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. CC-ing to fedora-devel-java-list Surely there must be a GPL-friendly PNG handler in Java somewhere? How hard would it be to rewrite this part of FOP? What's the status of getting a natively-compiled FOP into Fedora?
