So we exclude the transitive dependency in build.gradle and if everything
works then we're fine.
Syntax:
compile('com.lowagie:itext:4.2.0') {
exclude 'com.itextpdf:itextpdf:5.5.6'
}
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 11:40 AM Scott Gray <scott.g...@hotwaxsystems.com>
wrote:
> Hey Jacques,
>
> Maybe I wasn't clear, OFBiz is downloading 5.5.6 as a dependency of 4.2.0,
> does it make sense?
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2018, 19:30 Jacques Le Roux, <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I suggest this comment, a Jira seems appropriate
> >
> > - compile 'com.lowagie:itext:4.2.0'
> > + compile 'com.lowagie:itext:4.2.0' // don't update to 5+ because of
> > license change
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> >
> > Le 08/06/2018 à 09:26, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
> > > Le 08/06/2018 à 09:24, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
> > >> Hi Scott,
> > >>
> > >> Reading Wikipedia It's OK as long as we don't update to a version >= 5
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IText
> > > Here is another source for MPL licensing:
> > https://www.eclipse.org/forums/index.php/t/175386/
> > >
> > >> <<The source code was initially distributed as open source under the
> > Mozilla Public License <
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License>
> > >> or the GNU Library General Public License <
> > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.0.en.html> open source
> > licenses. However, as of version
> > >> 5.0.0 (released Dec 7, 2009) it is distributed under the Affero
> General
> > Public License
> > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License> version
> > 3.>>
> > >>
> > >> MPL being OK as binary
> > >>
> > >> Jacques
> > >>
> > >> Le 08/06/2018 à 03:57, Scott Gray a écrit :
> > >>> Hi All,
> > >>>
> > >>> I just noticed that the iText maven bundle is a bit tricksy and
> > includes
> > >>> iText 5.6.6 as a dependency, with the latter being GPL licensed. You
> > can
> > >>> see it by running "./gradlew -q dependencies":
> > >>> +--- com.lowagie:itext:4.2.0
> > >>> | \--- com.itextpdf:itextpdf:5.5.6
> > >>>
> > >>> I haven't checked to see if the later version is actually used by our
> > code
> > >>> and I'm not sure if merely downloading it causes licensing issues,
> but
> > I
> > >>> thought I'd bring the question here in case anyone else has already
> > looked
> > >>> into it. Not sure what the work-around would be if it is an issue.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards
> > >>> Scott
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
