I see. Thanks for the explanation. Glen
--- Finn Bock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > BTW, without divulging too much that may hurt your > > interests, would you mind explaining your > reluctance > > to just modify FOP source (replace classes, etc.) > > for what you are trying to market? Is it > licensing > > issues--or is it more for programmatic style/user > > convenience? I want to better understand your > > reluctance on this matter. > > Legally the seperation between FOP and extension > have placed a solid > wall between my opensource fop-dev work and my > commercial extension. My > client cant claim ownership of any of the fop-dev > work since the > extension didn't require *any* changes to fop. > > Commercially, trying to sell an fork of FOP in order > to sell an > extension to FOP will never fly. > > regards, > finn >
