From: Matthias Fischer
> My company, for instance, would have to stop using FOP;
> we would not even take the time to go into studying legal
> aspects, because, as a medium-sized company, we
> don't have the time and money and personnel to do this...
I think you are exaggerating a bit.
Are you u
If n persons are using FOP now and some
of these can no longer use FOP
because a part of FOP they need has a license they can't use, then
I'd say this reduces FOPs usefulness for
these "some" persons, despite being more useful to others. Arnd Beissner --Arnd
Beißner IT-Engineer
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Technically, it's very tempting to do what you propose. In fact,
technically,
> I'm all for it. Let's just be aware that the license problem is not only a
> philosophical issue.
Of course. I think we agree.
And as for this:
> > > This would reduce the usefulness of
>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>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
c
From: "Peter B. West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Nicola,
>
> I think there are a few issues to be considered here. Essentially, what
> is FOP?
Good point.
> There may be a number of requirements of an XSL-FO processor. The basic
> one is, "Show me this on a page or screen." Any kind of renderer,
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] FOP+iText = FOP-NG -next generation- (was:
merging two libraries)
I'm wondering if marying FOP +iText would sacrifice the
-awt -print -ps options. (Same question for -text, but i'm
personally not interested in that.)
At 10:58 AM 3/13/02, you wrote
I say do it.
After using FOP for a while now and always having a problem with the
embedded fonts, I thought I would try iText. The iText was able to
handle the embedded fonts without any trouble at all. It seems that at
least in this area iText is much stronger than FOP.
The use of fo, for us, i
I'm wondering if marying FOP +iText would sacrifice the
-awt -print -ps options. (Same question for -text, but i'm
personally not interested in that.)
At 10:58 AM 3/13/02, you wrote:
>
>Given what has been said on the mailing lists of FOP and iText, and given
>the current scope of the two projec
