--- On Thu, 6/30/11, Kai Ahrens <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Kai Ahrens <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code > To: [email protected] > Cc: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, June 30, 2011, 2:47 AM > Hi, > > Am 29.06.2011 23:05, schrieb Pedro F. Giffuni: > > Hi again; > > > > I went through Mathias' list of external source > tarballs. > > The idea is to make sure that most of that stuff was > updated > > in FreeBSD and while doing that I checked the > licenses. > > > > I found the following licenses missing from the > > "ApacheMigration" list in the OOo wiki: > > > > Name > Version license > > __________ > > gdk-pixbuf > 2.23.5 LGPL > > gettext > 1.18.1 LGPL > > pixman > 0.22.0 MIT? > > === > > libgsf > 1.14.21 > > All above mentioned libs/modules as well as the following > ones have been introduced for the OOO340 release branch in > order to get > SVG support based on librsvg: > > libpng-1.5.1 > glib-2.28.1 > pango-1.28.3 > libcroco-0.6.2 > librsvg-2.32.1 > > The modules itself just contain the necessary patches to > build and pack > those external libs during an OOo build. > Most of those libraries tend to depend on the version of gnome/kde that the distribution carries so ultimately the values tend to be only for reference. > As already said, the first ASF release of OOo wont't rely > on librsvg anymore, but most probably will use 'Apache > Batik' as rendering backend for SVG content. Since there's > no build dependency and even no static runtime dependency > to librsvg (and in consequence to the other libs), > the above mentioned libs/modules should be removed from the > ASF sources of OOo. > YES! Working with other Apache projects is greatly encouraged, and it's also frequently desirable for licensing sanity. I am looking a bit at PDFBox, which will also be interesting to bring in, and it depends on bouncycastle, a java replacement for nss, so that may solve yet another license issue. cheers, Pedro.
