Re: Birt licensing problems need help, I cannot solve, scott can you help.

[Tim Ruppert]

Hans, knowing that these are problematic means that they must be taken to legal before anyone with a vote will allow them into the trunk. So if this is a priority for you - and for others as you've seen from the response - please take it to legal. I'm sure they're not going to have a problem with English being a second language since the ASF is a worldwide company.

Cheers,
Ruppert

On Dec 2, 2009, at 12:50 AM, Scott Gray wrote:

Don't put stuff into the repository that you are not 100% sure passes legal's guidelines - this is your responsibility as a committer and needs to be taken seriously.

On 2/12/2009, at 7:55 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

Hi Scott,

now because not really important for the report runtime.

Do not ask me to go to legal to explain the problem you reported,
English is my second language and I am not the person to discuss (US)
legal problems with.

The files you have problems with, are in the Birt viewer we did remove

I don't really care if you go to legal or not, but you won't be able to commit your work to the trunk until the issue is resolved. I'm sorry if me pointing out the licensing issues has bothered you, but at the end of the day they are real issues that would have caused our project real problems. But the fact that I took the time to review the code (at your request) and point out these problems does not make them my problems. We all have little projects that are important to us and birt is on your list, it is not on mine and I think I've already spent enough time on it between the review and writing all of these unnecessary emails.

I am a more pragmatic guy which simply ask the owner of a product for

person who can make us license problems? We are talking about the
runtime only so i still am pretty sure they give us that permission.

approval if we can include it in OFBiz and our users can use it in their installations according the Apache 2 license. Isn't the owner the only

That sounds great, I wish you the best of luck with this approach.

Anyway, please have a look at it again, if you can live with the current

branch to be included that would be nice.

BirtViewerAttributeBean.java
BirtEngineServlet.java
BirtViewerServlet.java

Please don't act surprised by this because it will be the 3rd time I've mentioned it. These files are modified clones of EPL licensed files from the birt source code: You cannot copy EPL licensed code, modify it and then stick the ASL license on it. As mentioned a few times now you need to remove these files and replace them with clean code that hasn't been derived from EPL source code.

Regards,
Hans


On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 08:51 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:

On 2/12/2009, at 6:31 AM, Adam Heath wrote:

Hans Bakker 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.


from the owners because all this licence stuff is a pain in the
butt not

that

This is how i solved the docbook license problem and got an approval only for us but also for them. Apache OFBiz gets now so much weight often they either change the license or give us a specific approval.

redistribute ofbiz, and they still need to be compliant.

Specific approval just for ofbiz is not good enough. Other people can

This is what legal needs to answer, I am aware of other libraries in

so it is possible, I'm just not sure what form it needs to take so
that it applies to downstream users as well.  I think it actually
needs to be a relicensed with a modified version of the EPL that
explicitly removes the weak copy-left requirement.  Personally I

version.

Regards
Scott

use in ASF projects where exceptions have been granted by the licensor struggle to believe that birt would do this, especially for a released

--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature