Personally, I see no good in getting down to the bottom of this particular issue at this time - just so that people can be validated on the mailing list. If you want to go down that road - please let us know and we'll be happy to oblige.
Otherwise, let's just look at the facts related to the licenses (GPL vs HPL vs the Apache license), make sure that people are properly informed and continue to build fantastic software - whether it is under the OFBiz trunk or under Opentaps.
Cheers, Tim -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 On Apr 23, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Si Chen wrote:
This is not true.The agreement in question covered the disposition of a list of files from the old accountingext repository. It stated that a subset of the files from that repository would be released under the GPL after all copyright had been transferred to us (Open Source Strategies, Inc.) It did not commit us to creating a new repository or module, undertaking any further enhancement to those files, or releasing future versions of those files. Those files were already released under the GPL, and we have satisfied all the terms of the agreement.David E. Jones wrote:Actually it's more complicated than that... Technically Open Source Strategies has a signed contract to license the financials module at least under the GPL license because of the history of the early development of it, so they shouldn't be distributing it under the HPL license. We haven't pushed them on that, but that is in a real legal document. The crmsfa one on the other hand is not so encumbered.-David
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
