Regards Scott
On 1/12/2009, at 9:23 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Scott, i am trying to solve it the other way around. If they give us the approval (= license) to include it in OFBiz, then we do not need an clarification of the EPL license terms inside apache. Also they seem not understand our problems, they state:let us know and we will keep trying to help you guys out.that means they have an interest to have birt runtime distributed by OFBiz. so if you can explain to them which problems we have then perhaps they will grant to license to us. Regards, Hans On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 20:56 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:Hi Hans, I can try to help but I'm not sure I understand, nothing is in question on the Eclipse side, birt is licensed EPL end of story,asking them to change their license would be like someone asking us tochange ours. The issue we're facing is compatibility of the ASL with the EPL and we need to resolve it internally. The ASF rules as I understand them (described here: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b) is that you cannot include EPL licensed source code in ASL licensed distributions, except for a very narrow range of exceptions. You can however include as many EPL licensed binaries as you like.Any java files that have been copied and modified from EPL source code (I pointed them out in another email, I don't have them handy) must be removed and replaced with new code without referencing EPL source codeto create them (a clean-room implementation). It is also my opinion that we cannot include EPL licensed javascript files (although David disagrees), which means we need to remove theweb report viewer. If you want to side with David and keep the reportviewer then at the very least the question should be asked on the legal mailing list. Regards Scott HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com On 1/12/2009, at 8:25 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:Hi Sott. can you help? You brought up the licensing concerns. We tried to talk to the licensing people at Eclipse and i am trying to solve a licensing problem as a middleman i do not understand.Could you please clarify with the people at [email protected] and inparticular [email protected] your concerns? I am unable to solve the problem you brought up. Regards,, Hans This is the last conversation we had up to now: We sent the following message:We would like to ask for approval of the inclusion of the BIRT runtimewith Apache OFBiz because we have concerns in the ofbiz community ofwe can include the runtime.one of our committers found the following license problems:I checked out the branch and had a look, I see a large number of javascript and jsp source files that are EPL licensed and I'm pretty sure that we cannot include them. Additionally and this one is a little more obscure and I could quite possibly be wrong but the dteapi.jar file contains a javax.olap package and the only reference I can find to thatpackage is jsr-69 (http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=069). Accordingto that page the jsr never reached Final Release and the Proposed Final Draft was licensed under an evaluation license. Birt has written the source code for the interfaces defined by the specification themselves and licensed it as EPL but I have know idea whether they were legally allowed to do that.could you please clarify these concerns? His answer was: --------------- Thanks for bringing your enquiry here. The birt-dev list is not equipped to handle licensing questions.First of all, the usual caveats apply. I am not a lawyer. This is notlegal advice.But first, I have some questions. When you say “redistribute”, what doyou mean? The EPL allows the redistribution of source code under the EPL; binaries may be re-licensed. When you say “under the EPL license it is allowed to re-distribute small amounts of source like javascript and jsp's when it is unlikely it is changed”, if you are suggesting that EPLsource code can be re-licensed under (say) the Apache license, you aremistaken. EPL source code can never be re-licensed. However, as per the Apache Foundation Third Party Licensing Policy, Apache projects can use and distribute EPL-licensed binaries. Reading between the lines I suspect that the issue you are grappling with is that JavaScript does not really distinguish between source code and binary code. If so, let us know and we will keep trying to help you guys out. Mike Milinkovich Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228 Mobile: +1.613.220.3223 [email protected] -- Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates-- Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
