On 11/7/06, David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 5, 2006, at 3:52 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote: > On 11/2/06, David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> The OFBiz podling (PPMC and community) has reached a consensus >> internally approving the 4.0.0 TS5 test snapshot release. We are now >> requesting a vote for review and approval from the general Incubator >> group and the Incubator PMC. > > +0 ATM (i have a couple of questions)
i'm now (reluctantly) +1 (see comments below) <snip>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ > workflow/dtd/xpdl.dtd > may not be under an open source compatible license (note that > modification is not explicitly allowed but all rights are not > restricted). standard DTDs are a difficult subject: many licenses used > are not open source compatible. may need to ask on legal. i think that > a clean room implementation of the DTD from the specification under > the apache license (if that is possible) may be easier and quicker > than untangling the legal issues. same goes for > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ > workflow/dtd/xpdl.xsd > and http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk/framework/ > shark/dtd/TC-1025_schema_10_xpdl.xsd > > would this be possible? I read through the stuff on the 3party.html page you referenced and I think if this does become the case there is an easy way we can handle it. While it may be a little inconvenient we can remove these files and refer to them in locations publicly available via the internet. This way we can refer to them, but not include them. Would that solve the problem?
probably IMHO it's worth considering creating clean room implementations in the medium term (or lobbying for an open source compatible license)
> ofbiz.jar does not contain LICENSE and NOTICE in it's META-INF. so > this jar cannot be distributed as a bare artifact. for example, this > means that it cannot be distributed through the maven repository. > > do you intend to ban distribution by maven? I'm not sure what this would/should look like, and honestly hadn't considered the distribution of these jars through a Maven repository/ server. The ofbiz.jar isn't really of any use on its own and is just an executable place holder that loads other stuff in OFBiz. For distribution in Maven would every jar in OFBiz have to include the NOTICE and LICENSE files? We could certainly do this by just changing the ant scripts.
yes - every apache jar that is released by itself would need NOTICE and LICENSE files
On a side note, is this getting in the way of the voting process for this Test Snapshot release?
possibly AFAIC the substantive issue is the xsd's without open source licenses but IMHO this is a marginal case. the license is missing from the LICENSE file. apache has traditionally issued aggregate binary releases containing redistributable binary components which are not open source but does not include source under restrictive licenses. xsd's are a difficult corner case. much better to create clean room implementations. since this is an incubator release and there seems no substantial legal risk i'm going to +1 but i trust that the mentors will see that this issue is resolved before graduation.
I've notice that no one else has really voted on it yet.
that's not unusual. unfortunately, checking releases takes IPMC energy which is in limited supply. i run RAT (which is quicker) but there's still quite a deal of time talen by offering explanations. mentors really need to cast their votes - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
