Cheers, Ruppert
On Dec 1, 2009, at 4:25 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Well said +1 Jacques From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com>Hans,I really think that you should post this question to the ASF's legal list, not only for Birt but also for docbook, now that you mention it.Also please include the dev list as cc.Their review of this two license questions will definitely help to solve the problem and make us feel much more confident... Frankly speaking, I trust Scott a lot, but as a PMC member I don't feel comfortable of having him or you lead this conversations. As Scott said, we need lawyers because licenses are a pain and we have to deal with them in a very careful way.Kind regards, Jacopo On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:01 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:So you are not willing to discuss this with the eclipse guys and help mesolve a problem you came up with and seems to be blocking. This is how i solved the docbook license problem and got an approvalfrom 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 thatoften 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 thebirt 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 theapproval (= license) to include it in OFBiz, then we do not need anclarification 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 byOFBiz.so if you can explain to them which problems we have then perhaps theywill 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 ustochange ours. The issue we're facing is compatibility of the ASL withthe 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 canhowever 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) mustbe 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 theweb 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 licensingpeople at Eclipse and i am trying to solve a licensing problem as amiddleman i do not understand. Could you please clarify with the people at lice...@eclipse.org and in particular mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org 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 communityof 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 ofjavascript 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). Accordingto that page the jsr never reached Final Release and the Proposed Final Draft was licensed under an evaluation license. Birt haswritten the source code for the interfaces defined by thespecification themselves and licensed it as EPL but I have knowidea 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 isnot legal advice. But first, I have some questions. When you say “redistribute”, what doyou mean? The EPL allows the redistribution of source code under theEPL; binaries may be re-licensed. When you say “under the EPL license itis allowed to re-distribute small amounts of source like javascriptandjsp's when it is unlikely it is changed”, if you are suggesting thatEPLsource code can be re-licensed under (say) the Apache license, youaremistaken. EPL source code can never be re-licensed. However, as pertheApache Foundation Third Party Licensing Policy, Apache projects canuse 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 sourcecodeand binary code. If so, let us know and we will keep trying to helpyou guys out. Mike Milinkovich Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228 Mobile: +1.613.220.3223 mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org -- Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates-- Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates-- Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
