Getting the insight of the Apache Legal officers is always smart when in doubt.
Best regards, Pierre Smits ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> OFBiz based solutions & services OFBiz Extensions Marketplace http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Jacques Le Roux < [email protected]> wrote: > OK I was wrong, this is used as explained at > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Using+BIRT+with+OFBiz > > Now the question is: is it sufficient to keep it? Because we have a kinda > license issue. > > But if you carefully read http://www.apache.org/legal/re > solved.html#category-b there is a last point which was then discussed by > David and Scott. > > <<For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product > at runtime in source form, and for which that source is unmodified and > unlikely to be changed anyway (say, by virtue of being specified by a > standard), inclusion of appropriately labeled source is also permitted. An > example of this is the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd, whose inclusion is mandated > by the JSR 127: JavaServer Faces specification>> > > David suggested it was OK[1], Scott did not agree[2]. Now that I have a > look at it, it's 160 files, but only 541 523 bytes, and I don't see why > people would change them. > > So I tend to think that if we appropriately label we can keep it. We could > ask legal if in doubt... > > Opinions? > > Jacques > > [1] https://s.apache.org/95mu > > [2] https://s.apache.org/ECDF > > > > > Le 25/03/2017 à 08:02, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : > >> Good point Scott, we discussed it indeed https://lists.apache.org/list. >> [email protected]:gte=7y:add%20BIRT%20branch%20to%20trunk. >> >> I had not the guts to deep into all details, but yes you and others >> expressed concerns then: https://s.apache.org/GyKu >> >> The most important point here is more that AFAIK these files are not even >> needed! >> >> Jacques >> >> >> Le 24/03/2017 à 21:04, Scott Gray a écrit : >> >>> I'm curious as to how it was ever added, when the birt component was >>> first >>> introduced I'm pretty sure we agreed to not include this part of it >>> because >>> of licensing concerns. >>> >>> On 25 March 2017 at 02:34, Jacopo Cappellato < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Jacques Le Roux < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> plugins/birt/webapp/birt/webcontent is a part of the birt component >>>>> but >>>>> AFAIK is not used by OFBiz. >>>>> >>>>> Also Birt is licensed under EPL, it's category B >>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b < >>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b>, so files should >>>>> >>>> be >>>> >>>>> only provided in object/binary form >>>>> >>>>> So I think we need to remove this code. I was able to generate a PDF >>>>> and >>>>> >>>> a >>>> >>>>> XLS report after removing this part, so I think it's OK w/o it. >>>>> >>>>> I also tried the new Birt feature (Flexible Reports) and it works with >>>>> >>>> any >>>> >>>>> kind of format provided. >>>>> I begin the documentation of this new part and will let you know when >>>>> >>>> it's >>>> >>>>> done... >>>>> >>>>> Jacques >>>>> >>>>> If the code is not used then I cast a great +1 for its removal. >>>> >>>> Jacopo >>>> >>>> >> >> >
