Le 30/06/2018 à 11:33, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
The issue here is that you clearly know what my position is (you
quoted it) and you decided somehow that you have lazy consensus!
When I wrote about the lazy consensus, I did not clearly remember your position.
Because in the meantime we exchanged with Scott and it was clear to me I was
right from start.
I had to look back to see your point. I understand your reaction now, sorry for
ignoring it.
Anyway, I don't see a problem in reverting to 2.1.7 as scott
suggested,
Err, I suggested that long before ago, but you and some others, including
Scott, did not agree.
I had to get deeper and deeper to convince "everybody", I must say, including
myself.
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 agree, we can remove the mention of Birt in the comment. And you are right,
better keep the comment simple and focused.
It was just as a reminder because in Birt jar they also still use 2.17 and
there is some information which tends to explain why.
But anyway this is also in this convo now and I just did the changes for
OFBIZ-10455
Chapter close, I'll not answer more on this thread.
Thank you for taking care, and thanks to Scott for initially revealing the
license issue for the itextpdf dependent lib.
Jacques
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
