hi Hans, In worst case, if the legal issue cannot be solved, what's the next step? Can you setup a new project in sourceforge specifically for Birt integration?
It seems quite a lot of people are looking forward to the integration. BTW: Put the license issue aside, why you chose BIRT as report tool in ofbiz? Any reason for Birt over jasper report and pentao? -- Regards, Michael Xu (xudong) www.wizitsoft.com On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Hans Bakker <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > >
