[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FOP: Objects for Formatting Objects ?

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> Mathieu Malaterre <mathieu.malaterre@gmail.com> writes:
>>   I am reading:
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=526092#20
>>   Could someone please let me know why exactly fop-hyph.jar cannot be
>> included as a debian package ? LPPL is technically allowed in debian,
>> right ?
> That bug was closed, so I'm not quite sure what you're referencing.  Maybe
> that it only allowed one to configure a path to the JAR and the JAR isn't
> included in the package directly?
> In general, there's nothing wrong with including a JAR in a Debian package
> *if* we have source and the source is under a DFSG license.  A JAR is
> roughly the Java equivalent of a compiled library, though, so you can't
> just drop a JAR file into a package without having the source, except in
> some very strange situations (such as if the JAR were hand-crafted and is
> the only source available).  Also, as a library, it's generally best to
> package JARs separately and then have everything that uses them depend on
> that package rather than copying them into every package and having to
> update every package if they change.

Let me rephrase into:

"If you do not manually install the fop-hyph.jar it renders the whole
fop package unusable. It fails with error like: SEVERE: Couldn't find
hyphenation pattern en"

Therefore the only reason why someone would leave a debian package
into an unusable form, is AFAIK because of a licensing issue. I could
not find the usual ITP for OFFO where someone says: you cannot upload
because of license.
So I am asking here, if I am missing anything obvious before opening
an ITP/RFP for OFFO...

Thanks again,

Reply to: