Hi Hans,
If you have a problem to include birt in OFBiz due to license problem
you can create (or we can with your patch from trunk) an addon and
integrate it in integration server. When the problem will be resolve, we
convert birt addon for trunck merge.
Do not hesitate to ask me if you want to choose this solution,
Nicolas
Scott Gray a écrit :
You'll really need to direct this to the legal mailing list, I'm not
a lawyer and I have no idea what sort of exception they would need to
make and what form it would take. All of my opinions have been based
on the assumption that we would change to fit the licenses and not the
birt team change to suit us.
Regards
Scott
On 1/12/2009, at 9:23 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Scott,
i am trying to solve it the other way around. If they give us the
approval (= license) to include it in OFBiz, then we do not need an
clarification of the EPL license terms inside apache.
Also they seem not understand our problems, they state:
let us know and we will keep trying to help you guys out.
that means they have an interest to have birt runtime distributed by
OFBiz.
so if you can explain to them which problems we have then perhaps they
will grant to license to us.
Regards,
Hans
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 20:56 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
Hi Hans,
I can try to help but I'm not sure I understand, nothing is in
question on the Eclipse side, birt is licensed EPL end of story,
asking them to change their license would be like someone asking us to
change ours. The issue we're facing is compatibility of the ASL with
the EPL and we need to resolve it internally.
The ASF rules as I understand them (described here:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b)
is that you cannot include EPL licensed source code in ASL licensed
distributions, except for a very narrow range of exceptions. You can
however include as many EPL licensed binaries as you like.
Any java files that have been copied and modified from EPL source code
(I pointed them out in another email, I don't have them handy) must be
removed and replaced with new code without referencing EPL source code
to create them (a clean-room implementation).
It is also my opinion that we cannot include EPL licensed javascript
files (although David disagrees), which means we need to remove the
web report viewer. If you want to side with David and keep the report
viewer then at the very least the question should be asked on the
legal mailing list.
Regards
Scott
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
On 1/12/2009, at 8:25 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Hi Sott.
can you help?
You brought up the licensing concerns. We tried to talk to the
licensing
people at Eclipse and i am trying to solve a licensing problem as a
middleman i do not understand.
Could you please clarify with the people at lice...@eclipse.org and in
particular mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org your concerns?
I am unable to solve the problem you brought up.
Regards,,
Hans
This is the last conversation we had up to now:
We sent the following message:
We would like to ask for approval of the inclusion of the BIRT
runtime
with Apache OFBiz because we have concerns in the ofbiz community of
we can include the runtime.
one of our committers found the following license problems:
I checked out the branch and had a look, I see a large number of
javascript and jsp source files that are EPL licensed and I'm
pretty sure that we cannot include them.
Additionally and this one is a little more obscure and I could
quite possibly be wrong but the dteapi.jar file contains a
javax.olap package and the only reference I can find to that
package is jsr-69 (http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=069). According
to that page the jsr never reached Final Release and the Proposed
Final Draft was licensed under an evaluation license. Birt has
written the source code for the interfaces defined by the
specification themselves and licensed it as EPL but I have know
idea whether they were legally allowed to do that.
could you please clarify these concerns?
His answer was:
---------------
Thanks for bringing your enquiry here. The birt-dev list is not
equipped
to handle licensing questions.
First of all, the usual caveats apply. I am not a lawyer. This is not
legal advice.
But first, I have some questions. When you say “redistribute”, what do
you mean? The EPL allows the redistribution of source code under the
EPL; binaries may be re-licensed. When you say “under the EPL
license it
is allowed to re-distribute small amounts of source like javascript
and
jsp's when it is unlikely it is changed”, if you are suggesting that
EPL
source code can be re-licensed under (say) the Apache license, you are
mistaken. EPL source code can never be re-licensed. However, as per
the
Apache Foundation Third Party Licensing Policy, Apache projects can
use
and distribute EPL-licensed binaries.
Reading between the lines I suspect that the issue you are grappling
with is that JavaScript does not really distinguish between source
code
and binary code. If so, let us know and we will keep trying to help
you
guys out.
Mike Milinkovich
Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
Mobile: +1.613.220.3223
mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org
--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
--
Nicolas MALIN
Consultant
Tél : 06.17.66.40.06
Site projet : http://www.neogia.org/
-------
Société LibrenBerry
Tél : 02.48.02.56.12
Site : http://www.librenberry.net/
