So you are not willing to discuss this with the eclipse guys and help me solve a problem you came up with and seems to be blocking.
This is how i solved the docbook license problem and got an approval from the owners because all this licence stuff is a pain in the butt not only for us but also for them. Apache OFBiz gets now so much weight that often they either change the license or give us a specific approval. Regards, Hans On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 21:42 +1300, Scott Gray wrote: > You'll really need to direct this to the legal mailing list, I'm not > a lawyer and I have no idea what sort of exception they would need to > make and what form it would take. All of my opinions have been based > on the assumption that we would change to fit the licenses and not the > birt team change to suit us. > > 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 > >> to > >> change 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 > >> code > >> to 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 the > >> web report viewer. If you want to side with David and keep the > >> report > >> viewer 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 in > >>> particular [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 > >>>> runtime > >>>> with Apache OFBiz because we have concerns in the ofbiz community > >>>> of > >>>> we 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 that > >>>>> package is jsr-69 (http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=069). > >>>>> According > >>>>> to 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 > >>> not > >>> legal advice. > >>> > >>> But first, I have some questions. When you say “redistribute”, > >>> what do > >>> you 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 > >>> EPL > >>> source code can be re-licensed under (say) the Apache license, you > >>> are > >>> mistaken. 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 > > > -- Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
