openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Malte Timmermann <>
Subject Re: A first try to remove some copyleft components from the build
Date Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:16:20 GMT
Wrt PDF Import Extension, and similar extensions: Optional extensions 
should not be part of a regular OOo build or source tree, IMHO.

We should have separate source trees for the core product, and for 
optional extensions.


On 18.07.2011 20:21, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> On 18.07.2011 20:04, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
>> Hello Mathias;
>> --- On Mon, 7/18/11, Mathias Bauer<>  wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I tried to get rid of some copyleft dependencies. As I will
>>> leave for vacation on Wednesday,
>> First of all, thanks so much for working on this!
>>> I now send my first patch to the list so that others already
>>> can have a look or even continue. I only did it on Linux so
>>> far, of course we will need adaptions for other platforms.
>> Not too many :-).
>>> I created the patch from the hg repository of
>>>, but the
>>> differences to our still not existing svn repository won't
>>> be huge, so
>>> it should bring us a little bit closer to a "clean" build.
>>> I also added some more todos to the wiki page.
>>> Meanwhile the license information at
>> I would like to add a couple more:
>> 1) xpdf (GPL'd) is a run dependency, this is linux/unix
>> specific. PDFBox may be a replacement.
> This component is used for the pdf import extension, not for OOo itself.
> The pdf import extension is not built by default, there is a configure
> switch to enable it in the build. In that case xpdf would be required. I
> think that this already fulfils the legal requirements that building
> lgpl code must be "opt-in". So as far as I can see, this is not a "to do".
>> 2) The build requires GNU cp, which is inconvenient for
>> the BSDs and MacOS X:
> I remember a lot of discussions around different ways to copy files in
> the new build system of OOo. We can revive that and see where it brings
> us. Nevertheless, I think that discussing GNU cp will happen on
> usability grounds, not caused by legal requirements. I added this to the
> todo list.
> Regards,
> Mathias

View raw message