db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Myrna van Lunteren <m.v.lunte...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Copyright clairification for fo2html.xsl in Derby software.
Date Tue, 10 Jan 2012 00:36:23 GMT
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Andrew McIntyre <mcintyre.a@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Jean T. Anderson <jtanderson@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> I did some checking and that file has been in the subversion respository
>> since April 2005, added in revision 161353 with the log message "Add single
>> page HTML output to derby doc build." -- in other words, ever since we
>> started using DITA to build the docs, so I expect it to be in all
>> distributions starting with 10.1. I'll check with Andrew next week to see if
>> he remembers more of the story around this file. Or maybe one of the other
>> committers on this list who have tweaked this file can comment?
>> In the meantime, while we untangle the story to all our satisfaction, anyone
>> who further distributes the derby product should, of course, follow the
>> advice of their lawyer. If there's any concern about this file, then one
>> option would be to omit the single book HTML file from your distribution --
>> perhaps just include the PDF file or link to the single book HTML file on
>> the apache site.
>> regards,
>>  -jean
> Hi Jean,
> We had been using this file to generate single-page HTML documentation
> for test and review during the DITA conversion since before the docs
> were contributed to Apache. I checked it in when I was moving the doc
> build machinery into Subversion. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't
> have checked it in, but when someone went to modify it is when we had
> the original discussion. There should at least be an entry for it in
> the doc-src NOTICES. I can remove the file if it's a problem though,
> as the file could be downloaded directly to the release builder's
> machine by Ant. Also, there are other, free options for converting
> PDFs to HTML files.
> - andrew

I think we should probably get rid of this file, and we should really
avoid using it altogether. Is there anyone who has the skill to
replace this file?


View raw message