I spent a little time on the Apache Licensing page, and didn't find
anywhere that said it was compatible (I'm not saying it isn't
compatible, just that I didn't see anything that said it was... in
the 5 minutes I looked). As for the rest of the licensing stuff, I
don't know. But the answer may be on the Apache Licensing page
In any case, I suspect other FOP-dev codies will have more to say
about the whole prospect of working together. I just thought I'd get
the ball rolling a bit.
On Mar 9, 2006, at 7:39 PM, Ben Litchfield wrote:
I am glad to hear this sounds like a possibility.
PDFBox is currently licensed under the BSD license. I did not
initially envision a change in licensing, but I am open to
possibilities if necessary. Is there a reason it would need to
It is my understanding that Apache projects can utilize projects
that are BSD licensed. Is it possible for the existing FOP pdf
classes to become part of PDFBox under the BSD license?
Clay Leeds wrote:
On Mar 9, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Ben Litchfield wrote:
I am the main developer of PDFBox, an open source(BSD) PDF library.
FOP contains PDF library functionality(specifically classes in
org.apache.fop.pdf.*) and PDFBox is a PDF library. Because they do
very similar things they contain a lot of overlapping code, but
package in FOP has some features that PDFBox does not and PDFBox has
some features that the FOP pdf package does not.
I propose that classes in FOP's package be 'merged' into the PDFBox
library and FOP utilize PDFBox for PDF functionality.
Thank you for your interest, Ben. Although I don't speak for
everyone, it does look intriguing to me. You may want to clarify
how you envision PDFBox will be licensed (would this be a software
license grant?). I don't know the details on the BSD license.
Also, I assume you would provide a software license grant and fill
out a CLA.
My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
-- HH Dalai Lama of Tibet