FOP: Objects for Formatting Objects ?
 

Hi there,

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 ?

Ref:
http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/0.95/hyphenation.html#license-issues

Thanks,
--
Mathieu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

FOP: Objects for Formatting Objects ?
 

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.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

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,
--
Mathieu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org