The issue here is that you clearly know what my position is (you quoted it) and you decided somehow that you have lazy consensus!
Anyway, I don't see a problem in reverting to 2.1.7 as scott suggested, but I suggest the comment to be simply "Will not update due to license change in newer versions" or something like that. There is no reason to mention BIRT or anything else outside the framework. I still prefer testing excluding the transitive dependencies but either solution is fine as long as we stop talking about BIRT. On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > I guess you mean > > Le 12/06/2018 à 15:54, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : >> >> I'm no longer interested in discussing this, I already explained it. >> >> -1 on the comment >> -1 on the removal >> +1 on excluding the transitive dependency >> >> If you want to fix things for BIRT, I recommend you do it_outside_ >> the framework. > > > I'd veto that, it's not legally serious. You did not get it, it's not about > fixing BIRT, please read our last exchange with Scott. > > Thanks to care. > > Jacques > > > > Le 29/06/2018 à 16:12, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : >> >> Ahh, so you just decided to ignore my input? >> >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 3:28 PM Jacques Le Roux >> <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Do we need a vote here to decide if we should ask infra or not? >>> >>> Else I'll tomorrow consider the last exchange with Scott 2 weeks ago a >>> lazy consensus and will simply replace using >>> >>> - compile 'com.lowagie:itext:4.2.0' >>> + compile 'com.lowagie:itext:2.1.7' // don't update because of >>> license issue. The BIRT runtime package still uses the same for the same >>> reason >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> >>> Le 15/06/2018 à 09:07, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >
