Andrew McIntyre wrote: > On 2/28/06, Jean T. Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Info needs to be added to the derby/docs/trunk documenting where files >>came from outside the ASF. >> >>What's the history behind fo2html.xsl getting committed to the Derby >>repo? I keep thinking I should know that, but I'm drawing a blank. Also, >>lib/dita2fo-shell.xsl is from the DITA toolkit, which is under the ASL >>license, but that isn't readily apparent from looking at that file in >>the Derby repo. >> >>I'm not suggesting anything is wrong, but it's important to track where >>files came from and the licenses in effect for them. > > > Sorry it's taken me so long to follow up on this, it took me a while > to find the original post to fop-user from which I found this. The > file itself was linked from a site posted to the FOP users lists > asking about how to turn XML-FO into html: > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlgraphics-fop-users/200503.mbox/[EMAIL > PROTECTED] > > I never agreed to a license to get the file, and in the file itself, > which I got from the site linked in the original mail to fop-user, it > is clearly marked "Permission to copy and modify is granted, provided > this notice is included" and then attributes authorship. Essentially > an ultra-brief BSD license, this statement appears in 4 different > identical copies of the file that I've found online, so it appears to > be the original document. Certainly "permission to copy and modify" is > sufficient to be allowed to put it in the repo? > > The file is also freely available from a half dozen other sites > related to FOP, and in a half dozen other open source repositories, > including at least three CVS trees at sourceforge alone. If you're > still concerned, though, despite the fact that the file is clearly > marked "Permission to copy and modify, etc." then do please remove it. > I'll subsequently disable the "HTML Book" builds for the docs.
Did fop commit this file to their asf repo? or do they just provide instructions on where to obtain it? If FOP includes it, no problem, we just get it from FOP and cite that in a NOTICES file that we add to the doc trunk. If FOP doesn't include it, it would be interesting to understand why. -jean
