Within copyright law, there is a distinction between idea and the expression of that idea. The idea itself is not subject to copyright protection, but only the expression is.
When an idea can only be expressed in one (or a very limited number) way, then the Merger doctrine states that the idea and the expression are one and the same and that the expression ...
Regardless of how you remove the class, this is a modification of the work under license, and can be done only in full compliance with the license of the libraries.
While this might seem absurd, let me illustrate with a more concrete but hypothetical example why it is so:
Imagine you are the director of a museum. The museum gets the copy of a wonderful ...
What this author has signed in not a Contributor License Agreement, giving the project additional (non-exclusive) rights in addition to what they get under the AGPL, but a transfer of copyrights (CTA, Copyright Transfer Agreement).
This means that the AGPL project owns the copyrights on the contribution and the author has just as many rights as anyone else ...
The author has the copyright, so he can relicense from the license point of view.
But the CLA is not a license, but a contract. And you need to read the contract to know what it allows and what not.
One possiblity is, that the contributor signed that he will not license the code other than to the company the CLA is for or AGPL for the general public.
Short answer: Migrate to OpenPdf, it will fix the issues of iText 2.1.7 and it is open source and up to date.
You cannot use iText open source 2.1.7 because of IP/license issues of the code fragments in the code.