Le 14/06/2018 à 21:43, Scott Gray a écrit :
Are there any genuine doubts about 2.1.7? Or just a warning from the
company trying to sell the AGL licensed versions?
If we revert back to 2.1.7 then I don't think we need to ask legal anything.
Yes that's also my opinion after deeply checking. BIRT runtime is the proof,
IMO.
Jacques
Regards
Scott
On 14 June 2018 at 18:56, Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
wrote:
Le 14/06/2018 à 07:22, Scott Gray a écrit :
My first inclination is that taking legal advice from a company that is
trying to sell you a license, probably isn't a good idea. They have a
vested interest in trying to convince you not to use the MIT version.
Regardless, I think Taher's solution works in the short term
For that I think we need to ask Legal. Anyway better to ask them for both
versions (2.1.7 or 4.2.0)
and the other
alternative is to revert back to a 2.x version until a suitable
replacement
is found.
Why a replacement would be needed?
Looking at the commit logs it hasn't been very long since we
switched from 2.x to 4.x for no other reason than "let's update
everything!".
Right, I believe using 2.1.7 is the way. We were using it until Oct 13
2017, r1812161.
It's the same than in BIRT distributed runtime packages and I expect
Eclipse Legal team is aware. Certainly a reason why they never updated.
So the question for our Legal could as simple as:
1. Eclipse BIRT distributes itext 2.1.7 in their runtime packages under
the EPL license.
2. We want to use the same directly as a declared dependency
3. But we wonder what to think about https://developers.itextpdf.co
m/question/versions-older-than-5
@team: what do you think? I'd not even ask for 4.2.0 because I expect a
negative answer. But if you prefer we can add it.
Should we say that we use the 2.1.7 version for years?
Jacques
Regards
Scott
On 14 June 2018 at 05:47, Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
wrote:
Hi Jacopo,
Yes good idea. I'll try to write next week...
Jacques
Le 13/06/2018 à 08:14, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
[...]
Of course we need to ask the legal team before taking a formal decision
about it.
I think we have now enough material to ask, and without opposition I'll
create a LEGAL Jira in a week.
I think it would be useful if you will post the draft of the text for
the
Jira ticket to this list for community's review before submitting it to
Legal.
Thank you,
Jacopo
