Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Given the licences, nobody is prohibited to cross-collaborate. iText
> developers can send patches to FOP and viceversa, and be [VOTE]d as usual
> when the time is right.
> FOP can distribute iText jar as it's MPL, and both projects would cross-link
> in a clear way.
Advance warning: I didn't follow possible discussions on the iText list regarding this issue.
IF the integration FOP-iText is done in a way where PDF output via iText is not just an option but a replacement
for the existing PDF output - or even for the other renderers, too, then I'd say this step contradicts the intention
though not the letters of the Apache license.
Why? If FOP - under Apache license - can no longer be used for essential purposes without using an additional
component (iText) under MPL or LGPL, then in effect FOP is no longer Apache licensed, though technically
speaking it still is. This would reduce the usefulness of FOP for a (unknown, agreed) number of users while
enhancing the usefulness for others (not license-concerned users).
My personal favourite would be a FOP renderer implementation that makes use of iText. Then, time could
tell whether there are enough people interested in keeping Apache-licensed PDF output alive.
If the decision goes toward a full replacement, I'd say that at least all existing FOP committers and possibly
the major contributors to FOP should agree to this step as it - in one respect - decreases the value of their work so far.
Arnd Bei▀ner IT-Engineering
Bahnhofstr. 3, 71063 Sindelfingen, Germany
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: [PROPOSAL] FOP+iText = FOP-NG -next generation- (w... arnd . beissner
- Re: [PROPOSAL] FOP+iText = FOP-NG -next generatio... Nicola Ken Barozzi
- Re: [PROPOSAL] FOP+iText = FOP-NG -next generatio... arnd . beissner
- Re: [PROPOSAL] FOP+iText = FOP-NG -next gener... Nicola Ken Barozzi
- RE: [PROPOSAL] FOP+iText = FOP-NG -next gener... Matthias Fischer