Are there any genuine doubts about 2.1.7? Or just a warning from the company trying to sell the AGL licensed versions?
If we revert back to 2.1.7 then I don't think we need to ask legal anything. Regards Scott On 14 June 2018 at 18:56, Jacques Le Roux <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 14/06/2018 à 07:22, Scott Gray a écrit : > >> My first inclination is that taking legal advice from a company that is >> trying to sell you a license, probably isn't a good idea. They have a >> vested interest in trying to convince you not to use the MIT version. >> >> Regardless, I think Taher's solution works in the short term >> > For that I think we need to ask Legal. Anyway better to ask them for both > versions (2.1.7 or 4.2.0) > > and the other >> alternative is to revert back to a 2.x version until a suitable >> replacement >> is found. >> > Why a replacement would be needed? > > Looking at the commit logs it hasn't been very long since we >> switched from 2.x to 4.x for no other reason than "let's update >> everything!". >> > Right, I believe using 2.1.7 is the way. We were using it until Oct 13 > 2017, r1812161. > It's the same than in BIRT distributed runtime packages and I expect > Eclipse Legal team is aware. Certainly a reason why they never updated. > > So the question for our Legal could as simple as: > > 1. Eclipse BIRT distributes itext 2.1.7 in their runtime packages under > the EPL license. > 2. We want to use the same directly as a declared dependency > 3. But we wonder what to think about https://developers.itextpdf.co > m/question/versions-older-than-5 > > @team: what do you think? I'd not even ask for 4.2.0 because I expect a > negative answer. But if you prefer we can add it. > > Should we say that we use the 2.1.7 version for years? > > Jacques > > > >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 14 June 2018 at 05:47, Jacques Le Roux <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Jacopo, >>> >>> Yes good idea. I'll try to write next week... >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 13/06/2018 à 08:14, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>> Of course we need to ask the legal team before taking a formal decision >>>>> about it. >>>>> I think we have now enough material to ask, and without opposition I'll >>>>> create a LEGAL Jira in a week. >>>>> >>>>> I think it would be useful if you will post the draft of the text for >>>> the >>>> Jira ticket to this list for community's review before submitting it to >>>> Legal. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Jacopo >>>> >>>> >>>> >
