Combine FOP PDFBox efforts?

2006-03-09 Thread Ben Litchfield
Hello all, 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 the pdf package in

Re: Combine FOP PDFBox efforts?

2006-03-09 Thread Clay Leeds
On Mar 9, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Ben Litchfield wrote: Hello all, 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

Re: Combine FOP PDFBox efforts?

2006-03-09 Thread Ben Litchfield
Hi Clay, 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 change? It is my understanding that Apache

Re: Combine FOP PDFBox efforts?

2006-03-09 Thread Clay Leeds
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

Re: Combine FOP PDFBox efforts?

2006-03-09 Thread Manuel Mall
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