Ahh, so you just decided to ignore my input? On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 3:28 PM Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
> Hi All, > > Do we need a vote here to decide if we should ask infra or not? > > Else I'll tomorrow consider the last exchange with Scott 2 weeks ago a > lazy consensus and will simply replace using > > - compile 'com.lowagie:itext:4.2.0' > + compile 'com.lowagie:itext:2.1.7' // don't update because of > license issue. The BIRT runtime package still uses the same for the same > reason > > Thanks > > Jacques > > > Le 15/06/2018 à 09:07, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : > > Le 14/06/2018 à 21:43, Scott Gray a écrit : > >> 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. > > Yes that's also my opinion after deeply checking. BIRT runtime is the > proof, IMO. > > > > Jacques > >> > >> Regards > >> Scott > >> > >> On 14 June 2018 at 18:56, Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com > > > >> 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 < > jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> > >>>> 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 < > >>>>>> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > > >
