
What does it mean they are going to "phase out the legacy pdf application method"?
See the Apply for Grants page and Workspace Overview page. These pages provide instructions on the general application process and completing an application on Grants.gov using Workspace. If you plan to download and apply using the legacy PDF application method, please be aware this will be phased out in December 2017. Refer to the Grants.gov Notices page for more details. Before downloading, you need to ensure your Adobe software version is compatible with Grants.gov.
https://grants.gov/web/grants/outreach/grants-gov-notices.html
I am a member!
Thanks for your comments and suggestions!
Especially onpon4's, ADFENO's and strypey's points made me reconsider my role in this software issue and I decided to write to the technical support team. You will find a translation of my inquiry below.
Please note that I'm not in the US and I'm not applying to a US funding organization but with the DAAD, the German Academic Exchange Service.
This is my inquiry, and I'll let you know about responses.
-----
Dear Sir or Madam,
Recently I applied for a DAAD grant. In doing so, I encountered serious problems with handling the "DAAD general application form."
This PDF document can be opened and edited with Adobe Reader only, according to your technical documentation and according to my experiences. However, this software is no longer available for me as a GNU/Linux user. (Development and support for Linux were dropped in 2013.) Each of the PDF applications available to me displayed the following error message: "To view the full contents of this document, you need a later version of the PDF viewer. You can upgrade to the latest version of Adobe Reader from www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html For further support, go to www.adobe.com/support/products/acrreader.html" I suspect that some feature of Adobe's Digital Rights Management is activated in this application form which prevents editing with other software.
Eventually, I could not find a way to apply for one of your grants using my GNU/Linux system. In order to submit my application, I had to use a Windows system of somebody else twice. This took me about three hours longer than without this issue.
I assume your intentions are not to exclude us GNU/Linux users from applications with your institution. However, such applications are quite difficult for us and need more time, and depend on other people's computers. I think this is unjustified. Do you see any possibility to create your PDF forms and documents in such a way that theyw can be edited by GNU/Linux users in the future?
Best regards
[name, address]
Sehr toll!
Thank you very much for your support and participation against DRM! :)
If they reply back and question what is the problem exactly, tell them
that the true cause of the problem is the usage of DRM. This is
important because otherwise they might think that it's only a matter of
"software compatibility", when it's clearly beyond that. :)
I am a member!
The DAAD has sent me a swift reply. Here is my translation [I am communicating with them in German. Also my inquiry posted above is my translation from the German]:
------
Dear Mr. [my name]
Unfortunately the person responsible for the DAAD web portal is on vacation leave. However, I can assure you that we are always eager to provide forms for all web browsers and operating systems. Why it didn't work out well in your case I can't tell because I lack the expertise in this issue.
Additionally, we have begun to work for a replacement of the PDF form technology used so far, so that, hopefully, you will encounter less technical trouble with your next application.
I wish you the best for your applications.
Best regards
signature
I suggest to tell them that we already know the problem: DRM. This is
not a question of which software is used, this is a question of the very
existance of DRM in that document.
PDFs are great, provided they are made without DRM and that they are in
the PDF/A-1 standard, so I would suggest them to stay with PDF, in
PDF/A-1 standard. However, most users don't know how to generate PDFs
compliant with PDF/A-1 in Microsoft and Adobe software, because the
users aren't instructed/taught on how to do so. Even so, I'm unable to
tell how to do so in these software, specially because these are
non-free software, and we shouldn't teach usage of non-free software
([[https://www.gnu.org/education/education.html]]).
If they are thinking about "another way" of providing the application
form, I hope they make it into a .odt (OpenDocument Text), .ott
(OpenDocument Text Template) or a simple HTML + CSS form (no JavaScript).
I remember when I ordered a book in pdf format, it has DRM. So i could open it only with Adobe's reader, limited times, and only at one registered computer. I found a python script that removes that DRM from you pdf, and yes I could open my bought pdf times I wanted with any pdf reader.
You could try to convert it with calibre to some other format (maybe even pdf to pdf).