Thanks for your comments Ean, this is a voice of sanity IMO....
On Dec 18, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote: > I have done some more reading on Apache 3rd party licensing and after > some careful reading, I believe that Hans' use of BIRT is acceptably > within the policy. The latest copy of the policy is available at > "http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html"; with the key area being > "Category B: Reciprocal Licenses". The important phrase in that section > that we seem to have missed is the reference to code "not directly > consumed at runtime in source > <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#define-source> form". To me, > that phrase says that source which is "consumed at runtime in source > form" is not required to be shipped as a binary. I agree with this and tried to make this point early on in the discussion. We should be able to include these files just fine in source form, as long as they are not modified. For any that need to be modified we would need to do a "clean room" style implementation. Coding it in a different language, or templating tool, even using the same concepts as the original, is fine AFAIK as there is no violation of copyright possible then (same ideas, substantially different implementation). For EPL code we can call it and refer to it, but not change it without having to license the changes as EPL as well (ie it is not viral by reference/use, only by change). > The policy does suggest that source under a reciprocal license should be > clearly marked as such, primarily to avoid it (or dependencies on it) > being intermingled with other ASL code. I think that since BIRT is > packaged as its own component we are well on the way to this. We may > just want to consider whether this code belongs in "framework" as > opposed to "applications" or "specialpurpose". At the least, we should > include a NOTICE-BIRT-IS-EPL file or something at the root of the component. Where to put it is another good point. IMO if we're going to have OOTB reports using it then it probably should go in the framework. If not, then specialpurpose is probably best. -David > Those issues aside, my opinion is that including the EPL licensed code > is legitimate. > > Hans Bakker wrote: >> We will either remove or replace all jsp's wih ftl's of the birt >> component in the next few days... >> > -- > Ean Schuessler, CTO > e...@brainfood.com > 214-720-0700 x 315 > Brainfood, Inc. > http://www.brainfood.com >
