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
> > > FOP for a (unknown, agreed) number of users while
> > > enhancing the usefulness for others
> > > (not license-concerned users).
> >
> > I fail to see how this reduces usefulness.
>
> 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.
Apache is very clear in the licencing terms.
*GPL libraries cannot be distributed by Apache. So this rules them out. The
iText developer are maing it possible now to redistribute the jar with the
MPL license only.
AFAIK, MPL is compatible with APL. Which means that the MPL -jar- can be
used in *every* condition in which APL -code- or -jars- are used. Who cannot
use MPL jars in APL code?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I cannot come up with an example.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
