On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 11:41 -0500, Tommy Reynolds wrote: > Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster@xxxxxxxxx>, spake thus: > > > There was some list traffic about this several times in the not-too- > > distant past... I can't remember the content of all the discussions, but > > the idea of whether to use FOP was definitely tossed around. Could > > anyone with some time and inclination check the archives and try to > > summarize the discussions here? Or is that unnecessary? If someone > > were to do that, I would put a page up on the wiki in an agreeable place > > (and with an agreeable name) just so we have a reference point. > > The concern was that FOP needed some non-GPL assistance to render > some graphic content. Specifically, FOP can render BMP, EPS, GIF, > JPEG and TIFF files without any assistance. With JIMI or JAI (which > are not GPL'ed), PNG can be rendered. With BATIK, also an Apache > product, SVG files can also be rendered. > > None of the non-free assistant packages are included or distributed > with FOP. FOP will notice these add-ons if present, but will work > without them, with the only caveat being PNG input will not work. > > The official details are at http://xml.apache.org/fop/graphics.html, > for those who are interested. Thanks for the recall, Tommy... yes, I think we would have definitely had a hurdle there. Since FDP lives under the overarching Fedora Project, we need to abide by the goals and strategies thereof. That includes a 100% free docs path just like the 100% free software path. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
