Hans, I really think that you should post this question to the ASF's legal list, not only for Birt but also for docbook, now that you mention it. Also please include the dev list as cc. Their review of this two license questions will definitely help to solve the problem and make us feel much more confident... Frankly speaking, I trust Scott a lot, but as a PMC member I don't feel comfortable of having him or you lead this conversations. As Scott said, we need lawyers because licenses are a pain and we have to deal with them in a very careful way.
Kind regards, Jacopo On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:01 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: > So you are not willing to discuss this with the eclipse guys and help me > solve a problem you came up with and seems to be blocking. > > This is how i solved the docbook license problem and got an approval > from the owners because all this licence stuff is a pain in the butt not > only for us but also for them. Apache OFBiz gets now so much weight that > often they either change the license or give us a specific approval. > > Regards, > Hans > > On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 21:42 +1300, Scott Gray wrote: >> 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 >>> >> > -- > Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates >
