> Keiron Liddle writes:
> >
> > That sounds like a good suggestion.
> >
> > To start with I think we should consider only this:
> > FOP behaves exactly the same but instead of having its own pdf
> > code then iText is used as a library to generate pdf.
> >
> > So the questions are:
> > - is the license useable
> I did a little search and I found people saying that
> MPL is compatible with the Apache license and others
> saying it isn't. My main concern is that I don't want
> a license that allows my employer to prevent me from
> distributing the code I write at my work for free.
> I don't know if the Apache License is strict enough
> to ensure me that.

The Apache licen(c|s)e makes the code available for any use as long as due
credit is given.
No reference is given to availability of the source code of the
If you modify Apache licen(c|s)e code, you can keep the modifications for
yourself, as long as you give due credit.

If the code is to ask to become an Apache project, the source code *must* be
Apache licen(c|s)e 1.1.
If not, it can be still used by FOP as a jar if the licen(c|s)e permits its
distribution with Apache software-code.

> > - is the api sufficient for FOP to use
> I don't know, but we can always fill the gaps.


Nicola Ken Barozzi                   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
            - verba volant, scripta manent -
   (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to