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? > When it comes with license concerns, when if doubt my preference is to stay on the safer side: in this case I would drop the folder. Anyway, if you (or anyone else) is going to ask to legal, I would recommend to ask a very precise question like: "can these folder [URL to the external original Birt repo or distro], licensed under [URL to the external original Birt license page] be included in source form, without modifications, in an Apache (source) release? If the answer is yes, are there any legal requirements (i.e. additions to LICENSE and/or NOTICE file)?" Jacopo
